Is it preferable to use the same SSID name when creating multiple WiFi zones?

Solution 1:

I have a similar setup: same SSID and same password. My devices (laptop, iPhone, iPad) connect automatically. Roaming from one zone to the other is failing from time to time but generally I have no problems.

Solution 2:

Just my two cents here, but I would suggest the opposite of what Matteo does. I have different names, because in this way I know which one is the strongest, dependent on where I am (the two networks cover the whole house, but not with the same strength).

For a Mac, it connects following the order specified in System Preferences, Network, Wi-fi, Advanced, Wi-fi.

For iDevices, I have no idea, but the problem, at least for me, it that when I move to the part of the house where the other network is stronger, I can manually change the Wi-fi, and I'll immediately know which one I have to choose (not trivial if the names are the same).

Solution 3:

Yes, your devices will automatically connect to the stronger signal.

They will not switch between signals if one becomes stronger, they will only make this decision when they are looking for a network. Once on a network they'll stay on it until something causes them to disconnect (user, loss of signal, going to sleep, etc).

The advantage of having the same SSID everywhere is minimising configuration. Users don't need to separately enter the details for each access point. This isn't a big deal for two APs and one or two clients, but in a school/workplace/boarding house/etc you want to keep it simple. This applies not only to new devices being set up, but also changes to the network password. It also makes it easier for novices to use (may or may not be relevant depending on typical residents/guests at your home).

The advantage of having unique SSIDs for each AP is that you can intentionally choose which AP to connect to. Sometimes this is useful, though I tend to think most cases where it's useful are because of a bad network design. Sometimes that design is out of your control, or correcting it is beyond your budget, so it doesn't make it wrong to have unique SSIDs, just a little more fiddly/annoying than if access points were in better places, were more evenly distributed, more evenly utilised, had better antennas, etc.

In either case, it can be helpful to ensure there's an access point very close to the most common places devices are used, and overlap between access points is around places you move through (corridors/hallways) rather than places you use the devices. This can mean, counterintuitively, turning down the power on an access point, or moving it, to intentionally reduce the overlap between APs. That way, the switch will happen automatically (whether SSIDs are unique or not) if you move from one region to the other. Something like NetSpot can help with this.

In either case, the setup complexity is O(NxM) for N = number of SSIDs, M = number of devices. So let's try some examples, assuming 30 seconds to (re-)enter each wifi password.

• In a typical home network, say 2 APs, 5 devices = 10, it might take 5 minutes to setup/adjust for unique SSIDs, or 1.5 minutes for a common SSID.
• In a small organisation, say 6 APs, 60 devices (30 users, each with laptop + smartphone), it'd take 3 hours total time to update for unique SSIDs, or half an hour with a common SSID.