Buying a powerful router/AP for three-story house

[shiftno]

I'm very interested in getting a router for my large (three-story, 80x30) house, and I'm trying to choose between the Ubiquiti PowerAP-N and the Amped Wireless R10000, as they seem to be very well-regarded. I'm open to another router, but it seems these have good marks.

I should be able to place the router pretty well in the center of the home, with an Ethernet connection to the modem.

I currently have a few routers scattered around the home (all hard-wired with home runs to the modem), and I have them configured on the same SSID, different channels, and same WPA security settings. My hope was to have a nice giant wireless network that would cover the house, and I was hoping that hand-off from one router to another would be seamless and unnoticeable.

Unfortunately, this hasn't worked very well. Seems like the networks just aren't very reliable, or don't play together very well. I have three WRTG54Gs and an old Belkin router.

I have Ethernet throughout the house, so having a hardwired connection would be no problem. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to have solid coverage all over. From my reading, it sounds like both the PowerAP-N and the R10000 might be good candidates.

The wireless clients would be about five laptops and about 12 smartphones/tablets.

I'm open to having multiple routers/APs, but I like the idea of the simplicity of just having one powerful one... if that's possible. That way I don't have to worry about hand-off or overlapping channels or anything. If I can find one router/AP that is reliable and has GREAT range, that would be wonderful.

Would appreciate any insight! Thanks!

 

[stevech]

you need a router + one or more APs.
See the FAQs here, and the same topic in the forums.

A million watt router/AP won't correct the problem that the user devices are low power.

 

[devnull]

Is there much wifi activity in your area? Use inSSIDer to find out what other wifi APs are around you.

Consider installing dd-wrt on the WRT54Gs and then turning down the transmit power. Wifi clients only switch SSIDs based on signal strength they receive from the AP and they tend to be slow to switch.

Also, go into the device properties for each wifi NIC and see if you can change any settings related to the AP hopping. On my laptop, there is a setting called "Roaming Aggressiveness".

 

[shiftno]

Thanks for the replies.

Other than the networks in the house, there is only one other WiFi network that I can ever detect -- it's a neighbor's house a few hundred feet away. Even when I do detect it, it's a weak signal.

I do have DD-WRT on one of the routers and actually Tomato on two of the others. I never thought to turn the transmit power down, to be honest. I always assumed the stronger, the better! But I guess that's not the case if there are several routers in the area...

Is there any chance that one "super router," such as the Amped Wireless R10000 or the Ubiquiti PowerAP-N, could suffice? I understand that the strongest AP can't make up for a weak radio on the other end, but surely some work better than others.

Thanks again! I'll continue researching.

 

[stevech]

you need a router + one or more APs.
See the FAQs here, and the same topic in the forums.

A million watt router/AP won't correct the problem that the user devices are low power.

No.

The high power routers/APs create the illusion of great service, lots of signal strength. But it's just one-way. WiFi of course is two-way.

 

[stevech]

you need a router + one or more APs.
See the FAQs here, and the same topic in the forums.

A million watt router/AP won't correct the problem that the user devices are low power.

The high power routers/APs create the illusion of great service, lots of signal strength. But it's just one-way. WiFi of course is two-way.

I've not seen any WiFi clients that choose "best" router/AP based on signal strength. That's an old problem in the 802.11 standard: the criteria for best isn't defined, and most choose first-heard for the SSIDs that you prioritize in a list on the client.

 

[shiftno]

Thanks! I'm going to read up on some of the great materials here on the site.

By the way, any favorite pieces of equipment for a router + AP(s) solution like you recommend?

Also, in your opinion, would high-gain or larger antennas make any difference? For instance, the Linksys WRT54Gs have their standard antennas, and then you can buy larger ones that are supposed to boost the signal.

 

[stevech]

Antennas can help - but newer WiFi gear does not enable external antennas. Indoors, about all you can, product permitting, is replace a 2dBi antenna with, say, a 6 or 9dBi. Omni-directional for indoor use with moving users.

But that small dB improvement in antenna gain is insignificant versus the propagation path loss from distance and walls/floors. A common path loss indoors is 60dB or more, so a few dB better antenna gain doesn't do much. Antenna gain is bi-directional - benefits both transmitter and receiver. But to make a real difference, you need 20dB or more of improvement.

Likewise, doubling the transmitter power is just 3dB of improvement. Doubling yet again is just 6dB. And that helps only one end of the link; the other end is a transmitter (like a laptop or smart phone) with unchanged transmitter power.

The solution is to add one or more APs so the losses from distance and walls/floors is eliminated or reduced.

An AP can be any WiFi router - re-purposed as in the FAQ here. Or you can purchase a device that has an AP mode. The challenge is how to easily connect the AP to the router... cat5, power-line/HomePlug, or MoCA.

The ill-advised way is a "range extender", a.k.a. WiFi repeater. These are problematic as there's no standard for such, and they halve the speed.

 

[shiftno]

Would a typical laptop with wifi be considered a low-power device? I understand phones and tablets might not have the best wifi reception, but if my main goal was to have good coverage for a laptop, would a super router help at all? Or are we still talking the same thing, where it doesn't really matter much?

 

[sfx2000]

I'm very interested in getting a router for my large (three-story, 80x30) house, and I'm trying to choose between the Ubiquiti PowerAP-N and the Amped Wireless R10000, as they seem to be very well-regarded. I'm open to another router, but it seems these have good marks.

I should be able to place the router pretty well in the center of the home, with an Ethernet connection to the modem.

I currently have a few routers scattered around the home (all hard-wired with home runs to the modem), and I have them configured on the same SSID, different channels, and same WPA security settings. My hope was to have a nice giant wireless network that would cover the house, and I was hoping that hand-off from one router to another would be seamless and unnoticeable.

Unfortunately, this hasn't worked very well. Seems like the networks just aren't very reliable, or don't play together very well. I have three WRTG54Gs and an old Belkin router.

I have Ethernet throughout the house, so having a hardwired connection would be no problem. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to have solid coverage all over. From my reading, it sounds like both the PowerAP-N and the R10000 might be good candidates.

The wireless clients would be about five laptops and about 12 smartphones/tablets.

I'm open to having multiple routers/APs, but I like the idea of the simplicity of just having one powerful one... if that's possible. That way I don't have to worry about hand-off or overlapping channels or anything. If I can find one router/AP that is reliable and has GREAT range, that would be wonderful.

Would appreciate any insight! Thanks!

Interesting..

Couple of thoughts - sounds like you have good wireless coverage as it stands, but maybe some tweaks are in order...

1) Only a single DHCP server - I would recommend that be the Router/AP that is attached to the modem - have this be the main router for the network, the other AP's should attach to the LAN ports of that router.

2) Single SSID - This is called an Extended Service Set, vs. a single independent Basic Service Set - set the other Router/AP's into AP only configuration - there's a good article on this site to walk thru how to set up a router/AP as an AP only.

3) For security - use the best level you can - WPA2 if all clients support it.

4) RF/Radios - I've always been a big fan of leaving them on the same channel, as they will coordinate and synchronize and make roaming easier, but you can also use the 1/6/11 approach as well - much depends on how aggressive the clients roam for handhelds primarily (phone/tablets)

Now roaming between AP's - some clients are better at this than others - I seen some clients stubbornly hang on to an AP at very low RSSI when sitting right next to a better AP - others tend to rescan and find the best source - in Windows, some drivers have a setting in the properties that you can adjust a bit - some have that switch, some don't.

I would avoid have a single high power AP, rather it's better to plan the network out, and if you've already done the ethernet drops thru the house, use it to place the AP's where the majority of the users are.

 

[stevech]

...
Now roaming between AP's - some clients are better at this than others - I seen some clients stubbornly hang on to an AP at very low (weak signals)

This is common. A way to deal with it is to set a different SSID on each access point and different than the main WiFi router. The user can then choose the "best" SSID, knowing which SSID is where in the house. This is manual roaming to "best" server. Unfortunately, consumer grade 802.11/WiFi doesn't automate this.

 

[shiftno]

Currently, I do have one router acting as a router (and DHCP server). All the rest are acting as APs only.

I have tried two approaches: Having separate SSIDs for each router, so you can manually connect to whichever you're closest to. I've also tried setting the APs to the exact same SSID and security settings (WPA2) so the devices would automatically hop from one router to another.

I currently am doing the second approach -- that is, they all share the same SSID and security settings, BUT are on different channels. In fact, I've been trying to keep them on separate channels, like 1, 6, 11. I thought that was preferred, as opposed to them sharing the same channel?

I guess I have a couple of questions:

1 - Is it correct that they should be on separate channels (such as 1, 6, 11)?

2 - If that is true, then if they have different SSIDs can the channels be the same? Or is it the same principle? If I have SSIDs of "House 1," "House 2," and "House 3," does it matter if they're all on, say, Channel 11?

So far, it's been disappointing that neither of these approaches have worked really well. I'm open to buying something a little more high-end if it could just blanket the entire house. Sounds like one "super" router might not quite do it, but perhaps a few good ones that are strategically placed.

I guess I see places like hotels or large offices that seem to have widespread coverage, and I think it would be great to not have to monitor the wifi and manually pick the best network based on where in the house you are.

It must be doable, and I've got to think I have the advantage as I have Ethernet run everywhere so I have the luxury of being able to put an AP most anywhere. Maybe I'm just not placing the APs in the best spots, or maybe the APs I'm using are just weak and I need to use some better ones.

 

[stevech]

Currently, I do have one router acting as a router (and DHCP server). All the rest are acting as APs only.

I have tried two approaches: Having separate SSIDs for each router, so you can manually connect to whichever you're closest to. I've also tried setting the APs to the exact same SSID and security settings (WPA2) so the devices would automatically hop from one router to another.

I currently am doing the second approach -- that is, they all share the same SSID and security settings, BUT are on different channels. In fact, I've been trying to keep them on separate channels, like 1, 6, 11. I thought that was preferred, as opposed to them sharing the same channel?

I guess I have a couple of questions:

1 - Is it correct that they should be on separate channels (such as 1, 6, 11)?

Generally, yes. Just spreads your user traffic on different channels so they don't compete for air-time. But you probably aren't overloading the channel's capacity. But choose channels based on how BUSY the channel is among your neighbors. Not how many SSIDs you see, but how busy they are. How to know how busy? Without pro tools, about all you can do is ping from client to your WiFi router at various times of the day to see if there's trend of long ping times which is suggestive of a congested channel. Choose a channel not within +/- 3 of a busy channel, if you find busy-channel issues.

2 - If that is true, then if they have different SSIDs can the channels be the same? Or is it the same principle? If I have SSIDs of "House 1," "House 2," and "House 3," does it matter if they're all on, say, Channel 11?

Yes, the combination of channel and SSID make the signal unique. Like your street name and street number together make your home unique. But the street name, like the WiFi channel #, doesn't ensure that others' traffic flows on the same "street".

So far, it's been disappointing that neither of these approaches have worked really well. I'm open to buying something a little more high-end if it could just blanket the entire house. Sounds like one "super" router might not quite do it, but perhaps a few good ones that are strategically placed.

The only real way to get good coverage is with multiple APs. It will work. It's how WiFi is done in large enterprise settings. It's why there are APs!

I guess I see places like hotels or large offices that seem to have widespread coverage, and I think it would be great to not have to monitor the wifi and manually pick the best network based on where in the house you are.

It must be doable, and I've got to think I have the advantage as I have Ethernet run everywhere so I have the luxury of being able to put an AP most anywhere. Maybe I'm just not placing the APs in the best spots, or maybe the APs I'm using are just weak and I need to use some better ones.

Yep, having ethernet cables already run is 90% of the challenge!
Consumer WiFi doesn't implement automation while moving between APs like cell phones do for moving among cell sites. The latter is called hand-off, directed by the cell site base station, or can be at the user handset's choice. But it's seamless. Proprietary (non-standards-based) WiFi in the enterprise systems does have seamless handoff. But client devices need special software to do so.

Hotels just have several APs - no magic.

 

[sfx2000]

This is common. A way to deal with it is to set a different SSID on each access point and different than the main WiFi router. The user can then choose the "best" SSID, knowing which SSID is where in the house. This is manual roaming to "best" server. Unfortunately, consumer grade 802.11/WiFi doesn't automate this.

Esp when working with mulitple SSID's rather than a common SSID

The client can see the other SSID (non-common), but it's attached to the one it knows has connectivity.