i think i need a wireless bridge

[ihatesatellite]

I have a less-than optimal network setup at home, which I'm trying to improve on. I'll try some ascii art, here, to illustrate:

                       [-----Office-----]                [-----Garage-----]
Internet <--coaxial--> [ Buffalo(DDWRT) ] <--100baseT--> [ gigabit switch ]
                       [   \Desktop     ]                [   \media server]
                       [   \Printer     ]                [   \backup srvr ]
                       [   \Scanner     ]                [   \web server  ]
                  ---other wireless devices---

Internet access is via a cable modem in my office. Since they're big and noisy, my servers are in the garage. The only connection between my office and the garage is an old, poor quality twisted-pair cable that won't handle gigabit. Unfortunately replacing that one cable would be a major operation, so I'm considering a wireless connection. 802.11n wasn't fast enough to be any improvement over the existing wire, but I think 802.11ac should be.

The Buffalo 802.11n router I'm using is plenty fast enough for the level of Internet service I have, and I'm quite happy with DDWRT as my firewall, DCHP server, etc.

What I'd like to do is retain the Buffalo router, but replace the twisted pair between the office and the garage with a wireless link. Most importantly, I'd like to have the general wireless service for the house coming from the garage, so that I can get better speeds between wireless devices and the servers, there.

Would it be possible to set up a new 802.11ac router in the garage and configure it to bridge the wireless connection to my existing router and the wired connections to the servers, and still provide 802.11n/ac service to other devices in the house? Or will I need one device to bridge the networks, and a second device to be an access point?

 

[Mick243]

You already have wired to to the garage.... Is it cat5e? If so, the gigabit switch out there, and gigabit capable stuff in the house will beat any wireless solution, especially one based in the garage.

Even if you stick with 100megabit wired, it will still be better than most wireless solutions.

If you want better access to the servers etc with wireless devices (and assuming they are capable of using it) upgrading your current router/access point is the best way.

 

[ihatesatellite]

You already have wired to to the garage.... Is it cat5e? If so, the gigabit switch out there, and gigabit capable stuff in the house will beat any wireless solution, especially one based in the garage.

Unfortunately, it's cat3, so no gigabit for me. I did test and found that 100baseT performance was better than 300mbit 802.11n, but I think 802.11ac will be an improvement.

 

[Mick243]

So, how far away is the garage, what's the construction of both garage and house, any vegetation or other structures between?

Is the cat3 direct buried, or in a pipe - can you use it to pull cat5e or cat6 through....

Back to your original question....

If you use the cat3 to connect your modem to an AC router in the garage, then use a similar AC router as a network bridge (or an actual AC bridge) in the office will give the best non wired connectivity, but even better if bot router and bridge have line of sight (eg, on outside of walls but protected from weather). Then you could use your old n router as an access point inside to give n coverage in the house, bearing in mind that you may have useable AC coverage from the garage router, but may well also have lots of dead spots

 

[sfx2000]

100-Base-T - it's better than a wireless link, even with 802.11ac... it's full duplex.

Check with a local installer, shouldn't be much more that $100USD to run another CAT6 cable over to your switch - most "CableGuys" are independent contractors and they already have the material.

 

[stevech]

run that cat5 in the attic or if house is not on a slab, under the house. The latter is easy as you can drill down and not have to cut drywall which then leads to painting and that leads to repainting the whole room and so on.

Look to at the "flat" cat5 which can run under baseboards or carpet.

 

[azazel1024]

Also if running under/over the living area isn't an option, look at direct bury cable. I hesitate to run stuff outside (because lightning strikes), but houses have coax outside all the time. You can just run it straight outside, bury it along the perimeter of the house and then in to the garage. Stick it in conduit if you want.

If a 300Mbps wireless link is not faster than a 100Mbps wired link, odds are good that the 11ac link might not be much better, if.

What kind of speeds are you actually getting and is it a TRUE 300Mbps link? IE both ends are supporting 300Mbps?

11ac dictated 5GHz, which does not penetrate walls well. I don't have much 11ac experience yet, but I have some 5GHz experience and what I have says that if, for example, you are getting sub 10MB/sec wireless speeds on a 2.4GHz 2:2 40MHz link, a 5GHz 2:2 40MHz link is probably going to be slower.

If you were getting close to ideal 2.4GHz link speeds (which under ideal circumstances, 2:2 40MHz should be PHY 300Mbps and in the 140-180Mbps actual range), than 11ac would probably be a LOT faster, but if you are already looking at pretty significant 2.4GHz degredation, 11ac/5GHz is probably going to be no better or even worse.

 

[stevech]

If a 300Mbps wireless link is not faster than a 100Mbps wired link, odds are good that the 11ac link might not be much better, if.

So true.
Because WiFi is a high overhead medium, and shared with other people in a coordinated manner largely invisible to you.
Rule of thumb: WiFi indicated speeds (Mbps) is the raw rate. The true net speed is about 60% of raw speed, absent any competition for air time among neighbors' WiFi within 3 channels of yours. It's not how many WiFi SSIDs re nearby, it's how busy each is.

 

[azazel1024]

'tis my experience. 60% is the best you'll see downhill, with a tail wind. Its also simplex...and 10/100 is duplex (well, assuming you are actually running it in duplex mode).

Beyond other devices sharing it, the biggest issue is signal degredation.

If your signal is far enough down that you are getting less than 100Mbps realizable wireless data rates on 2.4GHz, assuming no interferance and no bandwidth sharing (neither you nor your neighbors are stepping on your channels), odds are probably decent 802.11ac, since it is 5GHz, might not provide better throughput.

The questions of course would be, just how far below 100Mbps are you getting on wireless, is it 2.4GHz that you are getting below 100Mbps, or is it 5GHz that you are testing on and what would the wireless link be.

If you are getting 80Mbps on a 5GHz link between your base station and the garage using 2:2 40MHz...then, yeah, 802.11ac is going to do fair amount better than that. If its 40Mbps on 2.4GHz 2:2 40MHz...not a chance 11ac will better 100Mbps.

The other confunding factor is...what KIND of 11ac? 1,300Mbps 3:3 capable router/bridge setup might do better than 100Mbps even with high interferance. Either on 11ac, or switching over to 2.4GHz 11n.

Routers and bridges typically have better antennas than clients do.

You can also setup a TRUE wireless bridge, using bridges between locations. Good wireless bridges (not a router/access point in bridge mode) have significantly higher powered radios and semi-directional high gain antennas that can easily be 15-20dBi higher between a pair of good wireless bridges than what you'd get with a couple of routers in bridge mode.

That can be a huge difference in throughput.

Downside is, I haven't seen any 11ac bridges yet. Most seem to be 300Mbps 2.4GHz and sometimes 5GHz.

Of you could setup a pair of regular 11ac routers in bridge mode, and then slap some directional antennas on them to boost signal strength to get much higher throughput.

Of course, all of that costs money. Its a lot cheaper to spend less than $100 on a couple of hundred feet of direct bury Cat5e, stick a jack in an outside wall, run it out of the house, bury it a foot down along the permimeter of the house and then run it through the wall in to the garage and terminate a jack there. Much higher speeds too.

 

[MosesHasArrived]

Even if you stick with 100megabit wired, it will still be better than most wireless solutions.

^this. Wireless is convenient but it will likely not give you the speed you so desire, wired is always the best way. That said, if you still want to go wireless you need to upgrade your current router and install an access point in the garage that is at least as fast over wireless as your router in the office otherwise LAN speeds will suffer.