Is your Router/Mobile Device mature enough to switch between 2.4 & 5 GHz ?

[Chrysalis]

whilst I appreciate the tips, I am happy to use a unique ssid, I dont see any benefits in sharing ssid's. I dont see any merit's in a device flip flopping between 2.4 and 5ghz networks either.

 

[stevech]

... blows my 2.4ghz performance out of the water.

I sure wish people would not use that adolescent term. And for the readers, it doesn't say much more than "better".

 

[htismaqe]

whilst I appreciate the tips, I am happy to use a unique ssid, I dont see any benefits in sharing ssid's. I dont see any merit's in a device flip flopping between 2.4 and 5ghz networks either.

My devices don't flip flop, that's just the thing. They generally stay on 5Ghz until they get too far away from the AP.

When the devices are in the living room or family room - the "core" of the house - they use 5Ghz. When they move to the back bedrooms or the patio, they drop to 2.4Ghz. When they come back inside, they switch back.

 

[sfx2000]

whilst I appreciate the tips, I am happy to use a unique ssid, I dont see any benefits in sharing ssid's. I dont see any merit's in a device flip flopping between 2.4 and 5ghz networks either.

You're right, they'll just camp until the signal is lost.

 

[sfx2000]

My devices don't flip flop, that's just the thing. They generally stay on 5Ghz until they get too far away from the AP.

When the devices are in the living room or family room - the "core" of the house - they use 5Ghz. When they move to the back bedrooms or the patio, they drop to 2.4Ghz. When they come back inside, they switch back.

In a Common SSID approach, that's how it's supposed to work - depends on the device - some aren't so clever, but most are..

 

[Chrysalis]

You're right, they'll just camp until the signal is lost.

No worries for me as the only time the signal is lost is when I turn the router off.

I like to control where my devices connect, not rely on software algorithms.

 

[jlake]

The default setting on consumer wireless routers should be unique SSIDs. If someone wants to modify their wireless settings so they have common SSIDs, then they should do so. But many, many consumers have resolved their wifi issues by using unique SSIDs.

 

[L&LD]

Seems the consensus is effectively unanimous. Discrete ssid's per band are superior for the wireless world we're in now.

Like almost anything, leaving things in automatic is asking to accept below standard performance most of the time for the promise of mere convenience.

 

[stevech]

In a Common SSID approach, that's how it's supposed to work - depends on the device - some aren't so clever, but most are..

I have to take exception to "most are" !!!

 

[htismaqe]

Most manufacturer's already default to discrete SSIDs per band.

 

[htismaqe]

Like almost anything, leaving things in automatic is asking to accept below standard performance most of the time for the promise of mere convenience.

In 90% (or more) of all cases, especially when you're talking about business and enterprise networks, usability and "convenience" are infinitely more important than maximum performance.

The average user isn't even aware of the difference between adequate and optimal. It's either functional or it's not.

For the most part, this forum is populated by a small band of power/super users. In no way does the obsession with uber-performance we see here represent the "real world".

 

[L&LD]

htismage, I could agree with your whole post except that in this case it's not a matter of maximum performance or not - it is simply having it work period. Shared ssid's over the available bands is a way to have a repeat customer for a while for some around here. Until they're shown the way and tell everyone and the mailman to not use that person for anything regarding 'networks' again.

 

[htismaqe]

My experience with shared SSIDs couldn't be more different from yours then. I've never had any problems with it at all. What hasn't worked for me in the past is asking devices to roam across multiple SSIDs.

With each band set to a discrete SSID, all possibility of roaming is pretty much gone. A device, at that point, is either 5Ghz which limits coverage or 2.4Ghz which limits performance. Even my iPhone 6 has troubles roaming from one SSID to another but it has zero problems hopping bands if they have the same SSID.

Shared SSIDs is the ONLY way I've ever had any luck allowing devices to experience both maximum coverage and maximum performance. Maybe my experience is the outlier here but for me, having same SSIDs works and works well.

 

[sfx2000]

I tend to fall on the side of Common SSID's, and I've designed and deployed my network accordingly - having different SSID's is not a bad thing, it does allow for fairly granular control over which client associates with which AP, so for fixed items, like printers, desktops, consoles, media bridges - this is ok.. where things start to fall apart is with handsets and tablets, where they can have missed opportunities - camping on a weak SSID when a better one is available -

I have a bad habit of walking around the house with my iPhone, esp. on long teleconferences (I use MS Lync and Counterpath Bria clients on iOS), and common SSID's let me transparently move about - uncommon SSID would effectively tie me down...

 

[L&LD]

I agree discrete ssid's remove the possibility of roaming. But that is easy to remedy; simply tell the customer in this area, connect to that ssid. Trying to get a customer to figure out why a single ssid across multiple bands and AP's isn't allowing 'invisible' roaming is next to impossible and suggesting they pay me (or anyone else) to find the right settings (if possible) is also not on the list of things they're capable of.

 

[htismaqe]

In my case, my "customers" here are my family members (my actual customers are Fortune 50 companies who are using wireless systems much more sophisticated than we generally discuss here).

There's zero chance I'm telling them they have to manually connect to an SSID depending on where they are in the house. That's just not practical - I'd end up having to do it for them.

We're just at different ends of the spectrum somehow. For you, the easiest, most hands-off solution is to use discrete IDs. In my environment, I find the complete opposite to be true.

 

[L&LD]

Ah, when 'customers' are friends/family members, I tell them learn this or buy me dinner each time you need my help.

They learn quickly like that.. and... I can eat a lot too.

 

[sfx2000]

I agree discrete ssid's remove the possibility of roaming. But that is easy to remedy; simply tell the customer in this area, connect to that ssid. Trying to get a customer to figure out why a single ssid across multiple bands and AP's isn't allowing 'invisible' roaming is next to impossible and suggesting they pay me (or anyone else) to find the right settings (if possible) is also not on the list of things they're capable of

Sometimes easier said than done - one walking around on a amartphone in a voip conversation - swapping from SSID 1 to SSID 2 is likely going to drop the call.

Unhappy customer then :|

 

[L&LD]

Sometimes easier said than done - one walking around on a amartphone in a voip conversation - swapping from SSID 1 to SSID 2 is likely going to drop the call.

Unhappy customer then :|

No different for a device that doesn't hop properly either though.

Solution; don't move during your important calls and / or online activities.

 

[sfx2000]

No different for a device that doesn't hop properly either though.

Solution; don't move during your important calls and / or online activities.

Actually no... it's a reasonable expectation - since I have WiFi, I should have WiFi throughout the house, no matter which band or AP I'm presently attached to... and my services shouldn't be disrupted...

Unique SSID's - that's something that I can count on disrupting those services when I walk about the house... common SSID on a properly designed network, it shouldn't matter...