In reply to a post by cbackham:

No, I'm referring to genuine access points, for example TP-Link AC1750, Ubiquiti UAP-AC-LR or similar.

To get the maximum benefit from devices such as the Ubiquiti, you need to link them to a shared controller. I don't have any info on TPLink products.

It's my understanding that you can configure some APs to stop responding once the RSSI drops below a certain threshold, and that will force the client to seek another AP, which should achieve the same end result.

I believe that is the case, and enterprise systems that can cover huge function rooms and similar will have multiple APs in the room with tuned coverage. I've seen this on Cisco enterprise hardware in a corporate environment with over 2000 APs.

But perhaps the kind of APs that will be configurable to that extent will be no cheaper than a mesh system, in which case perhaps a mesh system will be easier to deploy.

Thanks for your help.

Exactly, especially in a home environment. If you have Ethernet cabling in all the rooms, many of the domestic mesh systems can back haul over Ethernet, which means you can buy cheaper system with less radios. The expensive mesh have three radio, 1x2.4, 2x5, so that the backhaul runs over the second 5. The downside is if your area has a lot of homes with WiFi that this needs two clear 5Ghz channels. Easier in the US where homes are further apart than in the average UK street.

The TP link AP range are the Omada line and start with EAP e.g. EAP245 is the AC1750 variant. TP-Link uses a controller software that runs either on a windows / Linux box (e.g. on a VM on a server) or you can buy the standalone boxes OC200, or the new OC300 (that ones for managing upto 500 AP's so complete overkill for home use).

Other one to look out for is Zyxel, there AP line works similar to TP-link and Ubiquiti and can be had occasionally with some good offers.

As to OP's question the one real choice as to whether Mesh or AP's is down to the one thing nobody mentioned i.e. the house construction. If you have an old house with solid brick / block / stone walls then run cables and go AP's, as Mesh will always struggle. If you have a modern house with timber framed walls then Mesh is doable, just need to put the Mesh points in logical places near a stairwell or other void between floors.

In reply to a post by dogcat:

As to OP's question the one real choice as to whether Mesh or AP's is down to the one thing nobody mentioned i.e. the house construction. If you have an old house with solid brick / block / stone walls then run cables and go AP's, as Mesh will always struggle. If you have a modern house with timber framed walls then Mesh is doable, just need to put the Mesh points in logical places near a stairwell or other void between floors.

My house has a stone wall in the middle of it. Spousal acceptance precludes running cables so I have used TP-Link Deco M5s with a line of sight along a corridor between the access points either side of the wall. Works a treat; I've finally got decent wifi throughout the house which I have never been able to achieve before.

Had I been allowed to run cables I could have provided the backhaul between units that way.

In reply to a post by Hawthorns:

My house has a stone wall in the middle of it. Spousal acceptance precludes running cables so I have used TP-Link Deco M5s with a line of sight along a corridor between the access points either side of the wall. Works a treat; I've finally got decent wifi throughout the house which I have never been able to achieve before.

I've seen similar in houses with stone walls.

For those not in stone wall houses, there is today a high possibility that top end mesh hardware with separate 5 GHz back haul, can provide faster throughput than a Gigabit Ethernet cable, especially for multiple users. May not matter to most homes as the internet (WAN) link is the bottleneck, but for some technical types this may be of interest. More likely as WiFi 6 based mesh hardware becomes cheaper.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

For those not in stone wall houses, there is today a high possibility that top end mesh hardware with separate 5 GHz back haul, can provide faster throughput than a Gigabit Ethernet cable

How? Reference? Inquiring minds want to know.

Only possible with hardware that has 2.5gb ports or aggregated 1gb ports to the wired network and using WiFi-6 but I read that you could achieve 1.3 Gbit over radio. I don’t have a reference. Perhaps I’ve completely misunderstood ?

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Only possible with hardware that has 2.5gb ports or aggregated 1gb ports to the wired network and using WiFi-6 but I read that you could achieve 1.3 Gbit over radio. I don’t have a reference. Perhaps I’ve completely misunderstood ?

I'll believe it when I see it (A WiFi client having better throughput than 1Gbps ethernet) - I've not seen it yet

In theory/on paper something like the Asus ROG Rapture GT-AX11000 which has a 2.5Gbps LAN port and dual 5GHz 4x4 WiFi 6 which can me meshed to another GT-AX11000 using one of the 5GHz radios.

I think the Netgear Orbi RBK853 also has a 2.5Gbps LAN/WAN port and similar radio specs

In practice.....well I doubt you'd get anything like to the quoted speeds. And the price - err wait for it something daft like £700 for Orbi + 1 satellite and £900 for 2 satellites!!

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Only possible with hardware that has 2.5gb ports or aggregated 1gb ports to the wired network and using WiFi-6 but I read that you could achieve 1.3 Gbit over radio. I don’t have a reference. Perhaps I’ve completely misunderstood ?

Even if you achieve 1.3Gbps over radio, that will be the aggregate value (total of both directions).

Like-for-like a 1 gigabit connection over ethernet cable has a non-shared capacity of 2Gbps aggregate and the same cable may support multigigabit with the right NICs, so the Wi-Fi data rate needs to meet or exceed 2Gbps or even multiples thereof to be truly "faster".

Also, the headline maximum Wi-Fi data rate is nearly always quoted for a single client device connected to an AP and nothing else sharing the same band.

To make matters worse, in UK devices do not yet have access to as many non-DFS channels as USA,
so the inevitable marketing of sending out routers defaulting to 80MHz, 160MHz and wider channel widths also misleads people.
It's not guaranteed that all AP and client devices support channels numbered 140+ for example unless they have been through certification again, as they were previously only for light-licensed use and in principle for point-to-point wireless rather than domestic AP to client access.

In a corporate setting with dozens of APs per building people often want to know why the APs aren't advertising a Wi-Fi rate they "see" at home.

Edited by prlzx (Tue 05-Jan-21 01:01:18)

Agreed, I was thinking point-to-point for the top speeds, but real-world is going to be impossible, and it appears there are too many variables.

I will wait until WiFi 9