4 ms·
I feel like the concept of using different names for each band is like the old habits where people would disable auto-speed negotiation on Ethernet. It used to
by orev 4y ago
I feel like the concept of using different names for each band is like the old habits where people would disable auto-speed negotiation on Ethernet. It used to cause a problem when it first came out, but all of those issues were solved long ago, and yet it has become lore for most network admins. It’s finally going away since 1Gb requires auto-speed, however I have no doubt many would still be disabling it if they could.
Same with the WiFi names. If systems can’t handle auto switching to the correct band, then fix those systems. Devices can easily handle roaming between different APs with the same SSID, and this should be no different.
Edit: I do see the point of doing it if you want to control the band usage, however I think that should be a special case and not considered the “standard” way to do things for regular people.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoI separate them because things often do poor band choosing and things too far from an AP are using 5ghz when they should be picking 2.4 at that range. By separating I can choose which band I want this thing based on the coverage topology. Fwiw I’ve never found band steering to work well. Finally I also selectively put devices into 2.4 just to keep my 5 band clearer.
- yakkityyak 4y agoDevices should have settings to explicitly prefer or only allow certain bands for a given SSID. Again it's a device problem.