Asus XT8 or 9 WiFi name setup

[in2ndo]

If I disable the 5GHz-1 and unhide the 5GHz-2. Can or will the 2.4GHz and 5GHz-2 have the same WiFi network name, like they do when using the 5GHz-1 ? I would prefer to not have them separated .

TIA.

 

[glens]

Your suggested combination should work just fine. Why, though?

Here's a few examples I've run on my XT8s:

You can assign the same SSID to both 2.4 and 5-1 and use "Smart Connect" on only those two by selecting 5-2 as "dedicated wireless backhaul" with a different, exposed, SSID. This is how I had mine configured for a while with wired backhaul. Using all three radios for client service.

You can also use the same SSID on 2.4 and 5-1 without using "Smart Connect," but instead opting for "WiFi Agile Multiband" on those two radios, everything else the same as above. I then ran the Aimesh that way for a while.

In my informal usage either way I never noticed any operational issues.

The downsides are that the master seemingly takes no notice of the "outside" wireless environment present to the slave node, so "auto" channel selection can be sub-optimal system-wide. As well, (rather not so well,) both units' radios each operate on the same channels in the same way.

While for casual use by any single client while roving about the mesh everything seems to always work well, mapping the system for three fairly stationary clients to all intercommunicate at their best is problematic as "a mesh."

Two AX200 clients, one associated to each node on the same band (SSID), performance between them is the same as when both to the same node. That's to say "half-speed at best."

I finally "solved" it by switching the slave node to "AP mode" and though I must still have both 5-1 radios operating in unison (a limitation evidently not present in the XT9 [XT8 Pro] with its more-capable 5-1), the 2.4 and 5-2 radios are parked on different channels between the nodes.

Same SSID on both 2.4s and both 5-1s, same separate SSID on both 5-2s. WiFi Agility enabled on all 2.4 and 5-1 radios.

Now all three AX-carded laptops, each on a 5GHz channel/radio "of its own," can communicate to any other at a solid 70MB sustained, at any given time, while other streaming / browsing never flinches.

While things could be better with a higher-priced system, I'm entirely satisfied with the bang for the buck. The XT8s were at $350/pr again on Amazon lately. That's the price I'd paid and I'm tickled pink with the system at that cost.

 

[in2ndo]

Your suggested combination should work just fine. Why, though?

Here's a few examples I've run on my XT8s:

You can assign the same SSID to both 2.4 and 5-1 and use "Smart Connect" on only those two by selecting 5-2 as "dedicated wireless backhaul" with a different, exposed, SSID. This is how I had mine configured for a while with wired backhaul. Using all three radios for client service.

You can also use the same SSID on 2.4 and 5-1 without using "Smart Connect," but instead opting for "WiFi Agile Multiband" on those two radios, everything else the same as above. I then ran the Aimesh that way for a while.

In my informal usage either way I never noticed any operational issues.

The downsides are that the master seemingly takes no notice of the "outside" wireless environment present to the slave node, so "auto" channel selection can be sub-optimal system-wide. As well, (rather not so well,) both units' radios each operate on the same channels in the same way.

While for casual use by any single client while roving about the mesh everything seems to always work well, mapping the system for three fairly stationary clients to all intercommunicate at their best is problematic as "a mesh."

Two AX200 clients, one associated to each node on the same band (SSID), performance between them is the same as when both to the same node.

I finally "solved" it by switching the slave node to "AP mode" and though I must still have both 5-1 radios operating in unison (a limitation evidently not present in the XT9 [XT8 Pro] with its more-capable 5-1), the 2.4 and 5-2 radios are parked on different channels between the nodes.

Same SSID on both 2.4s and both 5-1s, same separate SSID on both 5-2s. WiFi Agility enabled on all 2.4 and 5-1 radios.

Now all three AX-carded laptops, each on a 5GHz channel/radio "of its own," can communicate to any other at a solid 70MB sustained, at any given time, while other streaming / browsing never flinches.

While things could be better with a higher-priced system, I'm entirely satisfied with the bang for the buck. The XT8s were at $350/pr again on Amazon lately. That's the price I'd paid and I'm tickled pink with the system at that cost.

Thanks for the info. I’m actually looking into this. Because I’m getting one XT-9 and getting rid of the XT8’s. Too much of a headache to be dealing with two units. But I like the web interface and they look nice in the living room.. lol.
Havent played with routers much, my last one was an Apple Time Capsule and that thing just worked.

 

[glens]

Well these things "just work" too. The fact that so much can be done with them is a testament to the mindset of the folks at Asus. I briefly used a pair of eeros before getting these. The ISP provided the eeros, and I guess they worked okay, but it chapped my butt to have to "sign up" just to be able to "get into" them, as much as can minimally be done even after the hoop-jumps.

I'm at 72 days, 9 hours+ uptime on the router unit and I've done all that configuration changing above during that time. Highly-configurable (when desired) appliances is what I consider them.

Were it possible to say just how much more valuable the XT9s really are over the XT8s, I don't feel, in seeing the prices so far, that the value would be as great with the newer version.

If I were considering spending what the XT9s cost, I'd likely rather consider the ROG GT6 version even though the exterior isn't quite so "tame". Looks like they've got at least a 5-1 as much superior to the XT9 as the XT9s is to the XT8. So long, that is, as one is able to make use of the DFS channels. In that respect I've been very blessed.

 

[in2ndo]

Well these things "just work" too. The fact that so much can be done with them is a testament to the mindset of the folks at Asus. I briefly used a pair of eeros before getting these. The ISP provided the eeros, and I guess they worked okay, but it chapped my butt to have to "sign up" just to be able to "get into" them, as much as can minimally be done even after the hoop-jumps.

I'm at 72 days, 9 hours+ uptime on the router unit and I've done all that configuration changing above during that time. Highly-configurable (when desired) appliances is what I consider them.

Were it possible to say just how much more valuable the XT9s really are over the XT8s, I don't feel, in seeing the prices so far, that the value would be as great with the newer version.

If I were considering spending what the XT9s cost, I'd likely rather consider the ROG GT6 version even though the exterior isn't quite so "tame". Looks like they've got at least a 5-1 as much superior to the XT9 as the XT9s is to the XT8. So long, that is, as one is able to make use of the DFS channels. In that respect I've been very blessed.

So I was able to play with the XT8, for a little today. Found that if I set the 5Ghz-2 backhaul to be available, it is added to the smart connect set of available connections, all 3 under the same WiFi name. The only thing is that the 160Mhz is not shared. But I believe that is limitation with the XT8 and not with the XT9’s. I’ll find out tomorrow. If is delivered on time.

 

[glens]

Found that if I set the 5Ghz-2 backhaul to be available, it is added to the smart connect set of available connections, all 3 under the same WiFi name.

Yes. And I'd showed how to prevent 5-2 from inclusion in Smart Connect.

The only thing is that the 160Mhz is not shared. But I believe that is limitation with the XT8 and not with the XT9’s.

It depends on where the 160 is. 5-1 in the XT8 can't do 160 but 5-1 in XT9 can (evidently) and this appears to be the only functional difference between them. Still only a 2x2 radio in the SOC. Is that worth the $ difference? Dunno.

But if "the 160" you're not seeing shared is because 5-2 is making use of the historically-out-of-range high channels, then that's why you're not seeing them shared. So far the only thing I've encountered that'll do the U-NII-4 channels is the XT8s. If you allow use of those channels for your wifi then likely nothing else will be able to even "see" the broadcast. Uncheck the U-NII-4 channels for 5-2 if you want to use it for clients.

 

[kildare]

With the XT8, if somebody wishes to connect at 160MHz bandwidth, it's possible to connect a device also to the 5GHz-2 wireless network even if it's used for backhaul, like I do with my Ultrabook with an Intel AX201 160 MHz wifi network card (5GHz-2 backhaul operating on Control channel: 100 and Extension Channel: Auto).

 

[glens]

Yes. Manually specifying control @ 100 also excludes U-NII-4, parking "the 160" in a place "legacy" clients can see/use it.