Mesh Wi-Fi Systems 101: The Best Tips

[ad_1]

You must have heard of “mesh,” “Wi-Fi system,” or “mesh Wi-Fi system,” and might even have some idea of what they are. Well, they practically refer to the same thing, and this post is a lot more than just semantics.

It’ll explain this type of Wi-Fi solution in simple terms and offer tips on how to build an optimal one for your home. Sometimes, the little things mentioned here can make a big difference.

Similar to getting a single router, only you would know which mesh Wi-Fi system fits you best—no “expert” can decide that for you from afar, and there’s no one-size-fits-all Wi-Fi solution. You’re here because you wanted to be pointed in the right direction.

Tip

There is no such thing as the “best” routers for a particular Internet service provider or type—Fiber-optic, Cable, or whatever.

Any standard router, including the primary unit of a mesh Wi-Fi system, will work at its full potential with any standard Internet broadband terminal device—modem, Fiber-optic ONT, or others. That’s true as long as the two can connect via a network cable, which is almost always the case.

Compatibility is generally applicable only between a terminal device and the ISP. For example, certain modems or gateways work with Comcast Xfinity, while others might not.

In relatively rare non-standard cases, some Fiber-optic lines might require a router that supports VLAN tagging (a.k.a IPTV). The majority of Wi-Fi 6 and newer routers support this.

TP-Link Deco BE85 Wi-Fi 7 Mesh System Top — Mesh Wi-Fi systems: The TP-Link Deco BE85 is one of the first purpose-built Wi-Fi 7 mesh systems on the market.

Table of Contents

Mesh Wi-Fi systems: It’s more than lumping a bunch of broadcasters together

A mesh Wi-Fi system has more names than those mentioned above, but “mesh” is a short and sweet moniker. I like it.

The mesh concept has been around for a long time in enterprise applications. In February 2016, mesh entered the consumer-grade space in a big way when a company named eero—all lowercase—announced the original eero Wi-Fi system. Since then, there’s been a boom in home mesh options, and the rest is history.

With that, let’s start with the simple question: What constitutes a mesh?

What is a mesh?

In a sentence, a mesh consists of multiple centrally managed Wi-Fi broadcasters working together to form a unified Wi-Fi network. Among them, there’s one primary router that handles routing, network settings/features, and Internet connectivity. The rest only expand the network’s coverage.

Mesh vs. Wired

Initially, “mesh” is a concept of using multiple (centrally managed) Wi-Fi broadcasters wirelessly linked together to create a single network. Nowadays, using network cables as the backhaul links is commonplace—it’s the only way to get the best-performing system, as described below.

Still, some online “experts”—there are a lot of them these days—have mocked me, privately or publicly, that using network cables negates the mesh notion. “It’s not a mesh anymore!” they say, and they are right with the restricted original sense of the concept.

In my real-world experience, wired backhauling is the recommended way to build a robust Wi-Fi network. That’s not to mention the use of PoE in the majority of Wi-Fi access points that involve the network cables.

Ultimately, I’m about getting things connected, not winning a nerding contest. However, I’d admit that it’s generally better to use the more broad term that is “Wi-Fi system” than “mesh” in most cases.

There are two ends to a Wi-Fi connection: the broadcasting and the receiving. In the traditional infrastructure configuration, a Wi-Fi broadcaster is always an access point, which can be part of another device, such as a Wi-Fi router. One Wi-Fi broadcaster can handle multiple recipients—the clients or devices.

To form a mesh, you need at least two separate Wi-Fi broadcasters. Many purpose-built mesh systems are available as a 2-pack, including a Wi-Fi router and an additional unit that relays the router’s signals to expand the coverage.

These hardware units are called different things by different vendors, such as base stations, access points, nodes, satellites, hubs, mesh points, Wi-Fi points, routers, etc.

However, in all cases, one of them acts as the primary unit (the router) to connect to the Internet—each network only needs one router—and the rest of the hardware units link back to this router unit to extend the Wi-Fi coverage.

This link is called the backhaul to distinguish itself from, well, the fronthaul. Let’s get on the same page about these terms.

Backhaul vs. fronthaul

When you use multiple Wi-Fi broadcasters—in a mesh network or a combo of a router and an extender—there are two types of connections: fronthaul and backhaul.

Fronthaul is the Wi-Fi signals broadcast outward for clients or the local area network (LAN) ports for wired devices. It’s what we generally expect from a Wi-Fi broadcaster.

Backhaul (a.k.a backbone), on the other hand, is the link between one satellite Wi-Fi broadcaster and another, which can be the network’s primary router, a switch, or another satellite unit.

This link works behind the scenes to keep the hardware units together as a system. It also determines the ceiling bandwidth (and speed) of all devices connected to the particular broadcaster. It’s the backbone of the system.

When a Wi-Fi band handles backhaul and fronthaul simultaneously, only half its bandwidth is available to either end. From the perspective of a connected client, if there are any, that phenomenon is called signal loss.

When a Wi-Fi band functions solely for backhauling, or when there’s no client connected to it other than the satellite, it’s called the dedicated backhaul. Often, that means no other band will do this job, though that depends on the hardware.

In a mesh system, only traditional Tri-band hardware—those with an additional 5GHz band—can have a dedicated backhaul band without ostracizing clients of the same band.

Generally, it’s best to use network cables for backhauling—wired backhauling, which is an advantage of mesh hardware with network ports. In this case, a satellite broadcaster can use its entire Wi-Fi bandwidth for front-hauling.

In networking, network cables are always much better than wireless in speed and reliability.

With that, let’s find out when a mesh system is necessary.

When do you need a Wi-Fi system?

Generally, it’s best to have just one broadcaster—typically a Wi-Fi router—in a home or an office to avoid interference. Sometimes, all you need is to place it near the center of the desired coverage.

In a situation where a single router doesn’t provide enough Wi-Fi coverage, we need more broadcasters, and that’s when a mesh is applicable.

As far as Wi-Fi is concerned, more hardware is not necessarily better. A mesh is not an upgrade to a single broadcaster in terms of performance—it’s a necessary alternative in signal range. Besides the coverage, a Wi-Fi system doesn’t solve any problems you might have with a single router of the same specs and feature set. Using multiple broadcasters too close to one another can be a bad thing.

It’s hard to say precisely when a mesh is needed. But generally, if your place is airy and around 1800 ft² (167 m²), you probably only need a single broadcaster. In this case, a standalone Wi-Fi router near the center is better than getting a mesh.

Extra: Wi-Fi range in brief

Wi-Fi range in theory: It’s “clean” and generous

The way radio signals work is that the lower the frequency, the longer the wave can travel. AM and FM radios use frequency measured in kilohertz and megahertz—you can listen to the same station in a vast area, like an entire region or a city.

Wi-Fi uses 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz frequencies—all of which are incredibly high. As a result, it has much shorter ranges than radios. That’s especially true when considering that the broadcasting power of Wi-Fi broadcasters is limited by regulations.

But, regardless of Wi-Fi standards, these bands generally share the following: The higher frequencies (in Hz), the higher the bandwidth (speeds), the shorter the ranges, and the more bandwidth progressively lost over increasing distance.

Generally, physically larger Wi-Fi broadcasters tend to have better ranges than smaller ones—they use all the allowed broadcasting power and have enough processing power to deliver the most bandwidth at the far end of the signals. Still, it’s impossible to accurately determine each’s actual coverage because it fluctuates wildly and depends heavily on the environment.

That said, here are my estimates of a home Wi-Fi broadcaster’s ranges in the best-case scenario, specifically:

Outdoor environment
On a sunny day
No interference or broadcasters in close proximity
Maximum broadcasting power (30 dBm)

2.4GHz: This band has the best range, up to 200 ft (≈ 60 m). However, it is the most popular band also used by non-Wi-Fi devices like cordless phones or TV remotes. Its real-world speeds suffer severely from interference and other factors. As a result, for years, this band has been considered a backup, applicable when range is more important than speed.
5GHz: This band has much faster speeds than the 2.4GHz band but shorter ranges, maxing out at around 150 ft (≈ 45 m).
6GHz: This is the latest band available. Two things to keep in mind:
- Wi-Fi 6E: The first standard supporting this band where it shares the same ceiling speed as the 5GHz. However, thanks to the less interference and overheads, its actual real-world rate is faster. In return, due to the higher frequency, it has just about 70% of the range, which maxes out at approximately 115 ft (≈ 35m).
- Wi-Fi 7: This is the latest standard where the 6GHz band’s channel width (and bandwidth) is doubled. Additionally, with a broadcaster that supports AFC, such as the Ubiquiti E7, this band gets a boost in broadcasting power to deliver the same range as that of the 5GHz.

Wi-Fi range in real life: The devil is in the little and big details

In real-world usage, Wi-Fi broadcasters in the same frequency band and broadcasting power generally deliver the same coverage. Specifically, they are all the same if you measure the signal reach alone.

What differentiates them is their sustained speeds and signal stability, or how the quality of their Wi-Fi signals changes as you increase the distance. And that generally varies from one model or Wi-Fi standard to another.

Your router’s Wi-Fi range is always much shorter than the theoretical number mentioned above. That’s because Wi-Fi signals are sensitive to interference and obstacles.

While the Wi-Fi range doesn’t depend on the channel width, the wider the channel and the higher the frequency, the less stable it becomes. It’s more susceptible to interference and obstacles, and its range is more acutely hindered. So, within the same standard, more bandwidth generally equals higher fragility.

Below are the items that will affect Wi-Fi ranges.

Common 2.4 GHz interference sources: Impossible to measure

Other 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi broadcasters in the vicinity
2.4GHz cordless phones and other appliances
Fluorescent bulbs
Bluetooth devices
Microwave ovens

Common 5 GHz interference sources: Impossible to measure

Other nearby 5GHz Wi-Fi broadcasters
5GHz cordless telephones and other appliances
Radars
Digital satellites

Common signal blockage for all Wi-Fi bands: Measurable, albeit challenging, walls and large objects

Physical objects, such as appliances or elevators, hinder all Wi-Fi bands. However, walls are the most problematic obstacle since they are everywhere. Different types of walls block Wi-Fi signals differently, but no wall is good for Wi-Fi.

Here are my rough real-life estimations of how much a wall blocks Wi-Fi signals—generally use the low number for the 2.4GHz and the high one for the 5GHz, add another 10%-15% to the 5GHz’s for the 6GHz band:

A thin, porous wall (wood, sheetrock, drywall, etc.) will block between 5% and 30% of Wi-Fi signals—a router’s range will be much shorter when placed next to it.
A thick porous wall: 20% to 40%.
A thin nonporous wall (concrete, metal, ceramic tile, brick with mortar, etc.): 30% to 50%.
A thick nonporous wall: 50% to 90%.

Again, these numbers are just ballpark, but you can use them to know how far the signal will reach when you place a Wi-Fi broadcaster at a specific spot in your home. A simple rule is that more walls equal worse coverage, and generally, a single wall will reduce the signal by approximately 30%.

That said, in real life, when all adverse elements are taken into account, and depending on the situation and where you stand from the broadcaster, we need to discount the theoretical ranges mentioned above between 40% and 90% to get a broadcaster’s realistic coverage.

Note, though, that just because you have multiple Wi-Fi broadcasters in a network doesn’t mean you automatically have a mesh system. As mentioned above, having two or more hardware pieces is only part of the requirements. Let’s take a closer look.

Mesh system vs. individual extenders or access points

A mesh system consists of multiple Wi-Fi broadcasters (access points or extenders) that work together and can be managed in one place, such as a mobile app or the primary router unit’s web user interface.

In a mesh with wireless backhauling, each satellite unit is essentially a centrally managed Wi-Fi extender. In a mesh with wired backhauling, each satellite unit is essentially a centrally managed access point.

The most significant difference between a mesh system and using multiple individually managed broadcasters is that the former gives you better ease of use, low (or no) interference between broadcasters, and seamless handoff, while the latter doesn’t.

Extenders are quick and dirty fixes that work to only some extent, but your network will likely break when you change your Wi-Fi settings (SSID, password, and so on). On the other hand, thanks to the wired backhauling, an individually managed access point can deliver excellent performance.

Access points always deliver better performance than extenders or wireless mesh satellites of the same Wi-Fi grade.

Access point mode of a mesh Wi-Fi system

Access Point Mode Settings Asus AiMesh — When available, you can turn the primary unit (the router) of a Wi-Fi system into the access point mode, and the entire system will work in this mode.

Access Point Mode Asus AiMesh — When available, you can turn the primary unit (the router) of a Wi-Fi system into the access point mode, and the entire system will work in this mode.

The access point mode can apply to more than a single hardware unit.

In many Wi-Fi (mesh) systems, you can put the primary unit (the router) into access point mode. In this mode, the entire system extends the network hosted by another router while still allowing you to manage the Wi-Fi settings of all mesh nodes via the primary unit’s management interface.

However, this AP-mode-as-a-system is not available in all brands of Wi-Fi systems. Some canned systems, such as Google Nest Wifi, only have this AP mode when you use each hardware unit individually. Among advanced DIY Wi-Fi mesh system approaches, UniFi is an example that doesn’t support the AP mode.

Mesh Wi-Fi network: The benefits

Using a real Wi-Fi system has many advantages over lumping a bunch of Wi-Fi broadcasters together willy-nilly. Specifically, there are three main things to gain from a Wi-Fi system:

1. Ease of use

A Wi-Fi system is easy to set up. At most, you only need to set up the primary node (the router). After that, the rest of the satellite will replicate the Wi-Fi settings and expand the coverage.

That’s the case in the ongoing management, too. For example, you only have to do that on the router unit when changing Wi-Fi settings, such as the network name (SSID) or password. The system will apply that to the satellites automatically.

Asus RT-BE96U AiMesh Page — Mesh Wi-Fi systems: The mesh section of an Asus mesh system, where users can manage all broadcasters in one place

2. Seamless handoff

In a mesh, it’s easier to have continuous connectivity on your device when roaming from one broadcaster to another, as though there’s just one.

Specifically, as you roam around within a mesh’s Wi-Fi coverage, the device in your hand will automatically switch to the broadcaster with the best signals. Additionally, signals from one mesh unit don’t adversely interfere with those of another.

By the way, signal handoff works on a band-per-band basis and doesn’t require Smart Connect, which involves naming all bands as a single network (SSID).

The seamless handoff also applies when two or more satellites are in a wireless setup. In this case, a satellite will automatically pick which other satellite or the primary router to form the backhaul link, depending on the real-time condition.

Notes on the seamless handoff

It’s important not to take seamless literally. That doesn’t exist.

Physically, the client needs to disconnect itself from one broadcaster and move to another, and there’s always a brief interruption during the process—it’s a matter of how quickly. It’s seamless when it happens so fast that you don’t notice it.

Generally, you will notice the interruption if you use real-time communication apps, such as Wi-Fi calling or video conferencing. To avoid that, pick a location with solid signals and stay there.

However, if you stream a video or do general web surfing, file downloading, etc. The transition can appear seamless.

Here are a few things to keep in mind about handoff:

For seamless handoff to work, the hardware devices on both sides (broadcasters and clients) must support the IEEE 802.11r, 802.11v, or 802.11k standard.
Most Wi-Fi systems and clients support at least one standard above, but there’s a chance they don’t use the same one, so seamless handoff is not a sure thing. In any case, turning Wi-Fi off and back on, or disconnecting and then reconnecting to the SSID, is the sure way for the client to connect to the best mesh broadcaster.
It’s the speed that matters. If your connection is fast enough for your task, there’s no need to be concerned about which mesh point within the system your device connects to.
Wi-Fi doesn’t follow human logic in terms of distances. Within a specific range where signals are consistently strong (or weak) to a certain extent, devices might not see anything better or worse between closer or farther broadcasters.
The oversensitive handoff is not a good thing. Constant jumping from one broadcaster to another will cause unstable connectivity.

In my experience, via testing hundreds of hardware devices, the seamless handoff is almost always hit or miss. It varies depending on your existing router, clients, and other factors. Many mobile devices—especially those from Apple—generally have limited or no support for seamless handoff.

Mesh hardware often uses the connection speed as the base for the hand-off.

Specifically, a client would consider jumping from one broadcaster to another only when the connection speed between it and the current broadcaster is no longer fast enough for its general bandwidth needs.

Depending on the situation and varying by hardware or Wi-Fi standard, this threshold can be very low, like 50Mbps, because most clients generally don’t need more than that in real-world usage. That’s why, in certain situations, devices appear more clingy to a far mesh node—their connection speeds haven’t reached the threshold required for the jump yet.

3. Better performance

All the broadcasters work together as a single unified Wi-Fi network in a mesh. As a result, they leverage one another’s Wi-Fi signals to deliver the best efficiency instead of working independently.

For this reason, multiple wireless mesh satellites generally have better performance and reliability than using extenders of the same Wi-Fi grade at the exact locations.

Still, wireless backhauling is temperamental, and using network cables to link the broadcasters—wired backhauling—is the best way to build a well-performing mesh Wi-Fi system.

Synology WRX560 vs. RT6600ax — Mesh Wi-Fi systems: A set of two Synology standalone routers can make an excellent Synology Mesh system.

Signal loss: The biggest drawback of wirelessly connecting broadcasters

There’s always signal degradation due to distance or interference when wirelessly linking Wi-Fi broadcasters. And, if you use dual-band (or Tri-band Wi-Fi 6E) hardware, there’s also this phenomenon I’d call signal loss.

That’s when a satellite broadcaster’s wireless band receives and rebroadcasts Wi-Fi signals simultaneously. Because it has to do two things simultaneously, the band has, at most, only 50 percent of its bandwidth on either end. Again, it’s important to note that the backhaul link is all the bandwidth the broadcaster has for all of its connected clients.

For example, the Asus RP-AX56, a dual-stream (2×2) AX1800 broadcaster, has up to 1200Mbps on the 5GHz band and 600Mbps on the 2.4GHz band. In a wireless setup—as a standard extender or an AiMesh mesh satellite—there are two scenarios:

The 5GHz band works as the backhaul: Half of its bandwidth is used for the backhaul link, delivering the theoretical fronthaul ceiling speed of up to 600Mbps. The 2.4GHz clients can enjoy this band’s full bandwidth, which is 600MHz.
When the 2.4GHz works as the backhaul: Half the band’s bandwidth (300Mbps) is used for backhauling, which is shared between all clients connected to both bands.

The speed numbers above are theoretical. In real-world usage, the actual sustained rates will be markedly lower due to distance, interference, and additional overhead.

Mesh Wi-Fi vs. 6GHz (in Wi-Fi 6E)

Starting in 2021, we have new hardware that supports Wi-Fi 6E.

Wi-Fi 6E has a new 6GHz band. For compatibility reasons, all of its hardware (broadcasters and clients) will come with three bands, including 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz. It’s a new type of Tri-band instead of the traditional tri-band (2.4GHz + 5GHz + 5GHz).

Having three different bands, a Wi-Fi 6E broadcaster is not better than a tri-band Wi-Fi 6 counterpart in a wireless mesh configuration. Like dual-band Wi-Fi 6 or 5 hardware, it has no extra band working as the dedicated backhaul.

In other words, a tri-band Wi-Fi 6E mesh is similar to a dual-band Wi-Fi 6 or Wi-Fi 5 counterpart in wireless backhauling. Consequently, a tri-band Wi-Fi 6E mesh system also suffers significantly from signal loss unless used via wired backhauling.

To fight signal loss, networking vendors use hardware with an additional 5GHz band (5GHz + 5GHz + 2.4GHz).

Netgear is the pioneer on this front with its Orbi product line, which dedicates the second 5 GHz band to backhauling. This type of dedicated backhaul allows the other two bands to focus on serving clients.

Even then, you still have to deal with Wi-Fi signals getting weaker over the range. So, the best way to combat signal loss and degradation in a wireless backhauling mesh is to set up your system correctly.

Mesh Wi-Fi systems vs. non-mesh: The summary table

The table below includes a general idea of when you should use a mesh system vs. other non-mesh hardware, namely, independent extenders or access points.

	Overall Grade	Speed (at the router)	Speed (at satellite)	Seemless handoff	Top Applicable Broadband Speed (real-world performance)	Note
Mesh with Multi-Gig wired backhauling	Ultimate	Gigabit or faster	Gigabit or faster	Yes	Multi-Gigabit	Generally, a Gigabit is the top speed
Mesh with Gigabit wired backhauling	Best	Gigabit or faster	Gigabit at most	Yes	Gigabit	Performance is decided by port grade; Can be a real mesh system with certain hardware
Router + Access point	Good	Gigabit or faster	Gigabit or faster	Maybe	Gigabit and faster	Performance is decided by port grade. Can be a real mesh system with certain hardware
Mesh with mixed wired and wireless backhauling	OK to Good	Gigabit or faster	depend on the backhaul	Yes	Gigabit	Slow performance at the wireless satellite
Mesh with wireless backhauling	OK	Gigabit or faster	Sub-Gigabit or slower; Potentially 50% signal loss; Performance at satellites depends heavily on the backhaul range	Yes	≈500Mbps or slower	Slow performance overall
Router + Extenders	Bad	Gigabit or faster	Sub-Gigabit or slower; 50% signal loss	No	≈150Mbps or slower	Slow performance; Hard to manage; Potentially unreliable

Mesh Wi-Fi Systems: The general use cases of multiple Wi-Fi broadcasters

The takeaway

A mesh is much more than using a few extenders or access points in your network. The hardware pieces need to work together in a centrally managed system via the primary router or a controller to deliver a seamless network.

It’s worth noting that a mesh Wi-Fi system is not meant to be an upgrade to a single router—it’s a necessary alternative in terms of signal coverage.

Finally, when it comes to building a mesh, getting your home wired is the best approach. That’s the only way to simplify and figure-proof your tech and enjoy the true speed of Wi-Fi 7.

For more information on mesh networks, including tips on building your own, check out the tips on how to set up a mesh system and other related posts.

Dong’s note: I originally published this piece on April 28, 2018, and updated it with up-to-date information on February 19, 2024.

[ad_2]

Mesh Wi-Fi Systems 101: The Best Tips