Archer C8 V1 DFS channel

[hpad06]

Hello, just bought a used Tp link Archer C8 V1 to replace my RT-N66U (advanced Tomato).

I notice many times ping would lose packets, I think this is due to 5G channel interference as seems my neighbors are occupying all available 5 G channels.

On RT-N66U I have the option to choose DFS channel ( 100-140) through advanced Tomato. I am wondering is there a way to choose DFS channel on Archer C8 ? It appears DDWRT is not stable for C8, and cannot restore to stock firmware, so I am afraid to try.

 

[Internet Man]

Hello, just bought a used Tp link Archer C8 V1 to replace my RT-N66U (advanced Tomato).

I notice many times ping would lose packets, I think this is due to 5G channel interference as seems my neighbors are occupying all available 5 G channels.

On RT-N66U I have the option to choose DFS channel ( 100-140) through advanced Tomato. I am wondering is there a way to choose DFS channel on Archer C8 ? It appears DDWRT is not stable for C8, and cannot restore to stock firmware, so I am afraid to try.

The Archer C8 v1 does not support DFS and many new devices are designed to prevent third party firmwares from enabling additional wireless frequencies.

[...]
TP-Link, one of the largest router manufacturers, had begun locking down firmware in newly released routers.

[...]

The FCC recently updated its requirements for “U-NII devices operating on the 5 Ghz bandwidth”—a designation that covers a wide range of Wi-Fi devices and routers—to stop users from modifying RF (radio frequency) devices outside of their intended parameters.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-locking-routers/

Although the FCC statement guarantees TP-Link will allow installation of open-source firmware, they have also made clear that manufacturers have to do something to ensure compliance with a second set of rules, relating to the U-NII radio band. This could leave manufacturers with a hard choice: locking down the separate, low-level firmware that controls the router radio so that users cannot tamper with it, or limiting the capabilities of the radio itself at the point of manufacture. The first option would prevent users from taking full control of their hardware by replacing the firmware that controls it with open-source alternatives. It means that even if the high-level firmware on the router is open-source, the device can never be fully controlled by the user because the low-level firmware controlling the hardware is encumbered by closed-source binaries.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/fcc-settlement-requires-tp-link-support-3rd-party-firmware