Wifi 6 802.11ax, 80+80, 160MHz, non-contiguous / discontiguous channel routers

[Just_Karma]

It looks like the common implementation of 160MHz channels use 1 contiguous block of 8 channels in total so, DFS channels 101-128 = 160MHz channel bandwidth.

There are some routers that seem to also to provide 160MHz channels in the lower frequencies by using 2 non-contiguous blocks of 80MHz. So an 80+80 approach, channels 36-48 and 52-64. 80MHz + 80MHz = 160 total channel bandwidth.

Are there any routers out there that can offer a 160MHz non-contiguous channel e.g. 80+80, across the regular and extended channels for example 52-64 and 101-128?

This is effectively forming 160MHz channel using 2 non-contiguous 80MHz blocks from 52-64 and 101-112. Or forming 160MHz using 52-64 and 116-128.

 

[thiggins]

IIRC, only Qualcomm based routers support 80+80. I think the NETGEAR RAX120 is the only one.

 

[Just_Karma]

IIRC, only Qualcomm based routers support 80+80. I think the NETGEAR RAX120 is the only one.

I can see some of the Netgear seem to allow a 80+80 using the 32-48 and 52-64 channels.

But I don't seen any device which allow the use of 52-64 and 101-112.

Or 52-64 and 116-128.

 

[Just_Karma]

I found this from Broadcom website, interesting:

"Spectrum Math: 80 MHz + 80 MHz ≠ 160 MHz
Wi-Fi gurus may ask: Why not bond two discontiguous 80 MHz channels together? This would give network designers five 80 MHz channels in the 5 GHz band to work with in the U.S., including two without DFS constraints. But the devil is in the details.

At the chip level, 80+80 MHz mode requires a device to operate on two channels simultaneously. This means duplication of subsystems to support the second discontiguous channel, making integrated circuits much larger than for contiguous channel support. Smartphone manufacturers would be faced with scaling back other technical upgrades on cameras, processors or sensors in order to make room for larger Wi-Fi chips. Even if these devices did meet size constraints, reduced energy efficiency from running two separate 80 MHz subsystems would drain the phone battery faster. For mobile devices, battery life is paramount, and the key performance indicators of the discontiguous approach will not meet the market needs."

This is quoted from: https://www.broadcom.com/blog/160-mhz-channels-wi-fi-6-superhighway

 

[thiggins]

@Just_Karma Thanks for posting that. It's a good explanation for why 80+80 isn't widely supported and not supported at all in clients.