Slightly OT? WiFi problems

[Chris Green]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 04:01:02PM +0000, Colin Law wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 11:05, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ..
> > 3 is a minimal mesh but with almost no redundant paths and will not
> > give much better results than one. It's a flip-flop: there are 2
> > possible paths for the signal.
> 
> To be pedantic (always a good thing where computers are involved) I
> think there are five paths.  If the router connected to the WAN is A
> and the others are B and C, and the client is X then the routes are
> X -> A -> WAN
> X -> B -> A -> WAN
> X -> C -> A -> WAN
> X -> B -> C -> A -> WAN
> X -> C -> B -> A -> WAN
> 
> None of which contradicts your main point that you need a good number
> to make an effective mesh.
> 
However mesh isn't *just* about how the nodes talk to each other to
provide full coverage is it?  Also important is the ability to
transfer a client from one node to another transparently and that
ability starts at two nodes - i.e. router plus one AP.

-- 
Chris Green