Home Networking Setup

[DazedAndConfused]

Hello everyone,

I am asking what may be a very basic question, but I cannot seem to grasp it properly. I am a new homeowner and am installing my own wired and wireless network throughout my house. I have already mapped the devices and pulled the wiring to location, and am in the process of termination now. However, my understanding of the hardware needed to run the system is less than stellar.

I have a Netgear JGS524Ev2 and an N750 wireless router. I also have the modem supplied by Comcast. My understanding is that a router goes between the modem and the switch to provide internet to all the wired locations - this router does not have to be particularly powerful, so long as it has enough throughput and simultaneous connections? Is this accurate? I have 50mbps services from Comcast, it seems that most routers can provide well in excess of this Wan-LAN throughput - am I missing something? Finally, as this will be something we are not accessing very often and does not appear to require a great deal of capabilities, is there a recommended model or brand for reliability?

Thank you for your assistance and expertise!

 

[stevech]

50Mbps down from your ISP. Nice.
I think most any mainstream WiFi router will enable that speed, when it's possible to achieve with certain host servers on the Internet.
As long as you don't have a complex QoS setup, etc., most any mid-range name brand is likely adequate in speed. The need is for the NAT function to keep up. Shouldn't be an issue. After the routing functions, the packet flow to the built-in switch of the router, the by wired means to connected devices on cat5. That can include other switches. These are wire-speed and that's much higher than 50Mbps.

Of course, WiFi client users have wireless to deal with - competition among neighbors, best-channel selection at the router, and all that.

Were I live, 50Mbps would triple my cable modem bill, and double my speed. But I'm too cheap. What I have is good enough. And Time Warner Cable loves to sell less, get more.

 

[KGB7]

What exactly is the issue?

 

[DazedAndConfused]

I just wanted to make sure that I was not missing something critical in the needs of the router that will be providing the connection between the modem and the switch. In the looking about I had done, it seemed like nearly every modem was more than capable of what was needed.

As far as wireless access points go, is there an advantage in purchase items marketed as access points over wifi routers that I then set as access points?

 

[KGB7]

If your current modem works with your ISP and you getting the speeds you are paying for, then you are fine.


If your current wifi router does not cover your entire house, then you can buy a separate AP and attach it to the switch. Then AP will extend the signal to the rest of the house, but youll have to set up AP just as you would any wifi router; SSID and password, etc.
But, you need to have a router between a modem and a switch for AP's to work, since a router provides the "routing" part and the IPs to the rest of the network.

AP's can be cheaper and can be more expensive then a wifi router. The good thing about AP's, is that many of them are powered over ethernet cable by a switch. Thus you have a flexibility of placing an AP anywhere since there is no need for power outlet. Wifi Routers need a power outlet.

From what you have described, you have everything set up correctly.

If you have any issues in the near future, dont hesitate to ask us, and dont forget to provide us with as many details as possible to better help you.

 

[stevech]

I just wanted to make sure that I was not missing something critical in the needs of the router that will be providing the connection between the modem and the switch. In the looking about I had done, it seemed like nearly every modem was more than capable of what was needed.

As far as wireless access points go, is there an advantage in purchase items marketed as access points over wifi routers that I then set as access points?

Access points are used to create new or better areas of coverage, beyond what the access point built into a WiFi router can provide. Multi-floor homes, 2000 sq. ft and up large homes, etc.

 

[fistv]

As far as access points go I initially installed linksys wap's, coverage was spotty and they would drop their link with the dd-wrt linksys wrt54G and constantly needed to be rebooted. The linksys WAPs were pricey, ~$90-~$120, for what they did. Got tired of complaints so I went cisco aeronet 1600E SAPs, Stand Alone Point. Coverage more then doubled in our 80,000sq ft building, they are pricey though. We use them outside during customer events mounted on tripods and three of them cover 4 acres of a tent covered lot on the side of our building, they are not water proof so they don't get left out. They are also POE so when connected to POE switches they can be mounted without regard to having to plug in a wall wart nearby, makes ceiling mounting a breeze. The downside is typical cisco configuration stuff.

 

[azazel1024]

All that and you were using a wrt54g as the router?

 

[fistv]

All that and you were using a wrt54g as the router?

Actually no, when we were building and moving in 3 years ago all we had was a cable modem with static IP's 248 netmask, our paetec fiber lines had not been done yet and our production servers, call center, warehouse, shipping and receiving were in the other building 4 miles away. IT moved in first, we had no plans for wireless at all. I brought the 54G from home with ddwrt and plugged into my HP procurve 4208. Nobody even used the wireless up to that point, it was in my shielded server room, I setup the open vpn to connect to my asa's in the other building. Then I plugged in two access points and people started using the wireless for their cell phones, the owner and the general manager hooked their office sonos's up, the iphones, ipads, etc and there was no getting rid of it after that point, there were between 30-60 devices connected, through the 54G/cable modem, then the restaurant got done, lunchroom got done, both gyms got done, both with sonos and smart tv's, directTV's, once the fiber came the wireless 192 net stayed on the cable modem with the gadgets and not on the corporate wired network, he 54G was driving me nuts, yea I know, it was never made for that. The 891w and aeronets were like nite and day compared to the 54G and wap610's. The aeronets handle 50 users each with no sweat. Then a second cable modem with static and another 891W and 2-5 aeronets just for the restaurant and store. I still use the 54G but it's an open one for the customers, I set it to reboot every two hours to clear the client cache out, once the cache hits ~40 no one can connect and we have customers that bring their laptops, pads, etc, they work, smoke cigars, eat and drink in our lounge.

 

[DazedAndConfused]

Thanks everyone. I looked at access points, but in the end I decided to go with an Asus AC-56U in AP mode as the access point. It was a bit of a struggle to set up with only a Mac available, but I believe I finally have it working properly in Access Point mode.

I'm now working on getting my old WNDR4000 working properly. At one point in time, I had experimented with putting DD-WRT on the router; however, I think that was a mistake and I'm going to attempt to revert it to standard Netgear firmware.

 

[azazel1024]

Oh, okay. Just seemed odd that you were leaning on a router that old to handle what seemed to be a relatively high client count.