Netgear recently replaced my R6400 v1 with a v2 after I began having problems of wifi connections being suddenly and inexplicably "lost". They would disappear from the connected devices list - sometimes I could still ping the devices, but not always. It would take a reboot of the router or a power cycle on the device(s) to get them back - and they still wouldn't stay put. The problem starts only when the TOTAL number of devices (wired, 2.4Ghz, and 5Ghz) reaches about 22-23. I get similar results with the v2 as with the v1 - perhaps slightly better but not much different overall - perhaps as a result of the newer, 1Ghz CPU versus the old, .8 Ghz one. I have airtime fairness and implicit beam forming enabled.
These IoT devices are mostly confined to my LAN (by my wishes) and they do NOT push much data. So it does not seem the issue is throughput. Also, the range of the R6400 is not a significant problem. I get signal where I need it - although I wish sometimes the 5Ghz signal was stronger in some places where I now just end up on 2.4Ghz. This is not a huge deal for me except that as a result I get 5Ghz-capable devices on the 2.4Ghz and that seems unlikely to be helping my IoT device troubles. Also, I am not a gamer and only do some video/audio streaming to my Chromecast and TV. So I am not in need of lots of features in that realm.
I have tried adding an access point next to the R6400 connected via ethernet. I have used an old TP-Link that is single core, 400 Mhz with 128M RAM running OpenWRT and tried off-loading the many of the IoT/Smarthome devices to it instead of directly to the R6400. The R6400 shows these now as wired connection rather than wireless - which makes sense - and things run well - at least until I start adding more devices to this access point. At that point, I end up with much the same problem of devices getting "lost".
I suspect that these older devices simply cannot keep up with the demands of maintaining so many wifi connections. I am not sure but I cannot help but wonder if a larger, faster CPU combined with more RAM is the "solution". But I want to be sure how much and what might make the difference. For example, is a 1.5Ghz, 3-core enough? Is there a significant difference between a 64-bit and 32-bit for a router? Is 1G RAM more likely to "solve" my problem than 512M? Is a mesh system the way to go?
In addition to solving the above problem, I have several other requirements:
1. I put almost every single device on a reserved IP address in the router. I want to know for certain that a specific device lives at a specific IP. I note that some Asus routers, for example, limit such assignments to 32 devices - and I fear that is a hard limit and I would end up on the hairy edge with such a router. 64 should be fine though although I have no idea why this should be limited in any way.
2. I require command line access to the router via telnet or ssh on the LAN only. I mostly need this so I can run tcpdump and investigate packets going through the router with Wireshark. So the tcpdump utility and busybox tools need to be there. I understand that many makers either do NOT offer telnet or ssh or did in earlier firmware but removed it later on - I see this in the R6400, for example - in earlier firmware there is a debug page that allows me to toggle telnet on and I can use the telnetenable command line utility to do so as well. However, this all disappears in later Netgear firmware (without being advertised). I also have discovered that TP-Link products do NOT offer this - although many do have an ssh server running to support their Tether app - I cannot get a successful connection myself. This is unacceptable to me. If the stock firmware lacks this ability, I might be fine flashing a 3rd party firmware if a solid one exists - which for the later TP-Link units seems to be a challenge.
3. I need at least 4 ethernet LAN ports and this seems pretty standard. I need no special gaming port or such. I have only a simple DSL modem with a single ethernet port on it connecting to the router's WAN. I have nothing against having more than 4 ethernet LAN ports. But it isn't a requirement.
4. I need at least one USB port for network storage with typical visibility on the LAN (I want nothing on the WAN): Windows networking/Samba with a non-default workgroup name, ftp access, and ability to access the USB storage via a command line. The TP-Link products seem to insist on using the default workgroup name "WORKGROUP" and offers no ability to modify it. That's a problem I would much rather avoid.
5. Where the router has to live there is a height restriction of 6 inches. This means that all of the Asus models designed to stand up rather than lie down are out of the question (why do them make so many that insist upon this orientation?). It also means that antennae need to be able to open and be positioned within that 6 inch space. On the R6400, for example, none of the 2 antennae can be fully raised but this does not seem to be a problem - although this MAY contribute to less than stellar range - and I have to live with that.
6. I need to have control over LEDs and special lighting effects. I need to be able to turn them off and have them stay off! This means across router reboots. I have, in the past, resorted to black tape and can possibly do that again. But really?
7. I would really prefer to have only a single-box solution. It is just easier and simpler to install and manage. I am not sure if mesh would "buy" me anything here but would consider it if there is good cause and I can use wireless back haul - wired will not work here unless the distance is very short - like 1 foot - and so what would be the benefit? I do need range at least as good as the R6400 has been. If I can get that without mesh, that is fine by me.
8. While not my highest priority, having access to 3rd party firmware is attractive in case of issues not being addressed by the maker in a timely fashion.
9. I understand that you don't get something for nothing. But I really think that having to pay over $250 for a router is excessive. I find even that level hard to stomach. And I have seen many routers at prices way beyond that. Wow!
Thanks for your time, patience in reading all this, and help.
These IoT devices are mostly confined to my LAN (by my wishes) and they do NOT push much data. So it does not seem the issue is throughput. Also, the range of the R6400 is not a significant problem. I get signal where I need it - although I wish sometimes the 5Ghz signal was stronger in some places where I now just end up on 2.4Ghz. This is not a huge deal for me except that as a result I get 5Ghz-capable devices on the 2.4Ghz and that seems unlikely to be helping my IoT device troubles. Also, I am not a gamer and only do some video/audio streaming to my Chromecast and TV. So I am not in need of lots of features in that realm.
I have tried adding an access point next to the R6400 connected via ethernet. I have used an old TP-Link that is single core, 400 Mhz with 128M RAM running OpenWRT and tried off-loading the many of the IoT/Smarthome devices to it instead of directly to the R6400. The R6400 shows these now as wired connection rather than wireless - which makes sense - and things run well - at least until I start adding more devices to this access point. At that point, I end up with much the same problem of devices getting "lost".
I suspect that these older devices simply cannot keep up with the demands of maintaining so many wifi connections. I am not sure but I cannot help but wonder if a larger, faster CPU combined with more RAM is the "solution". But I want to be sure how much and what might make the difference. For example, is a 1.5Ghz, 3-core enough? Is there a significant difference between a 64-bit and 32-bit for a router? Is 1G RAM more likely to "solve" my problem than 512M? Is a mesh system the way to go?
In addition to solving the above problem, I have several other requirements:
1. I put almost every single device on a reserved IP address in the router. I want to know for certain that a specific device lives at a specific IP. I note that some Asus routers, for example, limit such assignments to 32 devices - and I fear that is a hard limit and I would end up on the hairy edge with such a router. 64 should be fine though although I have no idea why this should be limited in any way.
2. I require command line access to the router via telnet or ssh on the LAN only. I mostly need this so I can run tcpdump and investigate packets going through the router with Wireshark. So the tcpdump utility and busybox tools need to be there. I understand that many makers either do NOT offer telnet or ssh or did in earlier firmware but removed it later on - I see this in the R6400, for example - in earlier firmware there is a debug page that allows me to toggle telnet on and I can use the telnetenable command line utility to do so as well. However, this all disappears in later Netgear firmware (without being advertised). I also have discovered that TP-Link products do NOT offer this - although many do have an ssh server running to support their Tether app - I cannot get a successful connection myself. This is unacceptable to me. If the stock firmware lacks this ability, I might be fine flashing a 3rd party firmware if a solid one exists - which for the later TP-Link units seems to be a challenge.
3. I need at least 4 ethernet LAN ports and this seems pretty standard. I need no special gaming port or such. I have only a simple DSL modem with a single ethernet port on it connecting to the router's WAN. I have nothing against having more than 4 ethernet LAN ports. But it isn't a requirement.
4. I need at least one USB port for network storage with typical visibility on the LAN (I want nothing on the WAN): Windows networking/Samba with a non-default workgroup name, ftp access, and ability to access the USB storage via a command line. The TP-Link products seem to insist on using the default workgroup name "WORKGROUP" and offers no ability to modify it. That's a problem I would much rather avoid.
5. Where the router has to live there is a height restriction of 6 inches. This means that all of the Asus models designed to stand up rather than lie down are out of the question (why do them make so many that insist upon this orientation?). It also means that antennae need to be able to open and be positioned within that 6 inch space. On the R6400, for example, none of the 2 antennae can be fully raised but this does not seem to be a problem - although this MAY contribute to less than stellar range - and I have to live with that.
6. I need to have control over LEDs and special lighting effects. I need to be able to turn them off and have them stay off! This means across router reboots. I have, in the past, resorted to black tape and can possibly do that again. But really?
7. I would really prefer to have only a single-box solution. It is just easier and simpler to install and manage. I am not sure if mesh would "buy" me anything here but would consider it if there is good cause and I can use wireless back haul - wired will not work here unless the distance is very short - like 1 foot - and so what would be the benefit? I do need range at least as good as the R6400 has been. If I can get that without mesh, that is fine by me.
8. While not my highest priority, having access to 3rd party firmware is attractive in case of issues not being addressed by the maker in a timely fashion.
9. I understand that you don't get something for nothing. But I really think that having to pay over $250 for a router is excessive. I find even that level hard to stomach. And I have seen many routers at prices way beyond that. Wow!
Thanks for your time, patience in reading all this, and help.
