What's new

Could I connect two RT-AC68Us with ethernet to make a dual-band 5 GHz AIMesh node?

  • SNBForums Code of Conduct

    SNBForums is a community for everyone, no matter what their level of experience.

    Please be tolerant and patient of others, especially newcomers. We are all here to share and learn!

    The rules are simple: Be patient, be nice, be helpful or be gone!

Qbcd

Regular Contributor
I'm using an RT-AC68U as an AIMesh node, it works well. I recently picked a second RT-AC68U almost for free. And I had this crazy thought -- could I link the two of them with ethernet and use them essentially as one dual-band 5 GHz AIMesh node? That way I will have a dedicated backhaul band.

I could connect one to the main router via wireless, and then connect the second one to the first one with ethernet and then the system would recognize all 3, and the 3rd would have ethernet backhaul and not suffer from additional loss. But then the second one's AP will still be active (and the two routers will be basically next to each other), so clients could still connect to it and incur the speed loss associated with repeating signal on the same band.

So... what I want is to basically use one router as a media bridge for the second one, and have only the second one's 5 GHz radio available to clients, the first one's only serving as a backhaul and not visible to clients. Can I do that somehow within AIMesh?
 
I'm using an RT-AC68U as an AIMesh node, it works well. I recently picked a second RT-AC68U almost for free. And I had this crazy thought -- could I link the two of them with ethernet and use them essentially as one dual-band 5 GHz AIMesh node? That way I will have a dedicated backhaul band.

I could connect one to the main router via wireless, and then connect the second one to the first one with ethernet and then the system would recognize all 3, and the 3rd would have ethernet backhaul and not suffer from additional loss. But then the second one's AP will still be active (and the two routers will be basically next to each other), so clients could still connect to it and incur the speed loss associated with repeating signal on the same band.

So... what I want is to basically use one router as a media bridge for the second one, and have only the second one's 5 GHz radio available to clients, the first one's only serving as a backhaul and not visible to clients. Can I do that somehow within AIMesh?

In other words, you want to use a media bridge to connect a wired AiMesh node.

Try it and see if it works.

Recent posts around here have been suggesting wireless AiMesh outperforms media bridge. So, I would perform some before and after speed tests using a PC wired to the AiMesh node to decide if it's worth the extra admin overhead and hardware.

If your node client traffic volume doesn't warrant concern for sharing WiFi with the AiMesh wireless backhaul, using a media bridge may offer no advantage even if it is more capable.

OE
 
Wireless AiMesh is just a smarter Repeater mode. Not particularly good for maximum performance from a network.

What is suggested here is effectively the same thing, but without incurring an additional halving of the throughput.

But, with the Media Bridge and the AiMesh node next to each other, other issues will be present.

This, I would not try to 'make work' as it has been suggested. Not likely to give any increase in performance or any consistent throughput too.

This is contrary to a true Media Bridge mode use. When a router is used to provide network access to two or more 'media' devices such as TV's, receivers/amps, Blu-ray, etc., it works exceptionally well. That is because most devices are only outfitted with 100Mbps Ethernet ports so an 867Mbps or greater connection can be shared effortlessly between them. ;)

And I've tested this a few (okay, many) times. Media equipment works much better wired (or with a router in Media Bridge mode). Even if their Wi-Fi connection is an order of magnitude faster, the network as a whole is more stable when the media equipment is sharing a single AP 'point'.
 
Last edited:
Wireless AiMesh is just a smarter Repeater mode. Not particularly good for maximum performance from a network.

What is suggested here is effectively the same thing, but without incurring an additional halving of the throughput.

But, with the Media Bridge and the AiMesh node next to each other, other issues will be present.

This, I would not try to 'make work' as it has been suggested. Not likely to give any increase in performance or any consistent throughput too.

This is contrary to a true Media Bridge mode use. When a router is used to provide network access to two or more 'media' devices such as TV's, receivers/amps, Blu-ray, etc., it works exceptionally well. That is because most devices are only outfitted with 100Mbps Ethernet ports so an 867Mbps or greater connection can be shared effortlessly between them. ;)

And I've tested this a few (okay, many) times. Media equipment works much better wired (or with a router in Media Bridge mode). Even if their Wi-Fi connection is an order of magnitude faster, the network as a whole is more stable when the media equipment is sharing a single AP 'point'.

But isn't media bridge mode just repeater mode with the backhaul band not shared with clients and the other bands turned off? A potential issue I'm seeing is that the 2 routers will be using the same frequency, but unlike a true dual-band router or a single-band repeater, the receiving and broadcasting won't be "synced" to avoid interference, so they could actually interfere with one another. Unless you set it up as media bridge + AP and then set up the AP channel to be different. But then you're not using AIMesh anymore. And I don't know if that's possible. I could test it, it's just that it would be a lot of work and I won't notice a difference because a single RT-AC68U node already saturates my internet connection even when acting as a repeater. So... this was more of a thought experiment. Maybe I'll just sell that second one.

It would be nice if AIMesh was more configurable. I guess the whole point is that it's not configurable, but it would be nice if I could turn off select radios of the router and nodes or dedicate them as backhaul only (and pick the backhaul band) and even pick channels for APs that are not repeating. Then I could easily do what I want from within AIMesh. Right now, even in repeater mode you can't make the backhaul band invisible to clients.
 
Last edited:
All AP's whether in 'your' network or not, that are operating within overlapping (or identical) bands will be 'in-sync'. They can't be otherwise. That is how Wi-Fi works as a shared medium.

Using a Media Bridge router, wired to an AiMesh node is effectively an AiMesh node with an extra (and expensive) non-essential part in-between. :)

One day, I have no doubt that AiMesh will give us all the options, customizations, and features we can only dream about now. At that point, a configuration like you suggest may provide an improvement with the right tweaks applied.

Today, you can do it manually by using a Media Bridge router connected to a wired router in AP mode. That way, the signal is not repeated, and you can select different Channels as required. I'm not sure how nicely using the same SSID's will work (not well for devices that you need to switch seamlessly between main and any AP's available), but with the correct Control Channel and Channel Widths selected for all routers, the performance of the network will be greater than the current setup you have with a wireless AiMesh configuration.

AiMesh 2.0 proves that configurability is needed and a welcome change from the limited AiMesh 1.0. AiMesh 3+ will bring even more customizations. Particularly needed when every new router sold will be a true tri-radio router too (Wi-Fi 6E), or at least, the ones worth buying will be so. :)
 
All AP's whether in 'your' network or not, that are operating within overlapping (or identical) bands will be 'in-sync'. They can't be otherwise. That is how Wi-Fi works as a shared medium.

Using a Media Bridge router, wired to an AiMesh node is effectively an AiMesh node with an extra (and expensive) non-essential part in-between. :)

One day, I have no doubt that AiMesh will give us all the options, customizations, and features we can only dream about now. At that point, a configuration like you suggest may provide an improvement with the right tweaks applied.

Today, you can do it manually by using a Media Bridge router connected to a wired router in AP mode. That way, the signal is not repeated, and you can select different Channels as required. I'm not sure how nicely using the same SSID's will work (not well for devices that you need to switch seamlessly between main and any AP's available), but with the correct Control Channel and Channel Widths selected for all routers, the performance of the network will be greater than the current setup you have with a wireless AiMesh configuration.

AiMesh 2.0 proves that configurability is needed and a welcome change from the limited AiMesh 1.0. AiMesh 3+ will bring even more customizations. Particularly needed when every new router sold will be a true tri-radio router too (Wi-Fi 6E), or at least, the ones worth buying will be so. :)

Right of course, by "out of sync" I meant causing interference. With a repeater setup, there is no interference between the main router and the repeaters, in fact they have to be on the same channel, in that sense they are "synced" not to interfere with each other. But with the media bridge + AP, I'm not sure that "sync" carries over because you now have the AP transmitting from a different band (in fact a different router) from what the signal was received from. This is why I think it should be on a different channel. And this is why triple-band routers that use a dedicated backhaul band use different channels for the different bands. Is all of this correct?

It's not more expensive, as I mentioned in the first post, I picked up this router for very cheap. About $30. So it's like paying $30 to add a 3x3 ac backhaul band to your router. Pretty good deal, otherwise tri-band routers are hundreds. But I'm guessing this media bridge + AP setup is not as efficient as a single dual 5 GHz band router. I tried it... it worked. But I only have 100 mbps internet and I was already maxing that out with the single RT-AC68U in repeater mode. I could test it with iPerf, but that's gonna be complicated with my setup and I don't care that much, it was just a proof of concept.

I checked out AiMesh 2.0, still in beta it seems. The only difference is that you can see the topology of your nodes/network, and some other data, but doesn't seem to give you any extra control, right?
 
$30 more expensive is still $30 more. While it may be inexpensive for you, it may not be for others.

You've also changed the narrative here. If we're talking a Media Bridge + AP (on different bands), I already stated that was superior.

What you originally asked was for Media Bridge + AiMesh node, which isn't an improvement for the reasons already stated in the posts above.

AiMesh 2.0 does give you extra control. Not the controls you're looking for though.

As for Interference, it may be seen from many perspectives.

A wireless router that is using its radio(s), an AiMesh node, or a 'dumb' Access Point (AP) that needs to be manually setup are all AP's. Including Repeaters and any other terms and modes used to designate a Wi-Fi transmitter in a network.

With a single, isolated, wireless router (or AP), with no other Wi-Fi sources for dozens of miles around, there can be interference from external sources that affect the signal. Airport, Military, Weather, Radar may all affect Wi-Fi even at (seemingly) great distances.

With a wireless router in any normal/dense neighborhood with other AP's around it, Wi-Fi standards demand that all AP's that can 'see' each other, must take turns sharing the airtime available for all.

In the above case, to me, that is also interference vs. what my AP would do on its own. Even though technically, it isn't.

Therefore, it is sometimes also better to be using the same channels as the AP's directly around you (with higher signal strength) than to find the channel(s) that may be less congested but has a neighboring AP that is on the fringe of reception (from your routers perspective). That fringe reception will really slow down the throughput because the router(s)/AP's will be spending so much more time on managing 'who' gets the airtime they're requesting for now.

So, to bring this back to your first paragraph, A repeater setup is causing major interference. It is using half the bandwidth or more, every time it is in actual use.

AP's are synchronized to share (airtime slices), not to, not interfere. If they were allowed to 'interfere' as you're visualizing it, there would be no Wi-Fi possible at all when two or more AP's were within the range of each other's radios.
 
$30 more expensive is still $30 more. While it may be inexpensive for you, it may not be for others.

You've also changed the narrative here. If we're talking a Media Bridge + AP (on different bands), I already stated that was superior.

What you originally asked was for Media Bridge + AiMesh node, which isn't an improvement for the reasons already stated in the posts above.

AiMesh 2.0 does give you extra control. Not the controls you're looking for though.

As for Interference, it may be seen from many perspectives.

A wireless router that is using its radio(s), an AiMesh node, or a 'dumb' Access Point (AP) that needs to be manually setup are all AP's. Including Repeaters and any other terms and modes used to designate a Wi-Fi transmitter in a network.

With a single, isolated, wireless router (or AP), with no other Wi-Fi sources for dozens of miles around, there can be interference from external sources that affect the signal. Airport, Military, Weather, Radar may all affect Wi-Fi even at (seemingly) great distances.

With a wireless router in any normal/dense neighborhood with other AP's around it, Wi-Fi standards demand that all AP's that can 'see' each other, must take turns sharing the airtime available for all.

In the above case, to me, that is also interference vs. what my AP would do on its own. Even though technically, it isn't.

Therefore, it is sometimes also better to be using the same channels as the AP's directly around you (with higher signal strength) than to find the channel(s) that may be less congested but has a neighboring AP that is on the fringe of reception (from your routers perspective). That fringe reception will really slow down the throughput because the router(s)/AP's will be spending so much more time on managing 'who' gets the airtime they're requesting for now.

So, to bring this back to your first paragraph, A repeater setup is causing major interference. It is using half the bandwidth or more, every time it is in actual use.

AP's are synchronized to share (airtime slices), not to, not interfere. If they were allowed to 'interfere' as you're visualizing it, there would be no Wi-Fi possible at all when two or more AP's were within the range of each other's radios.

Thanks for that information!
 

Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest

Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!
Top