Forum Discussion
Twelve (!) SSIDs. Why?
I understand why one might elect to enable either 2.4 or 5 ghz, or both. And I assume a third 5GHz would be enabled for mesh WiFi, if/when it becomes available.
But why would I elect to enable/disable up to twelve different SSIDs?
If its just my home LAN, and I basically just want traffic routed to the most efficient bandwidth for the device, is there a reason to disable all but two?
Currently, I've enabled them all, but only 1 and 5 are broadcasting, both with the same name and password. The rest are hidden and have a different password. That would allow me to connect to any one of them if I had a reason.
Aside from creating a guest network, what are the reasons for enabling extra SSIDs? Are there reasons no to enable ones that are no in use?
I Know, Right! I couldn’t believe that when I first set up my Gateway...I don’t even want to spend the time disabling all of them!! Am using an external router in any case that works better than the built-in…
Yes, exposing all those SSIDs is very confusing, especially when there’s no user documentation or guidance on how they work or how to use them.
My best guess is that they're there to support devices that do not or cannot use certain wifi channels (IoT devices is the first category that comes to mind.) Another possibility is that they're there in case you have devices that have support for different security protocols; WPA3 is the most secure, but not all devices devices can use it.
In fact, that's precisely my use case. I am using a range extender to provide wired internet support in a room away from the router. The extender can only use WPA2 Personal, so I have configured one of the SSIDs to use WPA2 only. Yes, this is a security hole, and that's why I'm actively looking for a more modern range extender that supports WPA3.I believe 3 of the SSIDs are on by default, and the others are off. They go to three different bands, so you can leave them all on and use the default login if you want, and they'll respond based on your equipment.
I don’t know why anybody would need 12 but it’s nice to see forward-thinking vendors rather than stuff that looks like it was built in 2005 and never updated.
I don't like the fact that users are prevented from getting into the router to monitor and adjust things that most routers provide. There should be an option to enable that.
My biggest complaint about this "trash-can" router is the fact that the spec sheet and their web sites for it (both T-Mo and Nokia) say it has 1GB ethernet connections in it. No, they are 100M. I have to use a wired ethernet for some of my computers, and I cannot get faster than 92 megs, even though the WiFi in the same devices has been as high as 800 megs! All of my equipment has 1G ethernet ports, so I know that's not the problem.
Just as a test, I bought a 1G USB Ethernet adapter and plugged it between my MacBook Pro and the wired ethernet on the "trash can" device with the same results: 92 megs DL on the wired connection and 300-600 on the WiFi connection. Interestingly, the UL on the wired connection is closer to 60 megs, probably because the network thinks it's a 1G connection capable of 600 M DL speed; so it allows 1/10th for UL, or 60 megs.
