How do I force one meshpoint to connect to the other?

  • We have the same problem, we have one of the mesh points connected, and instead of our devices connecting to the router, because that signal is stronger, they connect to the mesh point further away with 10/15% signal. This causes our connected devices to crawl with wifi speeds, and sometimes to lose connection all together. This setup was not cheap, and should be smart enough to connect you to the closes/strongest point. I got a response that said to toggle each device's wifi on and off, til it connects to where I want. Really? Um no.

  • @ubnt-gunars any update please. You originally mentioned this was on the radar for a february release but nothing yet 😞

  • I have a similar situation as the original poster--cable comes into downstairs room on one end of the house and have devices on 2nd floor on other end of the house that needs Wi-Fi service (lesson learned for the next house we build, if ever)

    Just wondering if you've tried setting the band of the furthest mesh point to 2.4 GHz to help with the long journey. Since we can't currently tell a mesh point to favor connecting to another mesh point over the router, that's what I've done and it has worked out pretty well.

    My son happens to have his room in the furthest 2nd floor location, which is serviced by the 2.4 GHz mesh point. He plays online games and broadcasts via Twitch. Since forcing 2.4 GHz, he hasn't complained about any speed or latency issues.

  • Checking back in on this!

  • @bradley-cooke currently the mesh points are still connecting based on the connection algorithm and not selectable. You still have to plug the mesh points in sequence to "trick" them into connecting where you would like.

  • Please Solve the problem. When there's a power cut, everything S off.

    When you have to reboot the whole system, it's disconfigured

  • Having the same issue here. I have two HD routers with an ethernet backbone, and my third router routinely connects to the wrong (further) router instead of the one that's much closer. If I reboot it, it will find the closer one.

  • +1

    This is driving my crazy, one mesh point should connect to the other mesh point (this did actually happen once) and the quality was 100%. What actually happens is that the furthest Mesh Point will connect to the router and not the nearer Mesh point so I get 30% instead.

    No matter in what order I reboot the devices, I cannot get the Mesh point connected together, surely this can't be a massive ask to add this functionality?

  • @giles-eadon Thank you for your suggestion! I will add it to the list of feature requests for future consideration.

  • +1
    Like most users I struggle with this issue as well as a few issues that I feel should have been implemented right out of the gate (DDNS). I have this system installed in an 8000sq ft house, and constantly having to reboot the mesh points, and multiple backhaul routers to "trick" them to connecting to the closest device is a royal PITA, and honestly disappointing for the price that was paid for the products. I'm seriously debating on going back to the couple of Airport Exteme's that I had across the house. They were solid. I was just excited when I saw this product and have been let down sadly...

  • +1 We have 2 offices side by side with the router in the cold room not sure which firmware it changed but we are having the same problem and it affects it enough so that everyone in the next office are bumped to the 2.4 band. To fix it at least for now I just unplug the farthest mesh point and plug back in and it re-connects correctly but I need to do this with each power outage or firmware upgrade. A manual select option would be my vote as well.

  • @amplifi-mpc I have one at my office and at a clients home but have the airport at home still only thing I really want is to see all the clients and airports don't do that. Now you got me wanting to hold off on my purchase.

  • Wow, Glad I read this before I made a purchase. A promise of a fix one year ago and still nothing? that is unacceptable and Ubi should be ashamed. Mesh points should always connect to strongest signal (no brainer) and Ubis " workaround" is laughable and grade school.

  • @andrew-holybee I know its pretty sad to think that I would revert back to older tech in the AE's/Expresses, but I figured that I could eliminate them and get better coverage with the Amplifi setup. I had 8 AE's spread out across the house as well as multiple express plug ins. It wasn't ideal, but it gave me adequate coverage throughout the house. I now have 4 HD Mesh routers (1 with my initial kit w/ 2 mesh points, and 3 separately purchased routers via backhaul) and it works, but I am still having to supplement with the AE's because of the widespread area of my house. For a system that is supposed to cover 10k sqft out of the box with the initial kit, I will say I'm disappointed. And of course at a point where returning everything isn't really an option..

    Not to mention, as Rick mentioned, there have been promises of fixes to correct errors, and they just aren't delivered in a timely fashion.. It's disappointing.

  • I wanted to share with everyone the reasoning behind our decision.

    Currently AmpliFi will choose the uplink node according to a priority table which consists of which uplink node is being used (router or mesh point) and its signal strength. We do this in order to optimize throughput, having the the best signal strength does not always translate to the best throughput.

    Here is an example: If you have the AmpliFi HD kit installed with the router at one end of your home, one mesh point on the same level about 50 ft. away connected at 80% and the second mesh point directly above the first mesh point on the second floor. You Want to connect the second mesh point to the first mesh point because it connects at 95% whereas if it connects to the router it only gets 65%. Well because the connection to the router does not involve a "hop" and the overall performance from the router will always be better than the performance of a mesh point, the second mesh point will deliver better throughput and performance at a 65% connection to the router over the 95% connection to the first mesh point.

    Everyones wireless environment is unique and Wi-Fi performance is heavily influenced by noise and other culprits that signal strength cannot detect. Performance of our products is something we are constantly striving to improve and we truly appreciate everyones involvement and suggestions while we continue to improve our products.

  • Hi @ubnt-brett - are wired Ethernet backhaul mesh points considered as ‘main router equivalent’ in the priority table?

  • @derek-saville great question! Yes they are

  • @ubnt-brett

    I am not sure how you can consider a point that keeps losing a connection "better". Ergo, your explanation is flawed, and does not live up to advertising promises.

    "If placing the AmpliFi router near the center of the home is not possible, "daisy chaining" is the next best solution. That means that the signal will jump from one mesh point to the next."

    Again deceptive advertising. And having your main Internet drop at one end of the house (as opposed to the middle of the house) is most common installation in homes. The whole concept of mesh points is to make running cable through your house not necessary. And your explanation does not make sense to me, while "hops" should add latency, throughput should be better on the farthest away mesh point first hoping to the closer mesh point, then to the main router than connecting to the main router and skipping the intermediate mesh point (in a weak signal situation). Quite often you will lose connection altogether with your algorithm.

    One has to start to wonder, even if installed with the base unit in the middle of the home, how often the mesh points are even being used with your algorithm, or just skipped altogether and are connecting to the main unit. It seems to suggest one is much better of with a base router with a much better range than a mesh system at all.. It seems the end user should at least be able to force connection and test for himself which works better and not be subjected to a "we know better" approach.

  • Hi @rick-owen - this blog post from 2016 explained their mesh philosophy and the Quick Start Guides have always stated "Mesh multi-hop should only be used when necessary as performance will degrade with each hop."
    Since AmpliFi does not use dedicated back-haul radios, throughput will always be reduced going through wireless hops.

    So prioritizing throughput over signal strength sure seems like the right algorithm for the AmpliFi mesh system

  • @derek-saville

    That's only assuming that the algorithm always gets it right, which I highly doubt. Only way to confirm this is by testing, which cannot be done, because the firmware doesn't give us that option. Signal strength is rarely a constant. Disconnects themselves prove the algorithm is flawed, when a disconnect would never happen in a strongest signal multi-hop scenario. Tell a grandmother who is watching her grandchilds first steps via facetime/video call that gets disconnected because she is connected to the weaker signal point dictated by this algorithm not to worry, because 70% of the time the she will have more throughput. Ignore the fact that while in a dedicated multi-hop mode the throughput while slightly less, would have been suffice to hold that call (no disconnect). The point of the matter it should be up to us to test and decide which is better, higher throughput with disconnects, or slightly less throughput with no disconnects.

Log in to reply