LPWAN Meshes: Choosing the Right Technology

Long-range Sub-GHz wireless mesh networks have become essential for modern communication, particularly in remote areas where traditional infrastructure is impractical or impossible. By utilising lower frequencies (typically below 1 GHz), Sub-GHz networks can achieve remarkable range, low power consumption, and the ability to penetrate obstacles such as buildings and dense forests.

These characteristics make Sub-GHz mesh networks ideal for applications in IoT, outdoor communication, emergency response, and industrial networks. But with numerous technologies now available, choosing the right one for your needs can be challenging.

My Journey Through the Mesh

I’ve been experimenting with LPWAN mesh technologies for several years now, driven by practical needs on remote properties and a genuine interest in resilient, decentralised communication systems. My journey started early with Meshtastic, before it gained widespread popularity. While initially intriguing, I quickly found its security seemed an afterthought and its routing capabilities were severely lacking. I’ve since moved away from it and do not maintain any active Meshtastic nodes.

I then looked into the ClusterDuck Protocol (CDP), which I found to be much better thought through, particularly for emergency communications. However, its development was slow-moving and hardware support was patchy, preventing me from moving beyond some initial tinkering.

After a period of not actively exploring LoRa mesh, I simultaneously investigated MeshCore and Reticulum. MeshCore addressed many of the issues I had with Meshtastic, proving to be a far better option for text-based communication over LoRa. However, Reticulum stood out as exceptionally well-designed and robust. It supports a wide range of wireless and even wired bearer protocols, making it my preferred choice for more serious deployments and as a contender for a future decentralised, commons-based internet, particularly as the current internet becomes increasingly “enshittified” and unusable.

Each technology has offered valuable lessons, highlighting what truly matters in a mesh network and, more importantly, what is critical for my specific needs. This series isn’t just a theoretical comparison. It’s born from years of hands-on experience, plenty of failed experiments, and the occasional moment of genuine excitement when a packet successfully hops across several kilometres of Australian bush.

What is Sub-GHz Wireless Mesh?

Sub-GHz wireless mesh networks are built on the principle of decentralised communication where each device, or “node,” in the network not only sends and receives data but also forwards it to other nodes, creating a resilient, self-healing network. These networks typically operate in the Sub-GHz frequency bands, such as 868 MHz (Europe/Asia) and 915 MHz (Americas/Australia), which offer several advantages over higher-frequency bands like 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz.

Sub-GHz frequencies excel in:

• Long-range communication - often reaching several kilometres line-of-sight, with some configurations achieving 10-20km+ in ideal conditions
• Low power consumption - devices can run for months or years on batteries
• Better penetration through obstacles like walls, trees, and mountains
• Lower interference compared to the crowded 2.4 GHz bands used by WiFi and Bluetooth

These qualities make Sub-GHz networks particularly valuable for IoT applications, outdoor use cases, emergency communications, and rural connectivity. The ability to form a mesh network with these frequencies offers both scalability and reliability, as the network can adapt to new devices and changing conditions without relying on a central point of failure.

In rural Australia, where distances are vast and mobile coverage is patchy at best, these characteristics aren’t just nice to have—they’re essential.

The Contenders

Over the past few years, several mesh networking technologies have emerged, each with different design philosophies and target use cases. In this series, I’ll be taking a detailed look at four prominent options:

MeshTastic

An open-source, off-grid mesh network primarily designed for outdoor and wilderness communication. Built around affordable LoRa hardware, MeshTastic has gained a strong following among hobbyists, outdoor enthusiasts, and community networks. It’s arguably the most accessible option for getting started with LPWAN mesh networking, with hardware available from $30-50.

MeshCore

A highly customisable and scalable platform designed for more complex deployments. MeshCore offers extensive flexibility and is particularly suited to industrial IoT applications and large-scale outdoor networks. It requires more technical expertise but provides robust capabilities for demanding environments.

Reticulum

Focused on secure, decentralised communication with a strong emphasis on privacy and resilience. Reticulum’s design philosophy centres on creating networks that remain functional even in hostile or degraded conditions. It’s transport-agnostic and can run over various physical layers, including Sub-GHz radio, packet radio, or even sneakernet. This is where I’ve ended up for my own serious deployments.

ClusterDuck Protocol (CDP)

Purpose-built for emergency communications and disaster response. CDP is designed for rapid deployment when traditional infrastructure fails, making it particularly valuable for first responders and humanitarian operations. It’s the most specialised of the four options, and where my journey into LPWAN mesh began.

Why This Matters

The choice between these technologies isn’t just academic. If you’re building a community network, deploying sensors across a large property, or preparing for emergency communications, the technology you choose will determine:

• How far your network can reach
• How secure your communications are
• How easy it is to deploy and maintain
• Whether it will work when you need it most
• How much it will cost to implement
• Whether you truly own and control your infrastructure

That last point is crucial for me. After years of watching IoT companies brick devices and platforms disappear (as I discussed in my recent article on buying future bricks), I’m deeply committed to open-source solutions where the community, not a corporation, controls the technology’s future.

What’s Coming

In this series, I’ll cover:

1. MeshTastic - The hobbyist-friendly option that’s taking the maker community by storm
2. MeshCore - Industrial-grade mesh networking for complex deployments
3. Reticulum - Privacy-focused, transport-agnostic mesh networking
4. ClusterDuck Protocol - Emergency-ready mesh for disaster scenarios
5. Comparison and Recommendations - A detailed analysis with a ranking matrix based on five key parameters

Each post will go beyond the marketing materials and official documentation to share real-world experiences, gotchas I’ve encountered, and practical advice for getting started. I’ll be honest about each technology’s limitations as well as its strengths.

Whether you’re interested in off-grid communication, building resilient sensor networks for agriculture, or preparing for emergency scenarios, this series will help you understand which technology best fits your needs.

Stay tuned for the next post where I’ll dive into MeshTastic, the open-source darling of the LPWAN mesh world and the technology that’s probably the best starting point for most people.

• Lpwan
• Mesh Networks
• Meshtastic
• Reticulum
• Iot
• Lora