Wi-Fi channel planning assigns each access point a channel and channel width so that nearby access points do not interfere with each other. The usable spectrum is finite: 2.4 GHz offers only three non-overlapping 20 MHz channels, while 5 GHz and 6 GHz offer more but carry regulatory restrictions. Wider channels raise peak throughput for one client and leave fewer channels for reuse.
Most channel planning advice starts with a recommended channel list. That skips the part that actually matters, which is the trade-off underneath every specific answer. Once you understand the tension between channel width and channel reuse, the right answer for your site becomes obvious, and the reason a warehouse and an office need different plans stops being mysterious.
Wider channels are faster for one client and worse for many.
An 80 MHz channel delivers higher peak throughput than a 20 MHz channel. It also consumes four times the spectrum, which means four times fewer channels available for reuse across your access points. In a dense deployment that trade runs the wrong way. You gain headline speed on a single link and give it back to co-channel contention across the floor.
This is why a warehouse with eight access points and an office with eighty need different answers to what looks like the same question.
Channels 1, 6 and 11 are the only non-overlapping 20 MHz options. Everything else partially overlaps and causes adjacent-channel interference. Never use 40 MHz here.
Expect interference from non-Wi-Fi sources too, including Bluetooth, microwaves and some industrial equipment, because the band is unlicensed and crowded. Treat 2.4 GHz as coverage of last resort for legacy and IoT clients, not as capacity.
Substantially more spectrum, but a large portion sits in DFS channels, which must vacate on radar detection. Regional rules differ, and a channel available in one country may not be available in another.
Whether to use DFS channels is a real decision. Including them multiplies your reuse options, but a radar event forces a channel change mid-operation. Near airports, ports or military installations that is a live consideration rather than a theoretical one.
Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 7 open substantial additional spectrum with far less legacy congestion. The constraint is client support and regional availability. Planning capacity around 6 GHz only works if the devices on site actually support it, which is worth auditing before you design around it.
Two access points on the same channel that can hear each other must take turns transmitting. They do not interfere in the destructive sense. They contend, sharing airtime. The effect on users is the same: less throughput.
This is why channel reuse distance matters more than channel count. The goal is not one channel per access point, which is impossible past a handful of radios. The goal is that any two access points sharing a channel are far enough apart, or sufficiently separated by attenuating structure, that they do not meaningfully contend.
Which makes channel planning inseparable from the physical model. Two access points 15 metres apart with a concrete core between them may reuse a channel comfortably. The same two across an open plan floor cannot. You cannot plan channels properly from a floor plan alone. You need the material properties of what sits between the radios.
Channel assignment in eino recalculates automatically as the design changes. You set which channels and bands are available for the deployment, deselecting DFS-restricted channels or bands not permitted in your region, and the engine assigns each access point a channel based on the current layout, reuse constraints and your spectrum configuration.
Because it re-runs on every change, moving or adding an access point does not require manual reassignment. The same mechanism covers Wi-Fi channel widths of 20, 40 and 80 MHz alongside licensed LTE and 5G spectrum bands, so a converged site is planned against one model rather than two.
The reuse calculation depends on the 3D digital twin of the site, because attenuation between radios is what determines whether two access points on the same channel actually contend. Propagation is modelled with real ray tracing on the GPU engine, so a changed channel plan returns a new heatmap in seconds rather than after a simulation cycle.
Channels 1, 6 and 11. They are the only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels. Anything else overlaps and degrades both.
It depends on density. In sparse deployments with clean spectrum, wider channels give better peak throughput. In dense deployments, narrower channels give better aggregate performance because they leave more channels for reuse. Most high-density environments perform better at 20 or 40 MHz than at 80.
It is a trade. DFS channels significantly increase the spectrum available for reuse, but a radar detection forces a channel change. Near airports, ports or military sites, weigh that carefully. Elsewhere they are usually worth using.
Most often co-channel contention. Strong RSSI with poor SINR means the receiver cannot separate the wanted signal from interference. Check whether nearby access points share a channel and can hear each other.
There is no universal distance, because it depends on what sits between them. Attenuating structure lets you reuse channels much closer together than open space does. This is why it has to be modelled rather than measured with a tape.
Yes. Adding a radio changes the reuse pattern for its neighbours. Tools that recalculate assignment automatically handle this. Manual plans need revisiting.
The principle carries over, with finite spectrum reused across radios, but licensed spectrum removes the unlicensed contention problem. You are planning against your own allocation rather than competing for shared airtime.
