cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

MR52 seems quite superior for wireless mesh

Highlighted
Head in the Cloud

MR52 seems quite superior for wireless mesh

In terms of difficult wireless mesh situations and indoor APs, I have found the MR52 is *far* and away able to maintain a better mesh link than a MR42 in the same location. Why is that exactly? The difference is ostensibly capacity for clients, but they seem so much more able. Thoughts? 

Networking geek since high school where I got half of a CCNA. Played Marathon II and Infinity over localtalk.
Made many a network over the years, now de facto admin of a retreat center with some of this fine Meraki hardware.
Fortune 100 Tech veteran/refugee.
6 REPLIES 6
Highlighted
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

Re: MR52 seems quite superior for wireless mesh

More antennas?

Highlighted
Head in the Cloud

Re: MR52 seems quite superior for wireless mesh

But doesn’t it just use one for the mesh connection?? So I don’t know if it’s more per se

Networking geek since high school where I got half of a CCNA. Played Marathon II and Infinity over localtalk.
Made many a network over the years, now de facto admin of a retreat center with some of this fine Meraki hardware.
Fortune 100 Tech veteran/refugee.
Highlighted
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

Re: MR52 seems quite superior for wireless mesh

It uses one radio, but each radio has multiple streams/antennas.  The 42 has 3 whereas the 52 has 4.  I'd be willing to bet the mesh capabilities of the 55/56 are even better with them having 8.

 

At least that's how I think it works... 🤔

Highlighted
Head in the Cloud

Re: MR52 seems quite superior for wireless mesh

I’d love to hear a breakdown of how all those things relate.

Networking geek since high school where I got half of a CCNA. Played Marathon II and Infinity over localtalk.
Made many a network over the years, now de facto admin of a retreat center with some of this fine Meraki hardware.
Fortune 100 Tech veteran/refugee.
Highlighted
Getting noticed

Re: MR52 seems quite superior for wireless mesh

4 spatial streams is a huge advantage for AP to AP communications. Clients with 3 spatial streams tend to concentrate all 3 antennas without much spatial diversity so you don't see a large benefit from the third stream. That might lead you to downplay the value of extra spatial streams. 

 

 

4SS also gives you better reception thanks to maximal ratio combining. And 4ss also enables you to do 802.11ac standard beamforming for 2ss while 3ss can only do 1ss beamforming. That can help a ton especially when the two endpoints are stationary such as with two APs. 

 

Highlighted
Head in the Cloud

Re: MR52 seems quite superior for wireless mesh

@JohnD That makes sense about the spatial streams beamforming. So with 3ss you don’t get any combined beamforming. That makes sense.

Networking geek since high school where I got half of a CCNA. Played Marathon II and Infinity over localtalk.
Made many a network over the years, now de facto admin of a retreat center with some of this fine Meraki hardware.
Fortune 100 Tech veteran/refugee.
Welcome to the Meraki Community!
To start contributing, simply sign in with your Cisco account. If you don't yet have a Cisco account, you can sign up.