1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice

Welcome To SNBForums

SNBForums is a community for anyone who wants to learn about or discuss the latest in wireless routers, network storage and the ins and outs of building and maintaining a small network.

If you'd like to post a question, simply register and have at it!

While you're at it, please check out SmallNetBuilder for product reviews and our famous Router Charts, Ranker and plenty more!

Synology RT2600ac Router Reviewed

Discussion in 'Wireless Article Discussions' started by thiggins, Feb 8, 2017.

  1. Wutikorn

    Wutikorn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2015
    Messages:
    431
    Location:
    Thailand
    Charts only show router tested with the latest test revision. RT2600AC was tested with older test revision, so it is not showing in the current chart. You should be able to find it if you select older tests.
     
  2. Dave in NM

    Dave in NM Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Any chance it can be added to current version 10, so we can see where it falls.
     
  3. janthony6

    janthony6 Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    68
    I just tried the 86U after using an R9000 on Voxel's firmware.

    The Asus 86u has dreadful wired and wifi performance in comparison. On the R9000 I was getting 950/950 regularly on speedtest. On the 86U, the best I'd see is around 500...a couple of times it got up to 700. My R9000 gets me 500 on wifi. The 86u could barely do 300. I also couldn't stand the fact that it won't pull native ipv6. I had to enter my ipv6 details in as static while the Netgear pulled it easily.

    I ordered the Synology to test it out tomorrow since it's wifi chip is the same as the R9000 and the R7800 - both have shown great results in all my tests and work well. I guess I'm just checking to see if I can find something better. The R9000 has the best CPU of the bunch so it definitely has an advantage there. Software wise, I'm interested to see what SRM can do. Definitely will never use ASUS again. Their firmware is more than ridiculous.
     
  4. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,916
    I have no plans to retest it.
     
  5. Dave in NM

    Dave in NM Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Thx. Sold, onto Orbi. And I'm loving this RBK50.
     
  6. sfx2000

    sfx2000 Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    14,156
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    SRM 1.2 has added quite a few more features - 160 and 80+80 support, WPA3, and more Mesh Point - all thanks to updates from the Qualcomm-Atheros QSDK...

    If time and resources permit, might be worth a second look.

    I have one under test right now, and this is shaping up to be a really nice Small Business Class Router/AP...

    Code:
    BSS 00:11:32:aa:bb:cc(on wlan0)
        last seen: 364115.402s [boottime]
        TSF: 505033201 usec (0d, 00:08:25)
        freq: 5320
        beacon interval: 100 TUs
        capability: ESS Privacy SpectrumMgmt ShortSlotTime RadioMeasure (0x1511)
        signal: -25.00 dBm
        last seen: 0 ms ago
        Information elements from Probe Response frame:
        SSID: SynoRT2600_SRM12_Test
        Supported rates: 6.0* 9.0 12.0* 18.0 24.0* 36.0 48.0 54.0
        DS Parameter set: channel 64
        Country: US    Environment: Indoor/Outdoor
            Channels [36 - 36] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [40 - 40] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [44 - 44] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [48 - 48] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [52 - 52] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [56 - 56] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [60 - 60] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [64 - 64] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [100 - 100] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [104 - 104] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [108 - 108] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [112 - 112] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [116 - 116] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [132 - 132] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [136 - 136] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [140 - 140] @ 24 dBm
            Channels [149 - 149] @ 30 dBm
            Channels [153 - 153] @ 30 dBm
            Channels [157 - 157] @ 30 dBm
            Channels [161 - 161] @ 30 dBm
            Channels [165 - 165] @ 30 dBm
        Power constraint: 3 dB
        HT capabilities:
            Capabilities: 0x9ef
                RX LDPC
                HT20/HT40
                SM Power Save disabled
                RX HT20 SGI
                RX HT40 SGI
                TX STBC
                RX STBC 1-stream
                Max AMSDU length: 7935 bytes
                No DSSS/CCK HT40
            Maximum RX AMPDU length 65535 bytes (exponent: 0x003)
            Minimum RX AMPDU time spacing: No restriction (0x00)
            HT TX/RX MCS rate indexes supported: 0-31
        HT operation:
            * primary channel: 64
            * secondary channel offset: below
            * STA channel width: any
            * RIFS: 0
            * HT protection: no
            * non-GF present: 0
            * OBSS non-GF present: 0
            * dual beacon: 0
            * dual CTS protection: 0
            * STBC beacon: 0
            * L-SIG TXOP Prot: 0
            * PCO active: 0
            * PCO phase: 0
        Overlapping BSS scan params:
            * passive dwell: 20 TUs
            * active dwell: 10 TUs
            * channel width trigger scan interval: 300 s
            * scan passive total per channel: 200 TUs
            * scan active total per channel: 20 TUs
            * BSS width channel transition delay factor: 5
            * OBSS Scan Activity Threshold: 0.25 %
        Extended capabilities:
            * HT Information Exchange Supported
            * Extended Channel Switching
            * TFS
            * WNM-Sleep Mode
            * TIM Broadcast
            * BSS Transition
            * SSID List
            * Operating Mode Notification
            * Max Number Of MSDUs In A-MSDU is unlimited
        VHT capabilities:
            VHT Capabilities (0x338b79f6):
                Max MPDU length: 11454
                Supported Channel Width: 160 MHz
                RX LDPC
                short GI (80 MHz)
                short GI (160/80+80 MHz)
                TX STBC
                SU Beamformer
                SU Beamformee
                MU Beamformer
                RX antenna pattern consistency
                TX antenna pattern consistency
            VHT RX MCS set:
                1 streams: MCS 0-9
                2 streams: MCS 0-9
                3 streams: MCS 0-9
                4 streams: MCS 0-9
                5 streams: not supported
                6 streams: not supported
                7 streams: not supported
                8 streams: not supported
            VHT RX highest supported: 0 Mbps
            VHT TX MCS set:
                1 streams: MCS 0-9
                2 streams: MCS 0-9
                3 streams: MCS 0-9
                4 streams: MCS 0-9
                5 streams: not supported
                6 streams: not supported
                7 streams: not supported
                8 streams: not supported
            VHT TX highest supported: 0 Mbps
        VHT operation:
            * channel width: 1 (80 MHz)
            * center freq segment 1: 58
            * center freq segment 2: 50
            * VHT basic MCS set: 0xfffc
        WMM:    * Parameter version 1
            * u-APSD
            * BE: CW 15-1023, AIFSN 3
            * BK: CW 15-1023, AIFSN 7
            * VI: CW 7-15, AIFSN 2, TXOP 3008 usec
            * VO: CW 3-7, AIFSN 2, TXOP 1504 usec
        RSN:    * Version: 1
            * Group cipher: CCMP
            * Pairwise ciphers: CCMP
            * Authentication suites: PSK 00-0f-ac:8
            * Capabilities: 16-PTKSA-RC 1-GTKSA-RC MFP-capable (0x008c)
    
     
    L&LD likes this.
  7. L&LD

    L&LD Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2013
    Messages:
    9,651
    sfx2000, the dBm numbers are interesting to me. As is the RT2600AC too.

    Is 24dBm better than 30dBm (should they be -24dBM, in other words)?

    If so, this seems to fall in line with my experience that for most of my router installations, the lower bands are much preferred.

    Or, am I reading those values incorrectly?
     
  8. sfx2000

    sfx2000 Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    14,156
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    30 dBm would be better in this case - but this is typical post FCC...

    Older devices were limited to 17 dBm - so while the new limits are 30, 24 is a nice place to be considering legacy clients in the UNII-1/UNII-2 bands to keep links balanced.

    Syno is using Qualcomm's QSDK, and they've done the hard work here - and based on my experience working across Wimax, 3g/4g, and Wifi, the numbers look ok.
     
    L&LD likes this.
  9. L&LD

    L&LD Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2013
    Messages:
    9,651
    Thanks, sfx2000,

    I'm assuming though that the lower Control Channels (36 to 48, here) still have more 'penetration' than the higher (149 to 165) Control Channels though. Correct?

    Even though the higher channels have 6 dBm more raw signal?
     
  10. sfx2000

    sfx2000 Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    14,156
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Note the DFS support in the capture above - some clients will not do DFS, as they didn't do the FCC/EU cert testing there....

    Asus USB devices stick out - not sure why, as the firmware in those devices _can_ do it, but can be redlined out - again, regulatory stuff...

    Buffalo 11n - they typically don't do UNII-3, long story there with Japan certs..
     
    L&LD likes this.
  11. sfx2000

    sfx2000 Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    14,156
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    UNII-3 band is likely going to give better overall - but that's a battle with noise in the channel - but that affects all vendors, and we're starting to get off-topic.

    The interesting stuff with RT2600ac is the DFS and 160MHz support in 5GHz, along with WPA3 and WPA2/3 coexistence...

    MU and the Mesh support is a bonus I suppose... but one gets that with QSDK in any event with the current IPQ series chipsets.
     
    L&LD likes this.
  12. dlarkin_dc

    dlarkin_dc New Around Here

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    From the test/review... "The Synology scored slightly higher on the functional test but had one serious test failure, i.e. one of the firewall tests found port 80 open to the WAN side."

    I didn't find this resolved or mentioned in any of the Synology firmware updates, and I did my best to scroll through this forums and didn't see any follow up mention of it. It sounds like a feature that is in the Synology NAS firmware for hosting websites.

    Can any of the rt2600ac users here chime in... is this still an issue in current firmware,or an option that can be disabled?

    Dave
     
  13. Dave in NM

    Dave in NM Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    I must be crazy but i bought this router again yesterday (sold my initial one a while back) to go along with my three MR2200ac routers.
     
  14. dlarkin_dc

    dlarkin_dc New Around Here

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Dave, not crazy at all. They seem like amazing hardware, just what I need. I'm very used DSM on the NASs, but the home grown DSM-lite Tomato-clone with an open WAN-side port, and it's port 80... I feel like some assurance is needed when the WRT R7800 is my other choice.

    How reliable have you found the rt2600ac... like uptimes, any snags you've run into?
     
  15. Dave in NM

    Dave in NM Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Well the 7800 is a great device.
    Actually, I've found the Synology 2600ac super-reliable and solid, a cut above ASUS and Netgear (though that's not saying much). We'll see next week how this new one works out, the SRM software is more mature than when I had it originally.
     
  16. RogerSC

    RogerSC Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,272
    I've considered switching to the Synology mesh hardware, but from what I see of it, not designed for living areas. I don't want something that looks like that in my living room or bedroom. Sounds weird, but the low-profile nodes for the mesh that I have now just sit the same table that the TV's are on. The Synology nodes couldn't do that, no place to hide them in our living areas. Wife acceptance factor = 0 *smile*, and not too happy with them myself. When Synology designs a low-profile node that fits in with a normal room (not a computer room *smile*), I'll be there. Not quite sure what they were thinking when they went that way, pretty unique among the mesh designs that I've seen.

    Meanwhile, our current mesh serves our needs. I do like to play with new stuff, though *smile*...just waiting on Synology for this one.
     
  17. Dave in NM

    Dave in NM Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    I love the size of the mr2200ac mesh nodes, they looks like small routers. But yep they are not "pucks". But the last thing I want is a google listening devices in my house.
     
  18. dlarkin_dc

    dlarkin_dc New Around Here

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    They certainly do not have living space styling!
     
  19. Dave in NM

    Dave in NM Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Depends how techy you are. For my house, we like seeing them around.