AXE58BT/ax86u slow speeds

[drinkingbird]

No, the difference is explained in post #7.



Newer routers may change the channel multiple times a day, including Asus models.

That explanation doesn't really make any sense to me, basically saying 20/40/80 won't pick 80 if there aren't enough sequential channels, but then it gives you the option to hardcode to 80 which is an impossible width? Why would they even give you the option to hardcode to something that is going to work like crap, unless there was some other intention (such as preventing lower speed clients from connecting). Though I guess a lot of things in the Asus GUI don't make total sense so wouldn't necessarily be surprising either.

On AC I've only seen the option for periodic rescan start to pop up more recently in newer firmware, and I've never seen it enabled by default. On AX it is common though, at least in the the limited number I've worked with so far.

But if you don't have control over every AP (which you won't unless you're in a very rural setting), that "constant battle" is probably still better than hardcoding, at least on 5ghz. On 2.4 I do hardcode at home, and periodically do a site survey and see if I need to adjust. But as I rely less and less on 2.4 I've mostly just left it alone lately, one AP is on 1 and the other on 11. AC and AX are quite good at choosing the best base and extension channels in my experience. Your phone is constantly adjusting its cell parameters to get the best signal, why is it bad if your router or wifi device are? Granted cell towers and even cellular chipsets are far more complex and expensive than wifi, but the concept is still the same. Though a static channel selection should not cause any compatibility issues, unless you select a DFS channel and for some reason a client doesn't support those (i.e. it has a different country code in it).

 

[drinkingbird]

I only observed how my Asus router appears to work... settings and connections. If you have one, have a look yourself.

If I set/fix (hardcode) 160MHz bw, the Wireless log will list 40, 80, and 160MHz client connections and those clients will list corresponding connection/link rate details. This much is easily observed.

OE

My Asus is AC so I could potentially try it with 80, but given what you and others have said, I'll take your word that is how Asus has implemented it. Mine has been set to 20/40/80 from Day 1 and my devices have always connected at 866 (2x antenna devices) which is 80mhz. But they will fail down to much lower rates as needed (both MCS rates and number of bonded channels on the client). Sounds like in Asus, it will do that whether you're set to 20/40/80 or 80. So basically unless you have a ton of 5ghz noise making the router think it can't use 4 sequential channels, sounds like the two settings are identical.

Personally I avoid 160mhz, not only does it eat up half the spectrum but many chipsets will actually go into an 80+80 mode which can cause some interoperability issues. It also makes it impossible to avoid DFS channels (unless you do 80+80, which there is only one configuration that avoids DFS and you'll be overlapping with nearly every other AP). Not that you have to avoid DFS, I just prefer to when possible. Of course I don't own an AX router yet (probably won't anytime soon, I have exactly 0 AX capable clients), but have set up a few for friends.

 

[drinkingbird]

All the routers in my collection were doing the same thing. Cisco, Ruckus, Omada, Unifi, Netgear... the same. I don't know where @drinkingbird is getting this information from or how many drinks he had today.

In fairness your collection covers probably 1 brand of radio chipset, maybe 2

Your experiences with Cisco and Ubiquiti are different than mine. Possibly different models or behaviors have been changed over time.

I had a couple of the first models of APs Ruckus made in my house for a while. One was the 7942 I believe (or one that looked a lot like it) which had like 21 antennas in it. The other was a lower end one with like 6 or something. I honestly never found much if any performance benefit with their units in my environment. But they were cool nonetheless, probably good for a large warehouse or some corporate buildings with odd shapes etc. Was the first AP I had toyed with that had Band Steering, which worked quite well. Have not done anything with them since, not sure if they're still into the crazy beamforming arrays or if they're just traditional stuff now. I don't recall what channel width I had set on those or how they behaved in that respect.

 

[Tech9]

@drinkingbird, no matter how long your posts are, anyone with any AIO router or AP can prove you wrong in 30 seconds. 20/40/80 means router/AP decides how wide the channel is going to be based on Wi-Fi environment scanning. 80 means you know your Wi-Fi environment allows it and you wan it at 80MHz all the time. All the clients up to 80MHz can connect. It's the same behavior for both 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands. It was like this since the introduction of 40MHz in 802.11n many years ago and it's still like this today.

 

[drinkingbird]

@drinkingbird, no matter how long your posts are, anyone with any AIO router or AP can prove you wrong in 30 seconds. 20/40/80 means router/AP decides how wide the channel is going to be based on Wi-Fi environment scanning. 80 means you know your Wi-Fi environment allows it and you wan it at 80MHz all the time. All the clients up to 80MHz can connect. It's the same behavior for both 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands. It was like this since the introduction of 40MHz in 802.11n many years ago and it's still like this today.

I'm not going to argue over it, if you want to get bent out of shape, feel free.

Long story short, the post was about someone having issues connecting a device, it was suggested that they not hardcode the width, I shared my prior experience of having seen compatibility issues when channel widths were hard coded. Maybe it resolves their issue, maybe it doesn't.

 

[Tech9]

I'm not going to argue over it

There is nothing to argue about. Just check it for yourself.