To Disable the Backhaul Channel on The 5464

[Billx]

To TalkTalk,

Is there a possibility of disabling the 5GHz Backhaul Channel on The Sagemcom 5464?

I think it could be causing some havoc in the reception of the Main 5GHz Channel.

It appears to be using the same frequency and band.

It seems to be increasing and decreasing its strength randomly, whereas the Main Channel is more stable.

I also noticed that the Backhaul Channel supports 'WPS', which I have been advised is not secure.

I believe the Backhaul Channel could be used if a user wants to set up a mesh network.

I am currently not interested in that, as these have not yet been proved to work properly.

Besides most users have only a few devices, and don't need a mesh network.

So, can you please disable the 5GHz Backhaul Channel?

Thanks

Bill

[Debbie-TalkTalk]

Hi Bill

I will feed this back to our Devices Team.

Thanks

[Billx]

I was just hoping @Debbie-TalkTalk . Because the Device Team might be doing a firmware revision soon.

Pass the message if you can.

Bill

[Debbie-TalkTalk]

Hi Bill

We can't disable the 5GHz Backhaul Channel.

[Billx]

This is not about 'WIFI optimisation', @Debbie-TalkTalk 

And also, your Devices Team are wrong to ask you not to switch off wifi optimisation. Because 'wifi optimisation' is not clever enough, to do what it is supposed to do.

Bill

[Debbie-TalkTalk]

Hi Billx

Our Devices Team have asked us not to switch off wifi optimisation.

"So, can TalkTalk please disable the 5GHz Backhaul Channel?"

We can't do this sorry.

[KeithFrench]

Please see TalkTalk's reply by @Debbie-TalkTalk.

In post #2 it was clearly stated that the backhaul network cannot be disabled.

[Billx]

Let me repeat my original request on ‎26-04-2024:

---

To TalkTalk,

Is there a possibility of disabling the 5GHz Backhaul Channel on The Sagemcom 5464?

I think it could be causing some havoc in the reception of the Main 5GHz Channel.

It appears to be using the same frequency and band.

It seems to be increasing and decreasing its strength randomly, whereas the Main Channel is more stable.

I also noticed that the Backhaul Channel supports 'WPS', which I have been advised is not secure.

I believe the Backhaul Channel could be used if a user wants to set up a mesh network.

I am currently not interested in that, as these have not yet been proved to work properly.

Besides most users have only a few devices, and don't need a mesh network.

So, can you please disable the 5GHz Backhaul Channel?

---

It has already been established that the backhaul hidden SSID on the 5464, is needed if a customer wants to convert it to a mesh network with the Sagemcom FAST 266 WiFi Booster.

As I stated above, I am not interested in a mesh network and most customers aren't either, as these mesh systems have not yet been proved to work properly. Besides most users have only a few devices, and don't need a mesh network. Even if a customer needs a mesh network, he will most likely use a different mesh system, than the Sagemcom FAST 266 WiFi Booster. Therefore, the backhaul hidden 5Ghz SSID in the 5464 will most probably nearly always remain in the the router as a nuisance.

So, can TalkTalk please disable the 5GHz Backhaul Channel?

[KeithFrench]

Yes, that is exactly what I always do with WPS, I never leave it enabled. So are you happy now?

[Billx]

So it seems you are advocating

Enabling WPS in the 5464 router

Quickly connecting the 266 via WPS

Then returning to the router, and quickly disabling WPS in router.

Doesn't sound good to me.

[Billx]

I might have considered the 266, but now you are saying that it requires WPS to connect. No way.

I was able to connect to the 5GHz Backhaul Channel, with my usual PC, instead of the 5GHz Main Channel . I didn't need a 266, to connect  to 5GHz Backhaul Channel. It doesn't matter to the Windows PC whether it connects to the 5GHz Main Channel or to the 5GHz Backhaul Channel. It behaves exactly the same. So they must be on the exact same frequency.

[KeithFrench]

I know you don't want a 266, which I have to state that I know you don't, this concerns WPS.

To connect a 266 to the 5464 requires use of the WPS facility. If you disable WPS in the UI, which I always do, it is impossible to initiate WPS. Bearing in mind that the only client that can connect to the backhaul, is a 266, what is the problem?

As you won't disclose the WiFi analyser, then I think this thread should be closed now.

[Billx]

Apart from me not naming the analyzer, which you hadn't asked me to name, you didn't refer to my other very important comments.

[Billx]

To me creating 2 channels with the same frequency, i.e. using 1 frequency and 2 WIFI names or SSIDS to refer to the same frequency, is utter stupidity. If you want to do that, use 2 different frequencies, with a name for each, so we know were we are walking. On the other hand if you do that, there might not be enough channels for everyone.

[KeithFrench]

I'll ask you again, which analyser, please provide a screenshot from it illustrating this.

[Billx]

I have seen an analyzer that says whether a WIFI channel supports WPS or does not support WPS

Since I have disabled WPS on the 5GHz Main channel it reports that the channel does not support WPS.

Since I am not able to interact with the 5GHz Backchannel channel, it reports that the channel DOES support WPS.

Admitting something is a fact is the same as stating something is a fact.

And its not completely the fault of some developers, if other developers are changing the goal posts.

By the way, I can make the Backchannel behave as the Main channel, but I'd have to manually do that for every 5GHz device. I can't be bothered with that.

[KeithFrench]

Please give me an example then that covers your statement:-

"What I meant is that I had already disabled WPS on the 5GHz Main Channel,  but that, didn't disable WPS on the 5GHz Backhaul Channel"

I haven't seen any WiFi analyser that can display anything to do with WPS. I did say that you cannot disable the backhaul and that it has nothing to do with WPS.

I did not "admit" that cheap IoT apps cannot work with a mesh, I stated that, it is a fact. You will find plenty of evidence of this if you search the internet. The problem is not with any mesh system or enforcing one SSID name that is the problem at all. The problem is pure & simple that some developers of these apps do not understand WiFi network connectivity.

[Billx]

@KeithFrench 

What I meant is that I had already disabled WPS on the 5GHz Main Channel,  but that, didn't disable WPS on the 5GHz Backhaul Channel, as I established in one of the WIFI analysers. I would trust the analyzer in this case.

You say that  'wireless networking development has been moving in the last few years towards mesh networking'.

Yes I know. So we will wait and see first, whether they make a total mess of it or not.

You admitted yourself that some cheap IOT programming cannot connect to a mesh network.

Bill

[KeithFrench]

I never said that WPS was the backhaul SSID at all. I said:-

"WPS is only needed to connect a 266 to a Hub 2, so you can safely disable this in the UI."

Please note that the sentence did not include the word "backhaul" at all.

You made it very clear that you do not want a mesh system, I read & fully understood that point. I was merely pointing out that the way that wireless networking development has been moving towards in the last few years is towards mesh networking, as I said whether you want one or not. Therefore some facilities such as split SSIDs are not permitted by manufacturers of these systems.

I did also point out, that you can still use split SSIDs in the Hub 2, so what is your problem? However, I did say that newer firmware may or may not prohibit this in the future.

[Billx]

@KeithFrench 

You are rushing too far ahead of yourself. You also don't seem to have read my OP.

Everything you said is probably correct.

My WPS is already switched off, it isn't in my Backchannel.

I said in my OP:

'I believe the Backhaul Channel could be used if a user wants to set up a mesh network.

I am currently not interested in a mesh network, as these have not yet been proved to work properly.

Besides most users have only a few devices, and don't need a mesh network.'

By the way I am not interested in IOT.

You keep talking about the 266 WiFi Booster, in order to create a mesh network.

As I have already said. What for?

So I am stuck with the useless Backhaul channel.

Bill

[KeithFrench]

Hi @Billx 

Let me confirm a few things for you. It is impossible to disable the backhaul hidden SSID on the 5464, because this is needed if you were to convert it to a mesh network with the Sagemcom FAST 266 WiFi Booster. However, after a period of time the backhaul stops broadcasting out. It may start up after a while again, but it doesn't cause interference. WPS is only needed to connect a 266 to a Hub 2, so you can safely disable this in the UI.

The recommendation about splitting the SSID names is just that, a recommendation. This is all based on the mesh setup where splitting the SSIDs causes a lot of problems. I made a suggestion that whenever a mesh is detected, only a single SSID should be allowed, but when the Hub 2 is stand alone, you should be able to split the SSIDs. 

Currently, in V174, there is nothing at all to stop you from configuring different names, one for each band. Whether that will change or not in later firmware, is totally beyond my control.

Now of course why would you even want to split the SSIDs? The answer is simple, cheap IoT devices that are configured via an app require this. Why, because these apps are very often very badly written, using incorrect networking principles. Better IoTs with better apps can handle both bands with a common SSID. I have not come across any mesh that allows splitting of the SSIDs at all & like it or not, mesh systems are the way forward. This will cause more & more problems in the future admittedly, but people need to buy better devices.