*** Official GL.Inet Devices Thread ***

I'm running a total of 4 of these, 2 as access points in the house, always been flawless.

Two of the GL-MT3000 in the Van, one connected directly to a Starlink dish.(doing away with the supplied Starlink router via a 12to48v POE, dropping the power in use to 32-35w for the SL and GL)
Other MT300 connected to a Teltonika TRB500 again in the van, never had an issue with them, they just work.
 
Last edited:
Ad_Augendae said:
Also be interesting to know what the output power is @5745-5805
Click to expand...

These are the specs for the MediaTek 830 chipset used in the GL-MT6000.

Output Power 11b: 23dbm+/- 1.5dbm @ 11Mbps
11g: 21dbm+/- 1.5dbm @ 54Mbps
11g/n: 21dBm +/- 1.5dbm @MCS7,HE20,16.5dBm@MCS7,HE4011a: 20dBm +/- 1.5dbm @ 54Mbps
11a/n: 20dBm+/- 1.5dbm @MCS7,HE20,16.5dBm@MCS7,HE4011ac HE20: 20+/-1.5dBm@MCS8
11ac HE40: 17+/-1.5dBm@MCS9
11ac HE80: 14.5+/-1.5dBm@MCS911ax HE20: 20+/-1.5dBm@MCS911ax HE40: 17+/-1.5dBm@MCS911ax HE80: 13.5+/-1.5dBm@MCS1111ax HE160: 13.5+/-1.5dBm@MCS11
Receiver Sensitivity 11b: -99dBm@11Mbps
11g: -95dBm@54Mbps
11g/n: -90dBm@HT20,MCS7, -86dBm@HT40,MCS7
11a: -90Bm@54Mbps
11a/n: -85dBm@HT20,MCS7, -81dBm@HT40,MCS711ac: -90dBm+/-2dBm @VHT20 MCS8
11ac: -85dBm+/-2dBm @VHT40 MCS9
11ac: -68dBm+/-2dBm @VHT80 MCS911ax: -61dBm+/-2dBm @HE20 MCS11
11ax: -58dBm+/-2dBm @HE40 MCS11
11ax: -55dBm+/-2dBm @HE80 MCS11
 
I was looking at a travel router a couple months ago for an upcoming trip to the USA. Which of these would be best as a travel router? Around 5 devices connected plus would like to have VPN option; either to back home or just to PIA.
 
WJA96 said:
These are the specs for the MediaTek 830 chipset used in the GL-MT6000.

Output Power 11b: 23dbm+/- 1.5dbm @ 11Mbps
11g: 21dbm+/- 1.5dbm @ 54Mbps
11g/n: 21dBm +/- 1.5dbm @MCS7,HE20,16.5dBm@MCS7,HE4011a: 20dBm +/- 1.5dbm @ 54Mbps
11a/n: 20dBm+/- 1.5dbm @MCS7,HE20,16.5dBm@MCS7,HE4011ac HE20: 20+/-1.5dBm@MCS8
11ac HE40: 17+/-1.5dBm@MCS9
11ac HE80: 14.5+/-1.5dBm@MCS911ax HE20: 20+/-1.5dBm@MCS911ax HE40: 17+/-1.5dBm@MCS911ax HE80: 13.5+/-1.5dBm@MCS1111ax HE160: 13.5+/-1.5dBm@MCS11
Receiver Sensitivity 11b: -99dBm@11Mbps
11g: -95dBm@54Mbps
11g/n: -90dBm@HT20,MCS7, -86dBm@HT40,MCS7
11a: -90Bm@54Mbps
11a/n: -85dBm@HT20,MCS7, -81dBm@HT40,MCS711ac: -90dBm+/-2dBm @VHT20 MCS8
11ac: -85dBm+/-2dBm @VHT40 MCS9
11ac: -68dBm+/-2dBm @VHT80 MCS911ax: -61dBm+/-2dBm @HE20 MCS11
11ax: -58dBm+/-2dBm @HE40 MCS11
11ax: -55dBm+/-2dBm @HE80 MCS11
Click to expand...
What one commad says and what the router does in another country isn't the same.
The output of iwinfo is required while on channel 149 to know that.

Example: yes it's old, but just an example!


Code: 
iw reg get

country GB: DFS-ETSI
        (2400 - 2483 @ 40), (N/A, 20), (N/A)
        (5150 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW
        (5250 - 5350 @ 80), (N/A, 20), (0 ms), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS, AUTO-BW
        (5470 - 5730 @ 160), (N/A, 26), (0 ms), DFS
        (5725 - 5850 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR
        (5925 - 6425 @ 160), (N/A, 23), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR
        (57000 - 71000 @ 2160), (N/A, 40), (N/A)

iwinfo

wlan1     ESSID: "Mode"
          Access Point: C0:4A
          Mode: Client  Channel: 100 (5.500 GHz)
          Center Channel 1: 102 2: unknown
          Tx-Power: 19 dBm  Link Quality: 70/70
          Signal: -39 dBm  Noise: -90 dBm
          Bit Rate: 300.0 MBit/s
          Encryption: unknown
          Type: nl80211  HW Mode(s): 802.11an
          Hardware: 168C:0033 168C:A120 [Atheros AR9580]
          TX power offset: none
          Frequency offset: none
          Supports VAPs: yes  PHY name: phy1
iwinfo

wlan1     ESSID: "Mode"
          Access Point: C0:4A
          Mode: Client  Channel: 149 (5.745 GHz)
          Center Channel 1: 151 2: unknown
          Tx-Power: 14 dBm  Link Quality: 44/70
          Signal: -66 dBm  Noise: -95 dBm
          Bit Rate: 6.0 MBit/s
          Encryption: unknown
          Type: nl80211  HW Mode(s): 802.11an
          Hardware: 168C:0033 168C:A120 [Atheros AR9580]
          TX power offset: none
          Frequency offset: none
          Supports VAPs: yes  PHY name: phy1
 
I have been reading around looking at getting the GL-MT6000 for in the short term replacing an elderly Asus RT-AC68U as a dumbap for my network (I currently route everything through a RPi4 with OpenWRT).

It seems to have some teething troubles with WiFi and it's 2.5gb ports which have caused regressions on it firmware (the latest version was pulled and a promised new release due a week or so ago has not yet materialised).

Hopefully they can solve it.
 
Mercurial said:
I have been reading around looking at getting the GL-MT6000 for in the short term replacing an elderly Asus RT-AC68U as a dumbap for my network (I currently route everything through a RPi4 with OpenWRT).

It seems to have some teething troubles with WiFi and it's 2.5gb ports which have caused regressions on it firmware (the latest version was pulled and a promised new release due a week or so ago has not yet materialised).

Hopefully they can solve it.
Click to expand...

Could you link to these regressions on the firmware please? And the CURRENT issues with the WiFi.
 
The more I look into it people are just annoyed that their iPhone can't get more than 100 Mbps on 2.4 Ghz... like why does your phone need 100 Mbps to start with? Every other device performs as expected such as Intel Wifi cards. It does appear like the latest vanilla OpenWRT snapshots have even fixed that problem. 150 Mbps at 20 Mhz and 300 Mbps at 40 Mhz. Seems good. If you get the GL-MT6000 I would definitely go to vanilla OpenWRT.

Other problems people post... I swear they are the type of people to take a sledgehammer to the router and then post stuff like "guys my router doesn't work anymore???????!!!!!!!!???????". The amount of stuff I've read is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
GregI said:
The more I look into it people are just annoyed that their iPhone can't get more than 150 Mbps on 2.4 Ghz... like why does your phone need 150 Mbps? Every other device performs as expected such as Intel Wifi cards.
Click to expand...

Why are the iPhones on 2.4GHz anyway? They have sort of made a rod for their own back by forking the firmwares and some folks have the official MediaTek drivers that have mediocre 2.4GHz performance or the open source drivers that have disastrous everything else. And most of the people complaining have made their own OpenWRT snapshots and they complain about extremely niche use-cases. The person who posted above wanted the GL-MT6000 as a dumb access point. What’s wrong with just buying an access point?
 
WJA96 said:
Could you link to these regressions on the firmware please? And the CURRENT issues with the WiFi.
Click to expand...
Sure; https://forum.gl-inet.com/t/updates...g-back-v4-5-7-and-releasing-v4-5-8-soon/40249 - official announcement from their forums. Rolling back to using OpenWRT 21.02.

WJA96 said:
The person who posted above wanted the GL-MT6000 as a dumb access point. What’s wrong with just buying an access point?
Click to expand...
Simply a toy to play with, and it's cost isn't that much more than a comparable AP, also I like the specification. Also, although it performs well I feel the Pi is a bit of a Heath Robinson solution, as I mentioned in my post it would only temporarily be used as a dumb access point then move to be being the main router.

EDIT - https://forum.openwrt.org/t/gl-inet-flint-2-gl-mt6000-discussions/173524/1070?page=12 - Main discussion on OpenWRT forum linked to the last page. Quite informative.
 
Last edited:
GregI said:
The more I look into it people are just annoyed that their iPhone can't get more than 100 Mbps on 2.4 Ghz... like why does your phone need 100 Mbps to start with? Every other device performs as expected such as Intel Wifi cards. It does appear like the latest vanilla OpenWRT snapshots have even fixed that problem. 150 Mbps at 20 Mhz and 300 Mbps at 40 Mhz. Seems good. If you get the GL-MT6000 I would definitely go to vanilla OpenWRT.

Other problems people post... I swear they are the type of people to take a sledgehammer to the router and then post stuff like "guys my router doesn't work anymore???????!!!!!!!!???????". The amount of stuff I've read is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It seems some have taken great umbrage at what was promised and the announcement that the would be developing the official firmware on an older version of OpenWRT. But you are right the noise to signal ratio of some of the posts do seem a bit for the sake of having something to moan about.
 
Mercurial said:
Sure; https://forum.gl-inet.com/t/updates...g-back-v4-5-7-and-releasing-v4-5-8-soon/40249 - official announcement from their forums. Rolling back to using OpenWRT 21.02.

So, as I understand it, they issued an IMPROVEMENT update to a working system, and it wasn’t an improvement, so they pulled it and now they’re fixing it? But as my “customers” (they’re not really customers because I donated the demo unit to them for free) are quite happily still using it I guess it worked all along. Just not perfectly for some niche users.
Click to expand...
 
Mercurial said:
It seems some have taken great umbrage at what was promised and the announcement that the would be developing the official firmware on an older version of OpenWRT. But you are right the noise to signal ratio of some of the posts do seem a bit for the sake of having something to moan about.
Click to expand...

I agree. It’s almost as if the “open source community” have got really upset that there is another, supposedly better, open source WiFi driver out there and they’re very upset that GL.Inet are wanting to use the official MediaTek drivers that are not compatible (as yet) with the newest version of OpenWRT. And they’re kicking off.

And GL.Inet are so desperate to placate these folks that they are now developing TWO versions of firmware - one of which is the old OpenWRT with the official drivers and is 99.9% working fine - and the other is the new version of OpenWRT with the ‘better 2.4GHz’ open source drivers but they break the 2.5GbE ports. So neither group of users are happy. You couldn’t make it up.

And it’s not like they’re not scrambling to make the thing better as fast as is humanly possible. And hilariously, because other manufacturers devices have the same drivers and hardware but proprietary firmware, they’re being lauded for issuing ‘custom’ firmwares. Again, you couldn’t make it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom