Wi-Fi 7 Multi Link Operation (MLO) discussion
- Thread starter thiggins
- Start date
sfx2000
Part of the Furniture
At the end of the day - 11be will be like 11ax and 11ac... a subset of features that win on the cost/benefit scale...
I don't know many people that are willing to spend $300USD or more on a wifi router - did the reseach, been there, done that...
Increments - it's all good, but complexity equals cost, so the vendors will find the best middle path.
There's a lot of things in the specs for 11n/11ac/11ax that were never actually deployed...
Recall that the representatives in the 802.11 working groups - it's to their advantage to keep things going, otherwise they would be sitting on skid-row...
I don't know many people that are willing to spend $300USD or more on a wifi router - did the reseach, been there, done that...
Increments - it's all good, but complexity equals cost, so the vendors will find the best middle path.
There's a lot of things in the specs for 11n/11ac/11ax that were never actually deployed...
Recall that the representatives in the 802.11 working groups - it's to their advantage to keep things going, otherwise they would be sitting on skid-row...
Enough do that it’s a billion dollar market in 2023. All of the Wifi 7 routers have been selling out constantly since April.
TP-Link can’t ship them over fast enough, and I think their ASP is around $400 a pop.
Perhaps the communication breakdown centers on whether "MLO" means "multiple link operation" or "yet-to-be-ratified-Wifi-7-specific-implementation(s) of MULTIPLE LINK OPERATION". Using more than one link simultaneously /is/ multiple link operation. (One can readily do this with wires and fibers, too.) I don't believe the discussion, at this point, ever went beyond the general sense of it, unless it was until you started wanting it to be something either different or more specific.
Some more of my unantagonistically-inspired thoughts on the matter...
L&LD
Part of the Furniture
@thiggins, thank you for that link (even if it's from early 2022).
My 'authoritative sources' are logic and already defined terms regarding WiFi. And my insistence on not conflating cellular network 'similarities' with WiFi, and specifically, WiFi 7.
I will not be providing those authoritative sources, life's too short. Search is free for all.
It is not my misunderstanding that using an additional link (SSID, radio, etc.) in addition to another isn't going to affect one band's 'channel 100'.
I can't force Qbcd to learn anything here. But I can try to help him by proving his logic is faulty when he shows it to be so.
My 'authoritative sources' are logic and already defined terms regarding WiFi. And my insistence on not conflating cellular network 'similarities' with WiFi, and specifically, WiFi 7.
I will not be providing those authoritative sources, life's too short. Search is free for all.
It is not my misunderstanding that using an additional link (SSID, radio, etc.) in addition to another isn't going to affect one band's 'channel 100'.
I can't force Qbcd to learn anything here. But I can try to help him by proving his logic is faulty when he shows it to be so.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll confess I'm too uninspired to trace my way back to the context so I'll merely go by recollection here. While following the discussion /I/ did not gather it was being even /implied/ that any different bands' channels would be aggregated _within_ /any/ specific channel or band. I feel that must've been an assumption on your part.
Also, I understood the "pollution" wasn't being attributed to any (other) channel-as-MLO-member, rather the "whatever-aggregate-/capability/" would be dragged down as a whole. I can't say whether I would've expressed the notion any more succinctly, but I completely understood the meaning and found it fairly represented. Which is kind of why my empuzzlement by your end of the interaction. You're correct in what you're saying, in my estimation, but the specific subtle points you've made were really made /against/ notions which hadn't been expressed, if that make sense.
Words fail me to describe the arrogance of those statements.
Yes, life is too short. Unfortunately, I have to moderate these forums, so can’t use the Ignore button as many others have done.
L&LD
Part of the Furniture
I'm sorry you see as arrogance what I see as simple logic. The ignore button is not a feature I use.
@glens, I put a lot of time into quoting each point I've made and also quoted each of Qbcd's responses. I don't know why they were deleted from my post. They made my point that logic is what is failing with the other person's responses.
When talking about a specific industry, the proper terminology should be used. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.
I'm not the only one trying to help Qbcd understand (Jansen3 tried also).
See the quotes below to see how confused our friend is here. The meaning is clear to me; he really believes that WiFi MLO is somehow equivalent to cellular behavior). It isn't.
@glens, I put a lot of time into quoting each point I've made and also quoted each of Qbcd's responses. I don't know why they were deleted from my post. They made my point that logic is what is failing with the other person's responses.
When talking about a specific industry, the proper terminology should be used. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.
I'm not the only one trying to help Qbcd understand (Jansen3 tried also).
See the quotes below to see how confused our friend is here. The meaning is clear to me; he really believes that WiFi MLO is somehow equivalent to cellular behavior). It isn't.
You’re asserting your opinion as facts. Stating that your opinion is logic and common sense implies that everyone else is an idiot.
In the real world, people cite other sources to back up their assertions. They don’t cite themselves as experts.
“Qualcomm’s Vice President and General Manager of Mobile and Compute Connectivity Dino Bekis referred to multi-link capability as one of the core aspects of Wi-Fi 7 and suggested thinking of multi-link for Wi-Fi 7 as similar to how channel aggregation works in cellular networks.”
What is high-band multi-link for Wi-Fi 7?
Qualcomm’s VP and GM of Mobile and Compute Connectivity Dino Bekis referred to multi-link capability as one of the core aspects of Wi-Fi 7.
www.rcrwireless.com
I guess the guy in charge of Wi-Fi 7 at Qualcomm is wrong then.
Please save your condescension for those who choose to put up with it.
Broken Hope
Regular Contributor
Not sure how anyone could see it as anything else, it's combining multiple frequencies to increase bandwidth.“Qualcomm’s Vice President and General Manager of Mobile and Compute Connectivity Dino Bekis referred to multi-link capability as one of the core aspects of Wi-Fi 7 and suggested thinking of multi-link for Wi-Fi 7 as similar to how channel aggregation works in cellular networks.”
What is high-band multi-link for Wi-Fi 7?
Qualcomm’s VP and GM of Mobile and Compute Connectivity Dino Bekis referred to multi-link capability as one of the core aspects of Wi-Fi 7.
I guess the guy in charge of Wi-Fi 7 at Qualcomm is wrong then.
L&LD
Part of the Furniture
It's not combining multiple frequencies to increase bandwidth. It's combining multiple links to increase bandwidth which is a huge difference. Did no one else see the video @thiggins provided? Each link/connection is still discrete. They are simply connected concurrently (in a few different and distinct ways) and used as much as possible.
While Qualcomm's vice president may have said that, that is not how it actually works. Qbcd said effectively the same thing which is what I'm trying to correct him on. Yes, 'the guy in charge of WiFi 7 at Qualcomm' is wrong, if that is what he said.
It may be easier for a layperson to understand that WiFi 7 is 'like' cellular. But it isn't, in practice.
@thiggins, I don't understand how or why you're using "condescension" here toward me. Even when I attempt to apologize and present my understanding, I'm wrong?
Has anyone viewed the video in full above that thiggins provided the link for? It is very clear WiFi 7 is not like a cellular network, at all.
It's not my opinion. This is a fact. The proof is in the video above. For those who need proof above what an individual may state based on knowledge and logic (and without having seen that video previously, but have read about WiFi 7 on other media).
This isn't debatable. And I'm not debating. I'm providing facts and people just refuse to accept them. Even when I try to explain them as simply as possible.
While Qualcomm's vice president may have said that, that is not how it actually works. Qbcd said effectively the same thing which is what I'm trying to correct him on. Yes, 'the guy in charge of WiFi 7 at Qualcomm' is wrong, if that is what he said.
It may be easier for a layperson to understand that WiFi 7 is 'like' cellular. But it isn't, in practice.
@thiggins, I don't understand how or why you're using "condescension" here toward me. Even when I attempt to apologize and present my understanding, I'm wrong?
Has anyone viewed the video in full above that thiggins provided the link for? It is very clear WiFi 7 is not like a cellular network, at all.
It's not my opinion. This is a fact. The proof is in the video above. For those who need proof above what an individual may state based on knowledge and logic (and without having seen that video previously, but have read about WiFi 7 on other media).
This isn't debatable. And I'm not debating. I'm providing facts and people just refuse to accept them. Even when I try to explain them as simply as possible.
d5aqoep
Regular Contributor
TP-Link has not enabled MLO for BE900 which is their top-tier full fledged router. They simply don't mention that it supports MLO on it's product page
www.tp-link.com
Compare that to BE800 product page below which explicitly mentions MLO being part of the specs.
www.tp-link.com
Since the Wifi7 specs were finalised few days ago, TP-Link advertising BE900 as Wifi7 router without the crucial MLO support is blatant false advertising. I wrote to TP-Link support regarding this and their reply was, your concern has been forwarded to the firmware team. That's it nothing else. My BE900 doesn't even connect to Apple Wifi6e devices on 6Ghz band. The band is visible for few minutes after router has booted and then just disappears. I thought it was hardware issue but replacement router also has same issue.
Apple specifically wants 2.4Ghz + 5Ghz + 6Ghz bands to be combined as per stated here
support.apple.com
But BE900 can't even combine those bands. It can combine just 2..4Ghz and 5Ghz.
So this MLO post has turned into a full blown rant against TP-Link BE900. What's worse, I have 2 of them as they are advertised as EasyMesh compatible and they can't even Mesh 5Ghz and 6Ghz bands separately. They remain orphaned on nodes with no security applied so anyone can just join them. TP-Link support asked me to use the second BE900 as a dumb access point with it's own wireless network.
In short, don't buy this bullcrap router until and unless they release MLO firmware, allow https cert upload for ddns, support EasyMesh on all bands and allow 2.5Gbps speed on it's SFP port.
BE24000 Quad-Band Wi-Fi 7 Router
Archer BE900 is our fastest Wi-Fi 7 router to data. Up to 24 Gbps quad-band Wi-Fi enables your devices to run at full speed. Equipped with two 10G WAN/LAN ports—one RJ45 port and an RJ45/SFP+ combo port—Archer BE900 provides flexible support for both fiber and copper connections.
Compare that to BE800 product page below which explicitly mentions MLO being part of the specs.
BE19000 Tri-Band Wi-Fi 7 Router
Archer BE800 is an innovative WiFi router with a brand-new design. Up to 19 Gbps tri-band Wi-Fi enables your devices to run at full speed. Equipped with two 10G WAN/LAN ports—one RJ45 port and an RJ45/SFP+ combo port—Archer BE800 provides flexible support for both fiber and copper connections.
Since the Wifi7 specs were finalised few days ago, TP-Link advertising BE900 as Wifi7 router without the crucial MLO support is blatant false advertising. I wrote to TP-Link support regarding this and their reply was, your concern has been forwarded to the firmware team. That's it nothing else. My BE900 doesn't even connect to Apple Wifi6e devices on 6Ghz band. The band is visible for few minutes after router has booted and then just disappears. I thought it was hardware issue but replacement router also has same issue.
Apple specifically wants 2.4Ghz + 5Ghz + 6Ghz bands to be combined as per stated here
Use Wi-Fi 6E networks with Apple devices
Wi-Fi 6E uses the 6 GHz wireless band to enable faster and more reliable wireless connections on supported devices. Here's how to get the best wireless performance when using Wi-Fi 6E with an Apple device.
But BE900 can't even combine those bands. It can combine just 2..4Ghz and 5Ghz.
So this MLO post has turned into a full blown rant against TP-Link BE900. What's worse, I have 2 of them as they are advertised as EasyMesh compatible and they can't even Mesh 5Ghz and 6Ghz bands separately. They remain orphaned on nodes with no security applied so anyone can just join them. TP-Link support asked me to use the second BE900 as a dumb access point with it's own wireless network.
In short, don't buy this bullcrap router until and unless they release MLO firmware, allow https cert upload for ddns, support EasyMesh on all bands and allow 2.5Gbps speed on it's SFP port.
Similar threads
