RouterReach
Original planning reference

Wi‑Fi attenuation & obstacle reference

Compare the transparent planning allowances RouterReach uses for common walls and floor structures across 2.4, 5 and 6 GHz. Use the numbers to understand why the same home can behave very differently by band.

Test a layout in the plannerRead the methodology
Vendor-neutral2.4 / 5 / 6 GHzTransparent assumptionsCopyable table

Wall and barrier planning allowances

These values are RouterReach planning assumptions, not universal measurements. Construction materials vary with thickness, moisture, reinforcement, framing, coatings and installation. The useful comparison is relative: dense and conductive barriers generally deserve more concern than a light internal partition, and higher-frequency bands often need more margin.

Obstacle2.4 GHz5 GHz6 GHzPlanning interpretation
Drywall / plasterboard3 dB4 dB5 dBUsually a modest single-barrier loss.
Plain glass3 dB7 dB8 dBCoatings can make real glazing much worse.
Brick / masonry9 dB15 dB18 dBCan materially change a room from healthy to marginal.
Concrete / dense masonry12 dB20 dB25 dBHigh-risk path, especially at 5/6 GHz.
Metal / foil-backed barrier18 dB28 dB32 dBTreat as a major planning obstacle.

Floor and ceiling planning allowances

Multi-storey homes are especially variable. RouterReach v1.2 lets you choose the construction between each upper floor and the floor below instead of applying one universal penalty.

Inter-floor structure2.4 GHz5 GHz6 GHz
Timber / lightweight floor6 dB8 dB10 dB
Typical mixed floor / ceiling9 dB14 dB18 dB
Concrete slab15 dB22 dB28 dB
Reinforced / foil-heavy floor20 dB30 dB36 dB

Why several barriers matter more than one

dB is logarithmic, but attenuation values along a simplified direct path can be added. In the RouterReach model, a 5 GHz path through one drywall partition (4 dB) and one brick wall (15 dB) receives a 19 dB barrier allowance before distance, floors, calibration or mesh-backhaul effects are applied.

Worked example: a point predicted at −54 dBm before barriers would become roughly −73 dBm after a 19 dB barrier allowance. That can move a link from strong into marginal territory for video calls or gaming even though the distance did not change.

2.4 GHz vs 5 GHz vs 6 GHz

RouterReach deliberately gives 2.4 GHz the most forgiving propagation assumptions and 6 GHz the least forgiving. That does not mean 2.4 GHz is always “better”: higher bands may provide more capacity and cleaner spectrum. The planner asks a different question — whether a chosen band is likely to remain usable through the path you have drawn.

2.4 GHz

Best propagation margin in the model. Useful when distance and dense barriers dominate.

5 GHz

A common compromise between capacity and reach. Dense brick/concrete paths can become important quickly.

6 GHz

Modelled with the highest obstacle losses and steepest indoor distance exponent. Best tested with closer access-point placement.

Use the reference as a comparison tool

  1. Identify the direct barriers between the router/access point and the problem room.
  2. Use the table to understand whether the path is likely to be low, moderate or high loss.
  3. Stack the exact barriers in the wall-loss calculator.
  4. Draw the same route in the visual planner so distance, floors, mesh topology and use profile are included.
  5. Use Signal Probe on the weak room to see which component dominates.
  6. Validate the important point with a real RSSI measurement and use RouterReach calibration if needed.

What these values do not represent

They are not certification values, legal-for-trade measurements, guaranteed attenuation ranges, throughput predictions or claims about a specific router. Low-E glass, metal-backed insulation, wet masonry, rebar, services, furniture and reflections can make real results very different. Treat the table as a documented scenario model.

Technical basis and source trail

The modelling approach is informed by vendor RF deployment references and construction-material measurement literature, while RouterReach intentionally keeps one stable set of planning allowances so users can compare scenarios consistently.

Reference last reviewed: 1 September 2026.