Mesh, access points, or both?
Discussion
Good to know there may be some deals in the offing, so I'll wait until Prime Day.
I've set up the TP Link AC1200 as a separate 2.4ghz only, and set all the lounge smart devices to use it. See how that goes while I wait for a deal.
One good feature of the BT setup is that it shows the signal strength from each device. Surprised that the TP Link AP doesn't do that.
I've set up the TP Link AC1200 as a separate 2.4ghz only, and set all the lounge smart devices to use it. See how that goes while I wait for a deal.
One good feature of the BT setup is that it shows the signal strength from each device. Surprised that the TP Link AP doesn't do that.
For some reason the Ring doorbell doesn't show up as a client on the TP Link net admin page?
Definitely connected and working, and it shows up on the BT router. Used to show on the BT Wholehome app when it was connected that way.
Having connected it to the TP Link access point (different SSID to the Wholehome mesh), it's not showing. All the other smart devices are showing OK.
Definitely connected and working, and it shows up on the BT router. Used to show on the BT Wholehome app when it was connected that way.
Having connected it to the TP Link access point (different SSID to the Wholehome mesh), it's not showing. All the other smart devices are showing OK.
Just for clarity most mesh systems do little in deciding where devices connect, that is in the control of the device.
Some exceptions are limit device to a node where node devices have exclusion lists where devices are prevented from attaching.
Some of the more expensive options have some ssid signal strength limits, when below a set figure it will disconnect a client forcing it to register elsewhere, however it’s a blunt implementation as if despite being weak if it’s the only node in range it’s still better than nothing.
I believe that 6e & 7 have some advantages but haven’t followed these up.
You would be as good as you’ve said to host separate 2.4GHz channels on separate channels on each device and locking the devices to each ap as needed.
Are you running the ap app or Omada on your pc?
I suspect you’ll find significantly more options via the Omada option.
Some exceptions are limit device to a node where node devices have exclusion lists where devices are prevented from attaching.
Some of the more expensive options have some ssid signal strength limits, when below a set figure it will disconnect a client forcing it to register elsewhere, however it’s a blunt implementation as if despite being weak if it’s the only node in range it’s still better than nothing.
I believe that 6e & 7 have some advantages but haven’t followed these up.
You would be as good as you’ve said to host separate 2.4GHz channels on separate channels on each device and locking the devices to each ap as needed.
Are you running the ap app or Omada on your pc?
I suspect you’ll find significantly more options via the Omada option.
Edited by Captain_Morgan on Friday 28th June 07:48
Another thing you should be considering is security, many of these IoT devices have poor security with 'Chinese' cloud servers etc, all on the same network as your computers and personal devices.
All my IoT devices are on their own isolated VLAN, they cannot access the main home network.
All my IoT devices are on their own isolated VLAN, they cannot access the main home network.
I'm using the browser on a tablet to access the AP via "tplinkap.net/".
This seems to be very flaky. I've got 7 smart bulbs and the Ring camera connected via the TP Link AP, as well as the tablet.
This morning, only the tablet and 2 of the smart bulbs are showing up as clients.
Everything is working via the "smart life" app, and via Alexa voice commands, just not showing up TP Link admin page.
This seems to be very flaky. I've got 7 smart bulbs and the Ring camera connected via the TP Link AP, as well as the tablet.
This morning, only the tablet and 2 of the smart bulbs are showing up as clients.
Everything is working via the "smart life" app, and via Alexa voice commands, just not showing up TP Link admin page.
Wi-Fi isn't a great solution for smart home stuff really. It was never really designed to support a high number of devices sending small amounts of data.
Have you looked at Zigbee or Z-Wave which are more commonly used networks for smart home stuff? They were designed specifically for it so support loads of devices, and they also avoid the massive security issues with using Wi-Fi for IoT devices as mentioned above.
Or the latest alternative to those is Matter, which is still relatively new but is intended to become the standard communication method for all smart home devices. It might be that some of your devices already support Matter, so maybe you could get a Matter hub and connect any devices that support it to that instead, which would ease the load on your Wi-Fi.
Have you looked at Zigbee or Z-Wave which are more commonly used networks for smart home stuff? They were designed specifically for it so support loads of devices, and they also avoid the massive security issues with using Wi-Fi for IoT devices as mentioned above.
Or the latest alternative to those is Matter, which is still relatively new but is intended to become the standard communication method for all smart home devices. It might be that some of your devices already support Matter, so maybe you could get a Matter hub and connect any devices that support it to that instead, which would ease the load on your Wi-Fi.
The "problem" with zigbee, matter, etc. is the extra cost. A simple wifi smart bulb costs about £6. Zigbee, 2 or 3 times the price. You also need hubs.
I'm also put off by propriety systems possibly becoming obsolete. I believe this has already happened with Hive.
Matter could be a good solution, if it becomes a widely adopted standard, but doesn't it use normal wifi?
For cameras and doorbells, security could be an issue. Probably not for table lamps and downlighters though?
I'm also put off by propriety systems possibly becoming obsolete. I believe this has already happened with Hive.
Matter could be a good solution, if it becomes a widely adopted standard, but doesn't it use normal wifi?
For cameras and doorbells, security could be an issue. Probably not for table lamps and downlighters though?
durbster said:
Wi-Fi isn't a great solution for smart home stuff really. It was never really designed to support a high number of devices sending small amounts of data.
What? It's just normal network traffic running over the air rather than wires. The protocol was designed for any number of devices sending any amount of data. If IoT stuff isn't working properly, it's not because it's using IP over WiFi. Matter operates IP over WiFi too, or ethernet too.
clockworks said:
The "problem" with zigbee, matter, etc. is the extra cost. A simple wifi smart bulb costs about £6. Zigbee, 2 or 3 times the price. You also need hubs.
True, they are more expensive but you can run it all from a single hub. They use quite a bit less power than WiFi devices too, so you get a bit of that cost back over time.clockworks said:
I'm also put off by propriety systems possibly becoming obsolete. I believe this has already happened with Hive.
I'm all in on Home Assistant so this isn't an issue but you're right, that is a risk although I'd argue that's no less true of WiFi devices.clockworks said:
Matter could be a good solution, if it becomes a widely adopted standard, but doesn't it use normal wifi?
For higher-demand stuff, yeah, but Matter has its own protocol called Thread for low powered devices - https://www.theverge.com/23165855/thread-smart-hom...clockworks said:
For cameras and doorbells, security could be an issue. Probably not for table lamps and downlighters though?
I think pretty much anything connected to the internet is a possible risk. Light bulbs have certainly been hacked (one good reason to avoid those £6 ones!): https://cybersecuritynews.com/smart-bulbs-hacked/Edited by durbster on Friday 28th June 12:51
paulrockliffe said:
durbster said:
Wi-Fi isn't a great solution for smart home stuff really. It was never really designed to support a high number of devices sending small amounts of data.
What? It's just normal network traffic running over the air rather than wires. The protocol was designed for any number of devices sending any amount of data. If IoT stuff isn't working properly, it's not because it's using IP over WiFi. Matter operates IP over WiFi too, or ethernet too.
It sounds like in the OP's case at least, if they were using Zigbee rather than WiFi they wouldn't be having these range issues.
clockworks said:
As for hacking lightbulbs, surely the hacker would either need to be within bluetooth range to access the bulb as a new/reset device, or already have the app or wifi passwords
All devices like this are usually wide open, they connect to odd IPs on the Internet and can easily map your wifi, a hacker doesn't need to know your password or be within bluetooth range. But as it has Bluetooth, that's another vulnerability.Hence why it's a good idea to do as above and put them on a vLan.
I've looked at the IEEE spec (again) and cannot find this paragraph
durbster said:
Yeah the protocol works fine but it just doesn't suit smart home stuff. WiFi is for shifting relatively large amounts of data as fast as possible, and neither of those things apply here so you end up with all the downsides without much benefit.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff