160 MHz stability

[Morris]

I agree... & certainly hope there is something RMerlin can do to improve 160MHz functionality on an AX86U (& perhaps other problematic routers).
Perhaps I mistakenly assumed "the poor reliability" of 160MHz with our AX86U router was due to our physical location.
When actually... the 160Mhz disconnects could be the result of newer code/drivers introduced sometime around the release of 386.7
However, I do understand much of the WiFi related code is "Closed Source"... so we may be SOL ;-(
But if I sweet-talk the wife...
Perhaps she'll let me roll-back the firmware & retest our network.
Or I could just try it when she sleeps, except... schools out & those teenagers stay up all hours of the night using the damn internet LOL

Unless you live in a place where aircraft don't fly over you or you can place your router in a location where it will not receive aircraft weather radar the FCC and many other regulatory bodies require routers to automatically leave the DFS channels if they hear weather radar. To use 160Mhz wide channels DFS channels are required. If you need that wide of a band, then you must move up to WiFi 6E and then only devices that support 6Ghz will work on 6E. The marketing people are doing a number of many people.

 

[Protos]

Unless you live in a place where aircraft don't fly over you or you can place your router in a location where it will not receive aircraft weather radar the FCC and many other regulatory bodies require routers to automatically leave the DFS channels if they hear weather radar. To use 160Mhz wide channels DFS channels are required. If you need that wide of a band, then you must move up to WiFi 6E and then only devices that support 6Ghz will work on 6E. The marketing people are doing a number of many people.

It is dismaying to see the amount of 160 hate in this thread.
It is not for you or any other user to decide whether those of us who have and use 160 mhz 'need' it or what we 'must' do to have it.
We paid for it, it used to function in the last release. It does not function now - that is a problem for those of us who paid for it.
If you are happy with your gear rock on .... but do not try to belittle those of us who want our 160 gear to function correctly. We paid for it.
Even Merlin has stated that he uses 160.
While I understand he has no control over wifi, he DOES have the ear of the devs. We are duly reporting our issues.

 

[Tech9]

We paid for it

No one ever guaranteed you useable 160MHz wide channel in your area. You paid for a router with 160MHz support, hoping it will work for you. Complain to Asus it doesn’t and good luck. Try another manufacturer, if disappointed by Asus’ answer.

 

[lepa71]

Why don't you go back to official firmware and if it is not working for you then complain to Asus? I just don't get people like you.
Did you report it to Asus? If not then do it.

 

[capncybo]

It is dismaying to see the amount of 160 hate in this thread.
It is not for you or any other user to decide whether those of us who have and use 160 mhz 'need' it or what we 'must' do to have it.
We paid for it, it used to function in the last release. It does not function now - that is a problem for those of us who paid for it.
If you are happy with your gear rock on .... but do not try to belittle those of us who want our 160 gear to function correctly. We paid for it.

While I understand he has no control over wifi, he DOES have the ear of the devs. We are duly reporting our issues.

I was going to let this post slide... but after re-reading it the next day. Come-on man... I REALLY doubt that @Morris , @Tech9 , myself nor "anyone" HATES 160MHz. We were merely trying to point out... @wider 160MHz-Bandwidth (more channels are used@once)... the greater the chances that, certain portions are noisy/busy. And while the noise-free portions are supposed to be cumulative (added/summed) to "Hopefully" provide greater throughput, packet sizes grow, as does the network overhead.
In laymen's terms if everything works... it is possible to obtain greater throughput.
However in reality...
You could experience (surging/bursty) throughput due to increased latency as the router scrambles to do its thing & frantically put everything back together.
With many applications ex) Games, Video Chat & VoIP, eliminating delays is MORE important than throughput. So what WE were trying to suggest was... It might be BETTER to use a slightly conservative setting because...

I'm not aware of any routers which clean the airwaves.
+
If you're going to BLAST out 160MHz... I'm sure (for your neighbors) you've turned down your Router's Tx Power a little, right?
And if Not... What happens when every household decides they want to use 160MHz
"TURN IT UP... BRING the NOISE !!!"
Apparently, trying to help people these days... has gone out of Vogue.

 

[Ellenswamy]

I was going to let this post slide... but after re-reading it the next day. Come-on man... I REALLY doubt that @Morris , @Tech9 , myself nor "anyone" HATES 160MHz. We were merely trying to point out... @wider 160MHz-Bandwidth (more channels are used@once)... the greater the chances that, certain portions are noisy/busy. And while the noise-free portions are supposed to be cumulative (added/summed) to "Hopefully" provide greater throughput, packet sizes grow, as does the network overhead.
In laymen's terms if everything works... it is possible to obtain greater throughput.
However in reality...
You could experience (surging/bursty) throughput due to increased latency as the router scrambles to do its thing & frantically put everything back together.
With many applications ex) Games, Video Chat & VoIP, eliminating delays is MORE important than throughput. So what WE were trying to suggest was... It might be BETTER to use a slightly conservative setting because...

I'm not aware of any routers which clean the airwaves.
+
If you're going to BLAST out 160MHz... I'm sure (for your neighbors) you've turned down your Router's Tx Power a little, right?
And if Not... What happens when every household decides they want to use 160MHz
"TURN IT UP... BRING the NOISE !!!"
Apparently, trying to help people these days... has gone out of Vogue.

I hate 160. Just the number though, it made fun of me once. Sometimes we go on speaking terms, then my router goes to 80 and I tell it to think about what it said. It does then goes back to 160.

 

[lepa71]

Let me try to understand about 160. It seems that in the US, it only would work on channel 36 which means that if everybody set it to 36 then the whole neighborhood would have interference. I also see how it may help for network gaming in the same house but throughput is limited by internet speed anyway. What am I missing?

 

[Werner]

To all 160 MHz-Fighters:
Please make your own Thread and go out of this Release-Thread!

Otherwise you are only Spammers and then Merlin would not see anymore the real stuff for the Release.

 

[RMerlin]

Let me try to understand about 160. It seems that in the US, it only would work on channel 36 which means that if everybody set it to 36 then the whole neighborhood would have interference.

It's much worse than that.

36 is just the "base" channel. Using 160 MHz of bandwidth means you will interfere with EVERYONE within that 5 GHz band:

Check the dark blue bands here. You can't use 160 MHz without interfering with every other UNII-1 channel PLUS the lower DFS channels. It does not matter whether you set it to 36 or 64, you are still trying to monopolize the entire UNII-1 and UNII-2 band all to yourself, interfering with the whole band.

That's why stable 160 MHz is very difficult to achieve, unless there are no other strong 5 GHz users within your area. Personally my 160 MHz is stable because there is only one single neighbour here who also uses channels within the same UNII-2 extended band that I use (And that neighbour seems to be set to Auto, because the majority of the time he moves to a different band, I only occasionally see him within the same band as me).

 

[lepa71]

It's much worse than that.

36 is just the "base" channel. Using 160 MHz of bandwidth means you will interfere with EVERYONE within that 5 GHz band:

View attachment 42896

Check the dark blue bands here. You can't use 160 MHz without interfering with every other UNII-1 channel PLUS the lower DFS channels. It does not matter whether you set it to 36 or 64, you are still trying to monopolize the entire UNII-1 and UNII-2 band all to yourself, interfering with the whole band.

That's why stable 160 MHz is very difficult to achieve, unless there are no other strong 5 GHz users within your area. Personally my 160 MHz is stable because there is only one single neighbour here who also uses channels within the same UNII-2 extended band that I use (And that neighbour seems to be set to Auto, because the majority of the time he moves to a different band, I only occasionally see him within the same band as me).

This is the last reply about 160 I have.
I assume and I have done it is to disable 160 channel option as my "bottleneck" is my internet speed.

Thanks, @RMerlin for your hard work.

 

[xnknown]

i have my 160mhz turned on and set to channel 128 its working fine, is there a reason why it should be set to 36?

 

[capncybo]

@RMerlin Thanks for posting the (Image/Chart) perhaps it will clarify for (some/many).
IMO when they were establishing standards I'm somewhat surprised that to enable 160MHz...
They didn't force/mandate the routers Tx to a (lower/reduced) power level.
Of course, the same argument could be said for AiMesh & Node deployment.
In most households... I doubt many people turn down their Tx even though it would minimize interference with Nodes/AP & Neighbors.
Dare to dream... maybe someday, people will understand WiFi!!!
Nah
"TURN IT UP... BRING the NOISE !!!"

 

[Deleted member 22229]

When you use a DFS channel the power is reduced those channels by law have low output power at least here in the US.

 

[RMerlin]

And history will repeat itself with Wifi 7, with the introduction of 320 MHz channels.

 

[thiggins]

@Tech9 I've about had it with your antagonistic attitude. One more instance of rude behavior and/or personal attacks and you'll be permanently banned.

 

[capncybo]

i have my 160mhz turned on and set to channel 128 its working fine, is there a reason why it should be set to 36?

I think this question may have been missed as it was originally sandwiched between some (now removed comments). Regardless, if you look at RMerlin's posted (image/graph) in #12 above... Look where ch128 is situated? + with some of those favoring 160MHz usage, I think they are possibly overlooking the time duration of the interruptions to their 5G signal.
For example) I have noticed that with DFS/160MHz enabled my 5G radios take considerably longer to become available whenever the router tries to re-initialize the radios.
(Noticeable after reboots, or changes to network configs.)
This delay can easily be observed.
On a disconnected networked device just scan the SSIDs... the 5G radio will not be available for a while.
I think it's caused by the additional overhead required by the router to check if 160MHz is available.
Next, disable the 160MHz & you will "most likely" notice your 5G radio becomes available just as quickly as the 2.4-radio.
IMO if my WiFi is going to "occasionally" drop clients (due to radar detection) & ALSO take longer to make the radio available to my network devices... Doesn't it mean my wifi is LESS stable???
+
Another point about 160MHz & speed in general.
Protos seemed to favor car analogies so...
If we think of all our devices(network-cards) as: CARS & the WiFi-Router the Racetrack.
In most cases the majority of clients are not, racecars.
Trying to drive them at max-speeds can exceed their capabilities & often cause them to crash.
Yeah, you can definitely make a fast device whip around your network.
But it often comes at a cost.
That cost is LESS stability & likely more crashes for the non-racecars on the (track/network)
Ex) My Google ______s keep disconnecting

 

[ColinTaylor]

I think this question may have been missed as it was originally sandwiched between some (now removed comments). Regardless, if you look at RMerlin's posted (image/graph) in #12 above... Look where ch128 is situated? + with some of those favoring 160MHz usage, I think they are possibly overlooking the time duration of the interruptions to their 5G signal.
For example) I have noticed that with DFS/160MHz enabled my 5G radios take considerably longer to become available whenever the router tries to re-initialize the radios.
(Noticeable after reboots, or changes to network configs.)
This delay can easily be observed.
On a disconnected networked device just scan the SSIDs... the 5G radio will not be available for a while.
I think it's caused by the additional overhead required by the router to check if 160MHz is available.
Next, disable the 160MHz & you will "most likely" notice your 5G radio becomes available just as quickly as the 2.4-radio.
IMO if my WiFi is going to "occasionally" drop clients (due to radar detection) & ALSO take longer to make the radio available to my network devices... Doesn't it mean my wifi is LESS stable???

Any channel group that includes the weather radar channels requires the router to wait at least 10 minutes to ensure it is clear. For the other DFS channels the wait time is only 60 seconds.

Correction: Apparently the CAC wait time is only "at least 60 seconds" for the US, unlike Canada and the EU. See posts #40 and #41.

 

[capncybo]

Any channel group that includes the weather radar channels requires the router to wait at least 10 minutes to ensure it is clear. For the other DFS channels the wait time is only 60 seconds.

I appreciate this clarification... (If my brain could only retain all these details permanently).

 

[Morpheus2020]

Any channel group that includes the weather radar channels requires the router to wait at least 10 minutes to ensure it is clear. For the other DFS channels the wait time is only 60 seconds.

Not 10 minutes, but less than 3 minutes. AX86U with 386.5.2 36/160.

 

[OzarkEdge]

Not 10 minutes, but less than 3 minutes. AX86U with 386.5.2 36/160.

36/160 does not use the weather radar channels, 120-128.

OE