Wireless Mesh Network

[coxhaus]

It seems to be discussed a lot so I thought I would add this.

 

[K-2SO]

This is Mesh. Most people here discuss AiMesh. One is a technology, the other is a marketing name.

 

[coxhaus]

But they spell it as wireless mesh. Mesh has redundancy. There is none in consumer wireless mesh.

 

[K-2SO]

There is none in consumer wireless mesh.

Who knows what real mesh is on consumer market?
Mesh is the Bell black box with 2 white WiFi pods. Nobody does WiFi like Bell.

 

[K-2SO]

I don't care how they call it @coxhaus . Consumer "mesh" is the next must have thing. The word "mesh" sells products. I worry about the negative impact. We have one of those pro RF scanners in the office. It's funny around high-rise apartment buildings. John is occupying the entire spectrum with his best WiFi. Jane is occupying the entire spectrum with her best WiFi. John and Jane live in 2-bedroom apartments, door to door. They have 6 APs in total. They get the best WiFi, guaranteed.

 

[Moseph]

So mainstream products that market themselves such as bt wholehome and netgear etc are nonsense?
My friend has one and says it is amazing

 

[K-2SO]

So mainstream products that market themselves such as bt wholehome and netgear etc are nonsense?

"Amazing" is not a performance measurement.
They work to extend WiFi. Not true mesh system though.

 

[Moseph]

"Amazing" is not a performance measurement.
They work to extend WiFi. Not true mesh system though.

fair enough, so for home use small family etc they do the job and do it well but large scale then they will probably be picked apart

 

[K-2SO]

fair enough, so for home use small family etc they do the job

They all provide WiFi access. Some better than others.

 

[Trip]

Mesh has redundancy. There is none in consumer wireless mesh.

That's an awfully broad statement, if we're being generous; perhaps even incorrect, if we can agree on what "redundancy" means.

Eero, for one, has multi-point, multi-path, multi-layer with OSPF-like functionality that actually works, plus auto-healing on a real-time basis. I'm not sure what your definition of redundancy is in this context, but that sounds awfully redundant to me.

 

[coxhaus]

It was a broad statement and I was probably drinking at the time. Trip you do know a lot about current hardware and I respect it and take your advice sometimes when it meets my needs. The problem with "wireless mesh" is it is not installed in a manner to be used as a redundant system. You would need to buy twice as many wireless devices for starters to add redundancy. What I mean is "wireless mesh" devices are installed in a serial fashion, non-mesh fashion which forces them to run that way in a non-mesh way. As far as being like OSPF or any routing protocol like you are totally off base in my way of thinking and you are not understanding routing protocols and how they work. I have never used this hardware you are referring to but I understand routing protocols. This can be easily proven by using traceroute. IF you don't see a hope for each wireless device in the path then it is not running as a routing protocol.

 

[Trip]

Interesting. My replies aren't meant to be controversial, just more so for clarity/truth:

The problem with "wireless mesh" is it is not installed in a manner to be used as a redundant system [... it's] installed in a serial fashion [...] which forces them to run that way in a non-mesh way

Gotcha. You're inference is based on a non multi-point/multi-path setup, or at least one that isn't explicitly setup that way. But whose to say that's the case every time? What about a user who installs, say, a three-pack of Eero Pro's, even one at a time in serial, and, if given the right inter-node proximity, they automatically form a 3-node, multi-point/multi-path triangle (which they can and will do). What then? The above statement simply doesn't hold true for that case, nor as a generalization.

You would need to buy twice as many wireless devices for starters to add redundancy.

Even if the gear is redundancy-enabled to begin with? Like, in my Eero example above? Again, how so?

As far as being like OSPF or any routing protocol like you are totally off base in my way of thinking and you are not understanding routing protocols and how they work. I have never used this hardware you are referring to but I understand routing protocols. This can be easily proven by using traceroute. IF you don't see a hope for each wireless device in the path then it is not running as a routing protocol.

"OSPF-like" was an analogy to something that could calculate path cost, which happens to be one facet of good multi-point mesh. I think you misinterpreted, and I probably should have left that reference out. Apologies for the confusion.

Not meaning to be a thorn or too much of a literal geek (sorry!), and you certainly don't owe any answers to my reverse questioning. It's just some of your generalizations come off as a bit incoherent, even outright wrong. Then again, none of us are perfect (I'm far from it), and I've certainly hit "Post" after a few too many before, much to my own humbling.

 

[coxhaus]

Interesting. My replies aren't meant to be controversial, just more so for clarity/truth:
Gotcha. You're inference is based on a non multi-point/multi-path setup, or at least one that isn't explicitly setup that way. But whose to say that's the case every time? What about a user who installs, say, a three-pack of Eero Pro's, even one at a time in serial, and, if given the right inter-node proximity, they automatically form a 3-node, multi-point/multi-path triangle (which they can and will do). What then? The above statement simply doesn't hold true for that case, nor as a generalization.Even if the gear is redundancy-enabled to begin with? Like, in my Eero example above? Again, how so?"OSPF-like" was an analogy to something that could calculate path cost, which happens to be one facet of good multi-point mesh. I think you misinterpreted, and I probably should have left that reference out. Apologies for the confusion.

Not meaning to be a thorn or too much of a literal geek (sorry!), and you certainly don't owe any answers to my reverse questioning. It's just some of your generalizations come off as a bit incoherent, even outright wrong. Then again, none of us are perfect (I'm far from it), and I've certainly hit "Post" after a few too many before, much to my own humbling.

I just did not want to get another misnomer going with OSPF like mesh.

Mesh is a system built, not a device. So yes I think you could build a mesh system providing the hardware supported it. Calling a device a mesh is a misnomer to me and more a marketing term. You can buy 2 or 3 devices called a wireless mesh but if you don't set them up as a mesh they are not a mesh system. Mesh is not restricted to wireless only. You can have routers in a mesh as well. Mesh is not hardware but a configuration of hardware. I don't think you can have a mesh without redundancy because there are no alternate paths. I hope this helps.

 

[K-2SO]

The above statement simply doesn't hold true for that case, nor as a generalization.

Marketing calls every 2 AP system a mesh @Trip. No matter what. There are just some better products. Eero is one.

 

[Trip]

@K-2SO - Certainly wouldn't debate that. But that's a bit beside the point I was trying to make above, using a 3-node multi-point system as an example. The fact that 2-node products get dragged into the terminology is an unfortunate misrepresentation of true mesh, though, yes.

@coxhaus - It can also be a pre-packaged product, if out the box you pull a 3+ node kit that's pre-enabled for multi-point, multi-path, true mesh, and functions that way upon setup. Eero is, perhaps, the only example in its space, but being an exception, does break the generalization. That was my point (said here in two sentences, instead of twenty).

Anyways, it's all good. I get that the marketing jargon is annoying when it misconstrues a term's true meaning through inaccurate product association. I just figured I'd poke a hole in the generalization, if for no other reason than to educate and/or spur on interesting discussion, which I think it clearly did.

 

[K-2SO]

Anyways, it's all good. I get that the marketing jargon is annoying when it mis-represents a lot of products' true functionality (or lack thereof) in the vast majority of cases, this case certainly being one.

Yes, we're fighting against "up to 750Mbps on 2.4GHz 802.11n" type of marketing.
From available products on the market I would say most "mesh" is fake. $99 for 3-pack is copy of another fake.

 

[Trip]

Indeed, I get where you guys are coming from, for sure.