Best 6ghz wifi channel?

[psychopomp1]

Hi,
In my home, i have wifi 7 access points in every room (TP Link RE655BE) and where possible, I try to connect every wifi 6E/7 client to the 6ghz band on the AP since usually there is clear line of sight to each AP. On all RE655BE units i have selected 69 (PSC) channel on the 6ghz band and no major issues, but just wondering if there's an ideal channel to use? I am offered tons of channels between 1-93 though only channels 5-21-37-53-69-85 are PSC. 6ghz channel width is set to auto (20/40/80/160/320 Mhz)
Cheers

 

[degrub]

You would have to have a wireless channel/bandwidth survey done on the 6Ghz bands as a start or rely on any available autoselect free bandwidth logic to determine the channels that have more bandwidth available. AUTO may play havoc with some clients if left enabled. If you don't have any outside interference, then what you have done can be good enough if power level overlaps are not too high.

 

[tgl]

If you've got multiple APs it'd really be better to use a different channel for each AP. Don't pick non-PSC channels, some clients won't play along with that.

 

[sfx2000]

If you've got multiple APs it'd really be better to use a different channel for each AP. Don't pick non-PSC channels, some clients won't play along with that.

Some back up here... PSC is your friend...

Preferred Scanning Channels (PSC):

PSC channels are a subset of channels in the 6 GHz band. Instead of requiring clients to probe all 59 available channels, PSC channels limit the scanning to 15 predefined channels (5, 21, 37, 53, 69, 85, 101, 117, 133, 149, 165, 181, 197, 213, and 229).

• Focused Scanning: By concentrating the scanning efforts on a limited number of channels, PSC significantly reduces the time and power required for network discovery. Clients can quickly identify APs operating on these channels without the exhaustive process of probing every possible channel.
• Efficient Channel Utilization: PSC channels are strategically spaced every 80 MHz to ensure the GHz band is covered equally by these channels. This spacing allows for efficient use of the available spectrum and ensures that clients can reliably discover networks even in high-density environments.
• Standardization: PSC channels provide a standardized approach to scanning, simplifying network configuration, and troubleshooting for administrators. This standardization ensures consistency in network discovery across different devices and deployments.

 

[tgl]

As far as which of the PSC channels might be "best": as @degrub said, the first consideration is to find an unoccupied channel. Maybe you can trust the APs' auto channel choice, but my experience with that on other AP makes is that auto channel tends to suck. Unless you live in the boonies, it's worth your time to get a wifi scanner app for your phone or laptop and do an actual site survey to see if you have any noticeable interference from neighbors.

If you really do have a free choice, physics says that the lower frequencies (lower channel numbers) should propagate slightly further than the upper ones. Further is not necessarily better if you're contending with neighbors, of course.

 

[Tech9]

the first consideration is to find an unoccupied channel

I'm pretty sure most of the channels on 6GHz band will be clear. Low power APs and behind few walls the signal level will be close to the noise floor anyway. Location South Africa, one AP in every room on low power - @psychopomp1 can use any channel they want.

 

[tgl]

I'm pretty sure most of the channels on 6GHz band will be clear.

Depends on how far away the neighbors are ... but in any case, with multiple APs, you want the one in the next room to be on a different channel.

 

[psychopomp1]

Thanks everyone. After scanning for other wifi networks using inSSIDer, i couldn't find any 6ghz networks from other properties. But on each of the 4 APs, i'm now using a unique 6ghz PSC channel - 5,37,69,85 instead of ch 69 on all 4.

 

[Tech9]

with multiple APs, you want the one in the next room to be on a different channel

In theory - yes. In reality - it depends.

In this specific use case 4x BE-class APs on different channels can do >Gigabit each easily. Are they connected upstream to a switch with 2.5GbE ports and 10GbE uplink to >4Gbps ISP service? How often wireless devices exchange high volume data between each other? Typical household has under 10 active devices. I can safely guess @psychopomp1 can't tell the difference in user experience between all 4x APs on different or the same channel. It will make a huge difference for slower 2.4GHz band, but the available channel bandwidth may be high enough on 5/6GHz bands even if all APs share the same channel.

 

[tgl]

Yeah, depending on how hard you're pushing the system, you may not really notice any difference. But the original post did ask about "ideal" setup, and I don't think you can argue that all APs on same channel is ideal.

 

[Tech9]

I don't think you can argue that all APs on same channel is ideal

What is ideal in theory may not be ideal for specific use cases.

- The AP on Ch.5 will have different range than the AP on Ch.85 when set at the same power. The extenders used as APs don't have precise power adjustments.
- In case there is someone around using 6GHz band on Auto and in range their equipment may have no choice but step on one of the APs channel.
- Client devices have universal multi-band antennas with different gain on different frequencies. Some of @psychopomp1 devices may work better on specific channel.
- I see Etisalat ISP in signature, UAE. How many channels on Auto up to 320MHz wide are available in this region and on 6GHz band in general?

If this setup was mine I would find the best performing channel for my devices instead and play with different channels only if single channel impacts negatively the user experience. I would also limit the channel bandwidth to 160MHz since the APs can't go above ~2.3Gbps throughput anyway. Not a big fan of additional complications solving non-existent issues and settings not taking account of hardware limitations.

 

[psychopomp1]

I would also limit the channel bandwidth to 160MHz since the APs can't go above ~2.3Gbps throughput anyway.

Quite often our Thinkpad T16 laptops (equipped with BE201 wifi card) connect at the full 5.7 Gbps link rate to each AP, so clearly they're using the 320Mhz channel bandwidth on the 6ghz band. The RE655BE supports up to 5.764 Gbps link rate on the 6ghz band.

 

[Tech9]

As per specifications your extenders have 2.5GbE ports and the maximum throughput is around 2.3Gbps no matter what the wireless link speed is. By allowing 320MHz wide channel you limit your channel choice (because there is no 4x 320MHz wide channels on 6GHz band) and the signal strength to client devices (or what is perceived by "range", -3dB for every 2x channel bandwidth increase). You ASUS EBG15 wired router cuts down WAN throughput further to 940Mbps, best case scenario.

The entire idea of non-VLAN capable limited configuration options BE-class extenders used as Access Points connected to VLAN capable Router doesn't make sense to me. You can't even have proper Guest Network. The only benefit is low price and it comes with very long list of limitations.

 

[psychopomp1]

Gotcha

 

[user114514]

Just occupy all three independent 320MHz channels and the additional 160MHz channel. Those who don't understand the math fail to realize that for the same distance, 320MHz can achieve the same throughput with lower SNR requirements and a lower duty cycle. Even if your WAN is only 1Gbps, 320MHz still has its place.