BE58U vs BE82U vs something else for AIMesh wifi-connected node?

[Polly]

Can someone advise what router I should buy to replace at RT-AC86U to work with a Merlin firmware RT-BE88U? Surprisingly the AC86U seems to work ok as an AIMesh node in spite of being two generations behind, but it clearly needs updating. I don't need more ports on the peripheral node, but I'd like better connection for a few wifi devices in this location which is a difficult floor with some on-off blindspots. I assume as previous advice I would just run stock ASUS firmware on the AIMesh node. I also saw the RT-BE58 Go which is very cute and convenient, but I assume its reach isn't that good?

My priorities for this node are reach for a few clients and a good connection back to the main router. Unfortunately a wifi backhaul to the BE88U is necessary at this point (with the obvious speed hit accepted).

The RT-BE58U is obviously a budget choice and the RT-BE82U more expensive. Is the latter going to give me much better backhaul and range for clients to make the cost worth it? And are there any other restrictions with the BE58U as an AIMesh node that the BE82U doesn't have?

Or is there another alternative I am missing?

 

[Tech9]

For wireless backhaul RT-BE82U is better since it has 4-stream 5GHz radio. None of the two support Guest Network Pro though and you can't have VLAN to node LAN port. If you want this functionality you have to select one of the models listed here:

[Guest Network Pro] What is Guest Network Pro? | Official Support | ASUS Global

Another RT-BE88U is perhaps the best match.

 

[Polly]

Thanks, this is helpful advice. I’m surprised to see the RT-BE58 GO on that list, although I assume its network reach is quite poor. Might the RT-BE86U suffice or is it significantly less capable in terms of range and penetration compared to the BE88U?

 

[degrub]

depends on your physical environment.

 

[Polly]

depends on your physical environment.

Thanks for replying. Are you saying that the 86 is significantly less capable in terms of wireless reach than the 88?

 

[Tech9]

There is no such term "wireless reach". The coverage area depends on multiple factors including region, building materials, large appliances or other obstructions, type of clients, interference, etc. If you already know RT-BE88U works well in your place just get another for best compatibility in AiMesh configuration.

 

[Polly]

There is no such term "wireless reach". The coverage area depends on multiple factors including region, building materials, large appliances or other obstructions, type of clients, interference, etc. If you already know RT-BE88U works well in your place just get another for best compatibility in AiMesh configuration.

Apologies for keeping to push on this, but budget is tight. The BE88U was a big spend for me and this second router is to cover a much smaller number of clients. I want to be clear if anyone has experience of the 86 compared to the 88 and their interoperability to help me decide.

 

[Tech9]

I know nothing about your environment, requirements and expectations. If you reduce the channel bandwidth to 40MHz on 5GHz band it will increase the coverage area with +3dB better signal strength and you may not even need this second router. If you find a better spot for your router it may increase the usable coverage area additionally. I don't know how to answer your questions. Get an RP-BE58 Extender, it's perhaps the cheapest option for some extended coverage. It's also AiMesh Compatible... sort of, but enough for your needs.

RP-BE58｜Range Extenders｜ASUS Global

Boost your WiFi with the ASUS RP-BE58 WiFi 7 range extender. Enjoy speeds up to 3600 Mbps, seamless AiMesh compatibility, and easy setup.

www.asus.com

 

[jksmurf]

If you already know RT-BE88U works well in your place just get another for best compatibility in AiMesh configuration.

This is solid advice if you want as little input as possible to make AiMesh work.

I recently did a revised setup at my remote location with a GT-AX6000 main and two RT-AX86U Pro nodes and the clients invariably migrated to and clung on to the slightly more powerful main with more and bigger antennas. No big issue for 2.4Ghz devices but 5Ghz throughput was rubbish.

I had to tweak (separate thread) a number of Smart Connect settings to steer devices to the closer node. This doesn’t mean a cheaper node won’t work, it will and it will work reasonably well; you will probably just need to do some work to get it doing what it’s supposed to in the location it’s in. It also depends on your backhaul as if a proportion of the bandwidth is used for that then there’s less (or
less simultaneous) bandwidth for client devices.

Before someone points out this is BE not an AX thread, the point I’m trying to get across here (probably not that well) is simply that you cannot set AiMesh TX Power independently in AiMesh to find equilibrium between various nodes in terms of which client goes where, so having two similar units is one way (and a more expensive one) to reduce the potential configuration hassle. I cannot say it will eliminate it.

 

[Tech9]

I cannot say it will eliminate it.

Remember what AiMesh does best?

 

[Polly]

I know nothing about your environment, requirements and expectations. If you reduce the channel bandwidth to 40MHz on 5GHz band it will increase the coverage area with +3dB better signal strength and you may not even need this second router. If you find a better spot for your router it may increase the usable coverage area additionally. I don't know how to answer your questions. Get an RP-BE58 Extender, it's perhaps the cheapest option for some extended coverage. It's also AiMesh Compatible... sort of, but enough for your needs.

RP-BE58｜Range Extenders｜ASUS Global

Boost your WiFi with the ASUS RP-BE58 WiFi 7 range extender. Enjoy speeds up to 3600 Mbps, seamless AiMesh compatibility, and easy setup.

www.asus.com

Thanks for this suggestion. I hadn’t even considered an extender. I know little about these but isn’t the problem that they are effectively a new AP repeating at the RF level which might happen to have the same SSID? So a wireless device may or may not choose to roam back to the main router if you swap floors and are still technically in range with a weak extender signal? My understanding of AIMesh is rudimentary, but I understand this is less likely there. Perhaps there’s a new repeaters have technology to stop this happening?

 

[Polly]

This is solid advice if you want as little input as possible to make AiMesh work.

I recently did a revised setup at my remote location with a GT-AX6000 main and two RT-AX86U Pro nodes and the clients invariably migrated to and clung on to the slightly more powerful main with more and bigger antennas. No big issue fir 2.4Ghz devices but 5Ghz throughout was rubbish.

I had to tweak (separate thread) a number of Smart Connect settings to steer devices to the closer node. This doesn’t mean a cheaper node won’t work, it will and it will work reasonably well; you will probably just need to do some work to get it doing what it’s supposed to in the location it’s in. It also depends on your backhaul as if a proportion of the bandwidth is used for that then there’s less (orb
less simultaneous) bandwidth for client devices.

Before someone points out this is BE not an AX thread, the point I’m trying to get across here (probably not that well) is simply that you cannot set AiMesh TX Power independently in AiMesh to find equilibrium between various nodes in terms of which client goes where, so having two similar units is one way (and a more expensive one) to reduce the potential configuration hassle. I cannot say it will eliminate it.

This is very helpful real world experience! I see your argument exactly and will check that thread if I get in that position. It doesn’t sound optimal to have to configure this via trial and error, and I think I’ve noticed it happening already on the very asymmetrical AImesh set up I have. But the expense is larger for two 88s!

 

[degrub]

If you have not done so already,
put your 2.4 GHz radio on 20 OR 40 MHz channel width. Put it on a fixed channel ( no AUTO)
put your 5 GHz radio on 80 MHz channel width. Choose a non-DFS channel to use ( no AUTO), Disable DFS

Now see if you need the extra AP/Extender/Node.

 

[Tech9]

I know little about these but isn’t the problem that they are effectively a new AP repeating at the RF level which might happen to have the same SSID?

Your wireless Node will do exactly the same - it works as Repeater/Extender with some additional features and has more fancy marketing name. The suggested RP-BE58 device can work as Node in AiMesh configuration. It's called Extender because it doesn't have Router feature.

My understanding of AIMesh is rudimentary, but I understand this is less likely there.

Roaming will be exactly the same since it's clients' decision. AiMesh is testing your luck. In theory the nodes have to be at around -65dBm signal level apart, but you have no tools to achieve this except changing the location. If you already experienced "sticky clients" when using your old RT-AC86U replacing it with any of the above discussed devices will result in the same behavior. The cheapest option for you - continue using your RT-AC86U. Next comes cheaper BE-class devices, but the user experience will remain the same. Two same model units ensure better compatibility, but don't solve the eventual roaming issue.

 

[Polly]

If you have not done so already,
put your 2.4 GHz radio on 20 OR 40 MHz channel width. Put it on a fixed channel ( no AUTO)
put your 5 GHz radio on 80 MHz channel width. Choose a non-DFS channel to use ( no AUTO), Disable DFS

Now see if you need the extra AP/Extender/Node.

Thanks I'm trying that now and will keep an eye on it. I guess I was nervous to hardcode channels because you're also hardcoding for the wireless-connected AIMesh node. But I'll try to manually pick the best area of the spectrum.

 

[Tech9]

because you're also hardcoding for the wireless-connected AIMesh node

In any configuration (including wired) AiMesh doesn't have the option for different channels on different devices. It's basic "mesh" system with aggressive marketing including false advertising. The more Nodes you add the bigger the mess. For 2-3 Nodes (including the Router) it's generally okay, but only if you get lucky with physical placement.

 

[Polly]

Your wireless Node will do exactly the same - it works as Repeater/Extender with some additional features and has more fancy marketing name. The suggested RP-BE58 device can work as Node in AiMesh configuration. It's called Extender because it doesn't have Router feature.

This makes sense, thanks. But won't it also have considerably less wireless capability even than a BE58U, BE82U or BE86U? Is the thinking to add multiple less expensive AIMesh/extenders for cold spots rather than a more powerful single AIMesh node? Sorry for noob questions, I'm definitely not technically adept here. I hadn't thought of this route and it certainly would be neat.

Roaming will be exactly the same since it's clients' decision. AiMesh is testing your luck. In theory the nodes have to be at around -65dBm signal level apart, but you have no tools to achieve this except changing the location. If you already experienced "sticky clients" when using your old RT-AC86U replacing it with any of the above discussed devices will result in the same behavior. The cheapest option for you - continue using your RT-AC86U. Next comes cheaper BE-class devices, but the user experience will remain the same. Two same model units ensure better compatibility, but don't solve the eventual roaming issue.

Just to be clear roaming isn't the main issue I have here, and if I won't improve or make it worse by moving the BE-class, it seems sensible to make the move now. My main issue is occasional poor bandwidth in the AIMesh area, and I'm hoping something more capable and same class might (a) connect back to the BE88U more consistently and (b) provide better reach for the few clients in the AIMesh area.

 

[Tech9]

You have the answers what's better above. As I understand the budget is not enough for better. This is the reason I suggested lower cost alternatives.