Groups > linux.debian.user > #193556 > unrolled thread

Help needed with home network configuration

Started by	Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com>
First post	2018-03-09 15:40 +0100
Last post	2018-03-10 10:20 +0100
Articles	20 on this page of 46 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

  Help needed with home network configuration Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 15:40 +0100
    Re: Help needed with home network configuration Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 16:20 +0100
      Re: Help needed with home network configuration Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-03-09 18:40 +0100
        Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-15 03:30 +0100
          Re: Help needed with home network configuration Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-03-15 06:20 +0100
          Re: Help needed with home network configuration Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-03-15 18:20 +0100
            Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-16 02:50 +0100
              Re: Help needed with home network configuration rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-16 04:30 +0100
                Re: Help needed with home network configuration Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-03-16 09:50 +0100
                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-16 14:00 +0100
                    Re: Help needed with home network configuration rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-16 14:10 +0100
                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-16 14:30 +0100
                    Re: Help needed with home network configuration Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 00:30 +0200
                      Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-03 13:50 +0200
                        Re: Help needed with home network configuration Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 19:40 +0200
                          Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-06 12:20 +0200
                            Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-04-06 16:50 +0200
                              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-06 18:40 +0200
                                Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-04-07 16:00 +0200
                                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-07 22:30 +0200
                                    Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-04-08 02:00 +0200
                                      Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-08 02:50 +0200
                                        Re: Help needed with home network configuration Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 14:10 +0200
                                          Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-09 12:40 +0200
                                            Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-04-13 16:20 +0200
                                              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 10:00 +0200
                                                Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-15 13:40 +0200
                                                Re: Help needed with home network configuration rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 14:10 +0200
                                                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 18:50 +0200
                                                    Re: Help needed with home network configuration rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-16 00:50 +0200
                                              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-15 13:30 +0200
                            Re: Help needed with home network configuration Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 14:00 +0200
                              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-09 12:30 +0200
                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-16 17:20 +0100
                Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-16 15:40 +0100
              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-16 14:20 +0100
                Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-16 17:10 +0100
                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-19 12:00 +0100
              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-03-16 18:30 +0100
                Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-16 20:20 +0100
                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-03-16 21:00 +0100
                    Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-17 00:50 +0100
    Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-09 17:30 +0100
    Re: Help needed with home network configuration john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2018-03-09 20:30 +0100
    Re: Help needed with home network configuration Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 10:10 +0100
      Re: Help needed with home network configuration <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-03-10 10:20 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →

#194581

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2018-04-08 02:00 +0200
Message-ID	<vC5Ut-VB-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194579

On Sat 07 Apr 2018 at 20:17:56 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 16:26:47 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> >> 
> >> It's a nuance in the semantics of what it means to "repeat" wifi.
> >> Suffice to say, in order to "repeat" wifi, you have one radio splitting
> >> its time between pretending to be an AP for a client device, and
> >> pretending to be a client device to the upstream AP.
> >
> > Then I'm not sure why you wrote "Good deal". I'd be wanting the
> > wireless connectivity described above as not needed, though obviously
> > on a separate band/channel. Were you implying that that would kill
> > throughput for everything too?
> 
> If he's using the buffalo device to "repeat" the wifi signal (which he
> isn't), then yes the throughput would tank.

OK, I'll just assume you don't know. Anybody else actually doing this
(separate band (like 2/5 GHz) or channel (like channel 1/6/11) for the
backhaul (inter-router) link)?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194583

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-04-08 02:50 +0200
Message-ID	<vC6GS-1uu-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194581

David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 07 Apr 2018 at 20:17:56 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
>> David Wright wrote:
>> > On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 16:26:47 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> It's a nuance in the semantics of what it means to "repeat" wifi.
>> >> Suffice to say, in order to "repeat" wifi, you have one radio splitting
>> >> its time between pretending to be an AP for a client device, and
>> >> pretending to be a client device to the upstream AP.
>> >
>> > Then I'm not sure why you wrote "Good deal". I'd be wanting the
>> > wireless connectivity described above as not needed, though obviously
>> > on a separate band/channel. Were you implying that that would kill
>> > throughput for everything too?
>> 
>> If he's using the buffalo device to "repeat" the wifi signal (which he
>> isn't), then yes the throughput would tank.
>
> OK, I'll just assume you don't know. Anybody else actually doing this
> (separate band (like 2/5 GHz) or channel (like channel 1/6/11) for the
> backhaul (inter-router) link)?

If you have a device repeating a WiFi signal, it *will* use the same
channel as the upstream AP.  It *cannot* use a different channel.

In the event you have a dual-band AP, and the following conditions are
true

  - 5GHz uplink
  - 2.4 GHz for clients

Then you are not "repeating" the WiFi signal to the downstream client
devices (and the throughput losses I mentioned would not come into
play).

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194588

From	Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date	2018-04-08 14:10 +0200
Message-ID	<vChiW-qE-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194583

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 00:32:05 -0000 (UTC)
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

> David Wright wrote:
> > On Sat 07 Apr 2018 at 20:17:56 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> >> David Wright wrote:
> >> > On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 16:26:47 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> It's a nuance in the semantics of what it means to "repeat" wifi.
> >> >> Suffice to say, in order to "repeat" wifi, you have one radio splitting
> >> >> its time between pretending to be an AP for a client device, and
> >> >> pretending to be a client device to the upstream AP.
> >> >
> >> > Then I'm not sure why you wrote "Good deal". I'd be wanting the
> >> > wireless connectivity described above as not needed, though obviously
> >> > on a separate band/channel. Were you implying that that would kill
> >> > throughput for everything too?
> >> 
> >> If he's using the buffalo device to "repeat" the wifi signal (which he
> >> isn't), then yes the throughput would tank.
> >
> > OK, I'll just assume you don't know. Anybody else actually doing this
> > (separate band (like 2/5 GHz) or channel (like channel 1/6/11) for the
> > backhaul (inter-router) link)?
> 
> If you have a device repeating a WiFi signal, it *will* use the same
> channel as the upstream AP.  It *cannot* use a different channel.
> 
> In the event you have a dual-band AP, and the following conditions are
> true
> 
>   - 5GHz uplink
>   - 2.4 GHz for clients
> 
> Then you are not "repeating" the WiFi signal to the downstream client
> devices (and the throughput losses I mentioned would not come into
> play).

There are also apparently some units (even consumer grade ones), that
have two diferent radios both on (different) 5 GHz bands, so one could
use one for client access and one for uplink (although I have no
experience with this):

https://www.linksys.com/us/r/resource-center/basics/multiple-wifi-bands-difference/

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194612

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-04-09 12:40 +0200
Message-ID	<vCCno-5Tp-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194588

Celejar wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 00:32:05 -0000 (UTC)
> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>> If you have a device repeating a WiFi signal, it *will* use the same
>> channel as the upstream AP.  It *cannot* use a different channel.
>> 
>> In the event you have a dual-band AP, and the following conditions are
>> true
>> 
>>   - 5GHz uplink
>>   - 2.4 GHz for clients
>> 
>> Then you are not "repeating" the WiFi signal to the downstream client
>> devices (and the throughput losses I mentioned would not come into
>> play).
>
> There are also apparently some units (even consumer grade ones), that
> have two diferent radios both on (different) 5 GHz bands, so one could
> use one for client access and one for uplink (although I have no
> experience with this):

Well, nice that they're starting to do that ... it's still a Linksys, so
(not having any experience with it either), I'd lean toward it not being
that great of a device.

But then again, my views are skewed by dealing with equipment that'll
handle 50-60 (active) connections per radio (anything more, and there's
simply not enough bandwidth on the AP -- granted wave-2 ac / MU-MIMO is
quite interesting in that regard).

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194748

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2018-04-13 16:20 +0200
Message-ID	<vE7It-4NJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194612

On Mon 09 Apr 2018 at 10:21:46 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> Celejar wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 00:32:05 -0000 (UTC)
> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> >> If you have a device repeating a WiFi signal, it *will* use the same
> >> channel as the upstream AP.  It *cannot* use a different channel.
> >> 
> >> In the event you have a dual-band AP, and the following conditions are
> >> true
> >> 
> >>   - 5GHz uplink
> >>   - 2.4 GHz for clients
> >> 
> >> Then you are not "repeating" the WiFi signal to the downstream client
> >> devices (and the throughput losses I mentioned would not come into
> >> play).
> >
> > There are also apparently some units (even consumer grade ones), that
> > have two diferent radios both on (different) 5 GHz bands, so one could
> > use one for client access and one for uplink (although I have no
> > experience with this):
> 
> Well, nice that they're starting to do that ... it's still a Linksys, so
> (not having any experience with it either), I'd lean toward it not being
> that great of a device.

That's a shame. I was moving towards linksys after Reco's suggection earlier.

> But then again, my views are skewed by dealing with equipment that'll
> handle 50-60 (active) connections per radio (anything more, and there's
> simply not enough bandwidth on the AP -- granted wave-2 ac / MU-MIMO is
> quite interesting in that regard).

I'm sorry I'm not in your league, being merely a home user trying
to improve coverage around the house. I was aiming to make just
one purchase to further that end. I couldn't afford to have the place
wired up like a data centre.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194751

From	Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com>
Date	2018-04-14 10:00 +0200
Message-ID	<vEogh-7kH-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194748

	Hi.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 09:17:06AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 09 Apr 2018 at 10:21:46 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> > Celejar wrote:
> > > On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 00:32:05 -0000 (UTC)
> > > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> > >> If you have a device repeating a WiFi signal, it *will* use the same
> > >> channel as the upstream AP.  It *cannot* use a different channel.
> > >> 
> > >> In the event you have a dual-band AP, and the following conditions are
> > >> true
> > >> 
> > >>   - 5GHz uplink
> > >>   - 2.4 GHz for clients
> > >> 
> > >> Then you are not "repeating" the WiFi signal to the downstream client
> > >> devices (and the throughput losses I mentioned would not come into
> > >> play).
> > >
> > > There are also apparently some units (even consumer grade ones), that
> > > have two diferent radios both on (different) 5 GHz bands, so one could
> > > use one for client access and one for uplink (although I have no
> > > experience with this):
> > 
> > Well, nice that they're starting to do that ... it's still a Linksys, so
> > (not having any experience with it either), I'd lean toward it not being
> > that great of a device.
> 
> That's a shame. I was moving towards linksys after Reco's suggection earlier.

I'd like to state for the record that my suggestion implied installing
Debian on the router. In the case of those Linksys models - Debian for
armmp sub-architecture.

I have no experience with the stock Linksys ACM 1200 'firmware', nor
I'm intending to gain such experience.

Currently the thing is able to provide reasonable WiFi coverage across
~100 m² for 10 clients, which is enough for me. YMMV.


> > But then again, my views are skewed by dealing with equipment that'll
> > handle 50-60 (active) connections per radio (anything more, and there's
> > simply not enough bandwidth on the AP -- granted wave-2 ac / MU-MIMO is
> > quite interesting in that regard).
> 
> I'm sorry I'm not in your league, being merely a home user trying
> to improve coverage around the house. I was aiming to make just
> one purchase to further that end. I couldn't afford to have the place
> wired up like a data centre.

Back in the day I used two Raspberry Pi for improving WiFi coverage.
It was very straightforward, although somewhat unconventional
configuration - two WiFi APs with the same SSID ('AP name' in layman
terms), each brigded to the same wired VLAN. Worked better than I was
anticipated, although I haven't bothered with 802.1n.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194770

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-04-15 13:40 +0200
Message-ID	<vEOaJ-8pO-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194751

Reco wrote:
> Back in the day I used two Raspberry Pi for improving WiFi coverage.
> It was very straightforward, although somewhat unconventional
> configuration - two WiFi APs with the same SSID ('AP name' in layman
> terms), each brigded to the same wired VLAN. Worked better than I was
> anticipated, although I haven't bothered with 802.1n.

Realistically, that's pretty much what a "regular" wifi AP is (well,
except most of them that I'm familiar with run busybox, and come in an
enclosure :) ). 


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194771

From	rhkramer@gmail.com
Date	2018-04-15 14:10 +0200
Message-ID	<vEODL-re-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194751

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 03:57:08 AM Reco wrote:
> Back in the day I used two Raspberry Pi for improving WiFi coverage.
> It was very straightforward, although somewhat unconventional
> configuration - two WiFi APs with the same SSID ('AP name' in layman
> terms), each brigded to the same wired VLAN. Worked better than I was
> anticipated, although I haven't bothered with 802.1n.

Out of curiosity, did they run on two different radio channels, or the same?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194778

From	Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com>
Date	2018-04-15 18:50 +0200
Message-ID	<vET0J-3aH-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194771

	Hi.

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 08:05:12AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 14, 2018 03:57:08 AM Reco wrote:
> > Back in the day I used two Raspberry Pi for improving WiFi coverage.
> > It was very straightforward, although somewhat unconventional
> > configuration - two WiFi APs with the same SSID ('AP name' in layman
> > terms), each brigded to the same wired VLAN. Worked better than I was
> > anticipated, although I haven't bothered with 802.1n.
> 
> Out of curiosity, did they run on two different radio channels, or the same?

That's the best part. Several APs can have different channels in this
configuration, theoretically it's even possible for them to have
different bands (one with 2.4Ghz and another one with 5Ghz).
But convincing a WiFi station (a client) to seamlessly switch (the way
802.11r describes it) between APs in such scenario is impossible.
So I came to manually setting the same channel for both APs, and
changing it once per week.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194794

From	rhkramer@gmail.com
Date	2018-04-16 00:50 +0200
Message-ID	<vEYD7-6TF-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194778

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 12:48:35 PM Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.
> 
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 08:05:12AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 14, 2018 03:57:08 AM Reco wrote:
> > > Back in the day I used two Raspberry Pi for improving WiFi coverage.
> > > It was very straightforward, although somewhat unconventional
> > > configuration - two WiFi APs with the same SSID ('AP name' in layman
> > > terms), each brigded to the same wired VLAN. Worked better than I was
> > > anticipated, although I haven't bothered with 802.1n.
> > 
> > Out of curiosity, did they run on two different radio channels, or the
> > same?
> 
> That's the best part. Several APs can have different channels in this
> configuration, theoretically it's even possible for them to have
> different bands (one with 2.4Ghz and another one with 5Ghz).
> But convincing a WiFi station (a client) to seamlessly switch (the way
> 802.11r describes it) between APs in such scenario is impossible.
> So I came to manually setting the same channel for both APs, and
> changing it once per week.

Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194769

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-04-15 13:30 +0200
Message-ID	<vEO14-8ik-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194748

David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 09 Apr 2018 at 10:21:46 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Well, nice that they're starting to do that ... it's still a Linksys, so
>> (not having any experience with it either), I'd lean toward it not being
>> that great of a device.
>
> That's a shame. I was moving towards linksys after Reco's suggection earlier.
>
>> But then again, my views are skewed by dealing with equipment that'll
>> handle 50-60 (active) connections per radio (anything more, and there's
>> simply not enough bandwidth on the AP -- granted wave-2 ac / MU-MIMO is
>> quite interesting in that regard).
>
> I'm sorry I'm not in your league, being merely a home user trying
> to improve coverage around the house. I was aiming to make just
> one purchase to further that end. I couldn't afford to have the place
> wired up like a data centre.

The second statement is modifying the first.  (Small) Business
networking pays the bills - I can't go out and have stuff falling over
and dying on me.  But then, that's where the Ubiquiti stuff comes in for
me.  Just as inexpensive as soho kit ... but performs significantly
better.


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194587

From	Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date	2018-04-08 14:00 +0200
Message-ID	<vCh9f-7k-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194545

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 10:00:31 -0000 (UTC)
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

> Celejar wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> Yep, you've got the terms right.  
> >> 
> >> Does the buffalo also provide wifi access to other clients close to it?
> >> or is it JUST trying to pretend that it's a client device to the
> >> TP-Link?
> >
> > I'm not using the Buffalo to provide wireless connectivity to any
> > clients. The page I linked to does have instructions for doing that,
> > but I don't need it.
> 
> Good deal.  Using the buffalo as a wifi repeater would kill throughput
> for everything connected to it :)

Yes, I did have that impression. I even worry about whether its
repeating function is hurting wifi for everything on the 2.4 GHz band,
even those connecting to the TP-Link, but I really don't have much on
2.4 to begin with, just a couple of legacy devices (printer, old
Android phone) that don't support 5 GHz and aren't using much bandwidth.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194610

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-04-09 12:30 +0200
Message-ID	<vCCdH-5PJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194587

Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 10:00:31 -0000 (UTC)
> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>
>> Celejar wrote:
>> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
>> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> 
>> >> Yep, you've got the terms right.  
>> >> 
>> >> Does the buffalo also provide wifi access to other clients close to it?
>> >> or is it JUST trying to pretend that it's a client device to the
>> >> TP-Link?
>> >
>> > I'm not using the Buffalo to provide wireless connectivity to any
>> > clients. The page I linked to does have instructions for doing that,
>> > but I don't need it.
>> 
>> Good deal.  Using the buffalo as a wifi repeater would kill throughput
>> for everything connected to it :)
>
> Yes, I did have that impression. I even worry about whether its
> repeating function is hurting wifi for everything on the 2.4 GHz band,
> even those connecting to the TP-Link, but I really don't have much on
> 2.4 to begin with, just a couple of legacy devices (printer, old
> Android phone) that don't support 5 GHz and aren't using much bandwidth.

Pretty much it boils down to "repeaters" ... well, repeat.  The smarter
ones these days (i.e. not linksys,etc) *MAY* only repeat when they have
a connected client.

Otherwise it's "Rx a frame [from the AP], Tx that frame". In effect,
this will halve the throughput capacity of your WLAN (on that channel /
frequency, anyway).


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193865

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2018-03-16 17:20 +0100
Message-ID	<vu0ff-6wr-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193852

On Fri 16 Mar 2018 at 08:48:50 (+0000), Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:26:38 -0400
> rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, March 15, 2018 09:42:25 PM David Wright wrote:
> > > On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:  
> > > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:  
> > > > > When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to
> > > > > do, say, wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware
> > > > > doesn't allow for that?  
> > > > 
> > > > openwrt and dd-wrt both allow wired bridging[1] (or
> > > > pseudo-bridging by routing if your wireless hardware doesn't
> > > > support that).
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't
> > > > support actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see
> > > > such an example.  
> > > 
> > > I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.
> > > Although the User Manual from May 2013¹ has a brief section on
> > > bridging, the June 2014² revision is missing that part. Both have
> > > a "Wireless Repeating" link on the figure for Advanced Wireless
> > > Settings, but the link is not present in the actual configuration
> > > screen on the device.
> > > 
> > > In any case, the May 2013 manual says that to use it as a repeater,
> > > even wired, you have to set security to WEP or None. That's no use.
> > > 
> > > I wandered into BestBuy and couldn't find much about bridging on
> > > any of their router boxes. (Obviously I'm eschewing so-called
> > > WiFi Wireless Repeaters.) What I'm trying to ascertain is that
> > > all the wired bridging functionality is performed by the software
> > > and not any special hardware in the device.
> 
> I'd have thought that hardwired hubs are long gone, that all devices
> with multiple Ethernet ports are switches and therefore software-based.
> Indeed, many routers can be configured as VLANs.

I guess I missed where "hubs" came into the conversation. Anyway,
I was hoping to carry on using the current router if that were
possible, but might have to bite the bullet and buy two replacements
for it.

> I had a different problem recently, trying to work out which of a few
> high-bandwidth 802.11ac routers could be configured in pairs as wireless
> point-to-point links, which also uses the term 'bridging', and no, they
> can't all do it. But documentation is usually very poor for the
> lesser-used functions of most things. 'Bridging' is also used to mean
> wireless repeating, which is a different thing again.

Yes, and wireless repeating is rather ambiguous. I want the repeater
to be a wireless device, but connected to the other one by a CAT5 cable.

> > > Required topology:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >             ╲│╱                   ╲│╱                 ╲│╱
> > >          ┌───────┐             ┌───────┐           ┌───────┐
> > >          │W     L╞    CAT5     │W     L╞═PC        │ ROKUs │
> > > [Modem]══╡A     A╞═════════════╡A     A╞           │  etc  │
> > >          │N     N╞             │N     N╞           └───────┘
> > >          │       ╞═PC          │       ╞═PC
> > >          └───────┘             └───────┘
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ¹ WNDR3400v3_UM_10May2013.pdf
> > > ² WNDR3400v3_UM_19June2014.pdf  
> > 
> > I haven't paid attention to this thread from the beginning, but
> > looking at the sketch, I'm wondering what the purpose of the 2nd
> > router is?  Why not instead of a router put a switch there, and then
> > (assuming you need another WiFi access point at that position), plug
> > the 2 PCs and a wireless access point (not sure of the right name)
> > into the switch.
> 
> The network between the routers is a low-security DMZ, with access to
> the main network only through the port-forwarding of the second router.

OK, assuming you're talking about my diagram and not rhkramer's paragraph
(which doesn't have two routers), I guess you mean Left is the main
network and Right is the second router. I don't want "low security",
and I'm not sure what the implications of the term DMZ is.

What you see in the diagram is what I want to set up, except I haven't
specified exactly which item is wired to which port on which router,
or which wifi device is positioned close to which router.

> I have an Internet router, which provides occasional wireless for
> visitors, and a server acting as a firewall leading to the rest of the
> network, so there's no wireless access to the main network, though I do
> have an old wireless router that I can plug in if I need it temporarily.

This is a house rather than a B&B; there's no guest network here.
Every device needs access to the Internet and to every other device
on both routers (except the only access we'd expect *to* the Rokus
would be to ping them to see if we'd left the TV on).

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is a scheme involving a
LAN-LAN connection rather than LAN-WAN between the routers, but
I haven't figured out whether I'd benefit from that in the sense
of being able to keep my current router as the Left one.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193862

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2018-03-16 15:40 +0100
Message-ID	<vtYGt-5cj-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193848

On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 23:26:38 (-0400), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 15, 2018 09:42:25 PM David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:
> > > > When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to do, say,
> > > > wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware doesn't allow
> > > > for that?
> > > 
> > > openwrt and dd-wrt both allow wired bridging[1] (or pseudo-bridging by
> > > routing if your wireless hardware doesn't support that).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't support
> > > actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see such an
> > > example.
> > 
> > I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.
> > Although the User Manual from May 2013¹ has a brief section on
> > bridging, the June 2014² revision is missing that part. Both have
> > a "Wireless Repeating" link on the figure for Advanced Wireless
> > Settings, but the link is not present in the actual configuration
> > screen on the device.
> > 
> > In any case, the May 2013 manual says that to use it as a repeater,
> > even wired, you have to set security to WEP or None. That's no use.
> > 
> > I wandered into BestBuy and couldn't find much about bridging on
> > any of their router boxes. (Obviously I'm eschewing so-called
> > WiFi Wireless Repeaters.) What I'm trying to ascertain is that
> > all the wired bridging functionality is performed by the software
> > and not any special hardware in the device.
> > 
> > Required topology:
> > 
> > 
> >             ╲│╱                   ╲│╱                 ╲│╱
> >          ┌───────┐             ┌───────┐           ┌───────┐
> >          │W     L╞    CAT5     │W     L╞═PC        │ ROKUs │
> > [Modem]══╡A     A╞═════════════╡A     A╞           │  etc  │
> >          │N     N╞             │N     N╞           └───────┘
> >          │       ╞═PC          │       ╞═PC
> >          └───────┘             └───────┘
> > 
> > 
> > ¹ WNDR3400v3_UM_10May2013.pdf
> > ² WNDR3400v3_UM_19June2014.pdf
> 
> I haven't paid attention to this thread from the beginning, but looking at the 
> sketch, I'm wondering what the purpose of the 2nd router is?  Why not instead 
> of a router put a switch there, and then (assuming you need another WiFi 
> access point at that position), plug the 2 PCs and a wireless access point 
> (not sure of the right name) into the switch.

The diagram shows the hypothetical relationship of the two routers.
Both should be transmitting WiFi with the same SSID so that a laptop
can wander between them transparently. The Rokus don't wander while
in use, but they should be able to be placed arbitrarily within range
of either router.

The left PC would probably be used mainly for playing files and
internet into hifi. The right PCs might be a docked laptop, a
server, and perhaps a wired Roku. But everything should behave as
if it was in one network on one router.

> (That, in essence. is how my local LAN is setup except I have a router with 
> two switches and two wireless access points, each plugged into one of the 
> switches (different parts of the house).

But that means you have five/six pieces of equipment to connect up.
I can see advantages in my separate modem and router (for one thing,
the modem is currently on the left above and the my router is in the
position of the one at the right) but buying two switches and two WAPs
seems a bit extreme. I'm servicing a house, not a small businesss.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193860

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-03-16 14:20 +0100
Message-ID	<vtXr3-4er-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193845

David Wright wrote:
>
> --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:
>> > When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to do, say,
>> > wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware doesn't allow
>> > for that?
>> 
>> openwrt and dd-wrt both allow wired bridging[1] (or pseudo-bridging by
>> routing if your wireless hardware doesn't support that).
>> 
>> 
>> 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't support
>> actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see such an
>> example.
>
> I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.
> Although the User Manual from May 2013¹ has a brief section on
> bridging, the June 2014² revision is missing that part. Both have
> a "Wireless Repeating" link on the figure for Advanced Wireless
> Settings, but the link is not present in the actual configuration
> screen on the device.

That's probably talking about "WDS bridging", not what Don is talking
about.  That's an entirely different can of worms.

> Required topology:
>
>
>             ╲│╱                   ╲│╱                 ╲│╱
>          ┌───────┐             ┌───────┐           ┌───────┐
>          │W     L╞    CAT5     │W     L╞═PC        │ ROKUs │
> [Modem]══╡A     A╞═════════════╡A     A╞           │  etc  │
>          │N     N╞             │N     N╞           └───────┘
>          │       ╞═PC          │       ╞═PC
>          └───────┘             └───────┘
>
>
> ¹ WNDR3400v3_UM_10May2013.pdf
> ² WNDR3400v3_UM_19June2014.pdf

"PC" on the left side won't be able to talk to anything connected to the
right side (unless you punch holes in the "WAN" of the right-side
router). Suppose if that's your goal, it'll work fine (barring
double-NAT for the right-side devices, if that matters).

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193864

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2018-03-16 17:10 +0100
Message-ID	<vu05z-6qg-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193860

On Fri 16 Mar 2018 at 13:09:00 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> >
> > --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >
> > On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:
> >> > When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to do, say,
> >> > wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware doesn't allow
> >> > for that?
> >> 
> >> openwrt and dd-wrt both allow wired bridging[1] (or pseudo-bridging by
> >> routing if your wireless hardware doesn't support that).
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't support
> >> actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see such an
> >> example.
> >
> > I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.
> > Although the User Manual from May 2013¹ has a brief section on
> > bridging, the June 2014² revision is missing that part. Both have
> > a "Wireless Repeating" link on the figure for Advanced Wireless
> > Settings, but the link is not present in the actual configuration
> > screen on the device.
> 
> That's probably talking about "WDS bridging", not what Don is talking
> about.  That's an entirely different can of worms.

That's what I don't want, if it means the router-router connection
is wireless because (a) we have the CAT5 cable available and
(b) poor wireless transmission between the two areas is the problem
I'm trying to solve.

> > Required topology:
> >
> >
> >             ╲│╱                   ╲│╱                 ╲│╱
> >          ┌───────┐             ┌───────┐           ┌───────┐
> >          │W     L╞    CAT5     │W     L╞═PC        │ ROKUs │
> > [Modem]══╡A     A╞═════════════╡A     A╞           │  etc  │
> >          │N     N╞             │N     N╞           └───────┘
> >          │       ╞═PC          │       ╞═PC
> >          └───────┘             └───────┘
> >
> >
> > ¹ WNDR3400v3_UM_10May2013.pdf
> > ² WNDR3400v3_UM_19June2014.pdf
> 
> "PC" on the left side won't be able to talk to anything connected to the
> right side (unless you punch holes in the "WAN" of the right-side
> router). Suppose if that's your goal, it'll work fine (barring
> double-NAT for the right-side devices, if that matters).

Well, I *think* that that "punching" is the functionality that some
routers have and others don't. I'm trying to determine whether the
router Left does anything out of the ordinary other than notice rather
heavy traffic out of one port. If not, then I could put our current
router as Left and buy a better one for Right.

I think the double NAT is essential as Left can only send to one MAC
and therefore one IP address out of the CAT5 port.

What I need to contradict in my previous post is that the two routers
*can* use different SSIDs, because anything that roams is able to
switch between different SSIDs. The Rokus don't roam in that sense,
and can manually select between different networks if and when we
move them about. (They are three different models with different
pros and cons.)

So I think what I want is something like
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/run-two-routers-off-one-cable-connection-56718.html
and not (so much) something like
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/setting-up-wireless-routers-same-ssid-68675.html
where the router-router link is LAN-LAN.
But I'd be happy to try the second method instead if that meant
I could keep this router. Not, however, if I had to use WEP/None
for security. (I can't work out the relevance of that demand in
the User Manual.)

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193895

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-03-19 12:00 +0100
Message-ID	<vv0Ge-5pt-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193864

David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 16 Mar 2018 at 13:09:00 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
>> David Wright wrote:
>> >
>> > --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>> > Content-Disposition: inline
>> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> >
>> > On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:
>> >> > When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to do, say,
>> >> > wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware doesn't allow
>> >> > for that?
>> >> 
>> >> openwrt and dd-wrt both allow wired bridging[1] (or pseudo-bridging by
>> >> routing if your wireless hardware doesn't support that).
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't support
>> >> actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see such an
>> >> example.
>> >
>> > I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.
>> > Although the User Manual from May 2013¹ has a brief section on
>> > bridging, the June 2014² revision is missing that part. Both have
>> > a "Wireless Repeating" link on the figure for Advanced Wireless
>> > Settings, but the link is not present in the actual configuration
>> > screen on the device.
>> 
>> That's probably talking about "WDS bridging", not what Don is talking
>> about.  That's an entirely different can of worms.
>
> That's what I don't want, if it means the router-router connection
> is wireless because (a) we have the CAT5 cable available and
> (b) poor wireless transmission between the two areas is the problem
> I'm trying to solve.

Why not scrap "router 2" (on the right), and use a switch?  If you need
wifi, throw in a Ubiquiti UAP-AC-LITE with the switch, and call it a
day.

If it's a bit of "well, I have this stuff already; and can't really
afford new stuff ..."

(1) TURN OFF all the "all-in-one router" features -- DNS, DHCP, etc.
(2) Set the "LAN" address of Router2 (right router) to something in the
network provided by Router1 -- e.g. 192.168.0.2
(3) Plug the cat5 cable from Router1 into LAN1 of Router2, IGNORE the
"WAN" port.
(4) If you have two different WiFi SSIDs, rename Router2 to the same
SSID as Router1 (Password too).

I think I got the other bits from below up here as well ... 


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193867

From	Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>
Date	2018-03-16 18:30 +0100
Message-ID	<vu1kZ-7nE-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193845

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't
> > support actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see
> > such an example.
> 
> I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.

The software might not support it, but if openwrt or ddwrt can run on
the hardware, they should support bridging.

> Required topology:
> 
>             ╲│╱                   ╲│╱                 ╲│╱
>          ┌───────┐             ┌───────┐           ┌───────┐
>          │W     L╞    CAT5     │W     L╞═PC        │ ROKUs │
> [Modem]══╡A     A╞═════════════╡A     A╞           │  etc  │
>          │N     N╞             │N     N╞           └───────┘
>          │       ╞═PC          │       ╞═PC
>          └───────┘             └───────┘

I suggest that you instead run the second router as a switch with an
attached wireless AP instead, and if necessary, create additional
wireless networks which both APs broadcast for visitors/DMZs, and
additional VLANs/VPNs to do your DMZ/high security area. [You can also
add additional wireless APs and/or switches if you need them, too.]

Of course, you'll have to run openwrt or ddwrt to actually do this; most
built-in router firmware doesn't let you do this, because otherwise you
might not buy the more expensive "enterprise" kit.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      https://www.donarmstrong.com

No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this
does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.
 -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193870

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2018-03-16 20:20 +0100
Message-ID	<vu33r-fQ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193867

On Fri 16 Mar 2018 at 10:24:36 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't
> > > support actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see
> > > such an example.
> > 
> > I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.
> 
> The software might not support it, but if openwrt or ddwrt can run on
> the hardware, they should support bridging.

I can make sure the router I buy can run openwrt or ddwrt, but it
would be handy to know if I need to buy two or whether the current
one can at least do the job at one end of the diagram.

> > Required topology:
> > 
> >             ╲│╱                   ╲│╱                 ╲│╱
> >          ┌───────┐             ┌───────┐           ┌───────┐
> >          │W     L╞    CAT5     │W     L╞═PC        │ ROKUs │
> > [Modem]══╡A     A╞═════════════╡A     A╞           │  etc  │
> >          │N     N╞             │N     N╞           └───────┘
> >          │       ╞═PC          │       ╞═PC
> >          └───────┘             └───────┘
> 
> I suggest that you instead run the second router as a switch with an
> attached wireless AP instead,

So you're saying that a router can run as a switch. This is presumably
by just ignoring the WAN port and using just the LANs?¹ And what does
buying a WAP do that the wireless on the router can't cope with?

> and if necessary, create additional
> wireless networks which both APs broadcast for visitors/DMZs,

I don't have any visitors and I don't know what I'd do in a DMZ.

> and
> additional VLANs/VPNs to do your DMZ/high security area.

I haven't got a DMZ or a "high security area". When I mentioned
security,  it was because I don't want to run WEP/None security
on the wireless instead of the current WPS2/AES. For who knows
what reason, using any sort of bridging/repeating functionality
in the router necessitated reducing the wireless to WEP. Perhaps
the router has 16 bytes of memory and it can't do too many things
at once.

> [You can also
> add additional wireless APs and/or switches if you need them, too.]

Um, look, there's one house, one wife, small budget, and the current
box count is already at two.

Let's just imagine there's a wireless-proof gauze screen between the
two halves of the house. One router in each half is up to the task
of covering its half but no more. At the moment, one half of the
house (ironically the side with the modem) has next to no coverage.

> Of course, you'll have to run openwrt or ddwrt to actually do this; most
> built-in router firmware doesn't let you do this, because otherwise you
> might not buy the more expensive "enterprise" kit.

¹ ie what's outlined in this one
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/setting-up-wireless-routers-same-ssid-68675.html

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →

csiph-web

Help needed with home network configuration

Contents

#194581

#194583

#194588

#194612

#194748

#194751

#194770

#194771

#194778

#194794

#194769

#194587

#194610

#193865

#193862

#193860

#193864

#193895

#193867

#193870