Proper setup:Routers, switches, wireless

[Mik]

Here is my situation:

My home is roughly 2400sf. all on one floor, so it should be good as far as wireless range...

1) My cable modem is in a closet out side my house.
2) From there I have 1 ethernet cable that goes to my TV area.
3) Just placing a wireless router in the same closet and a non-wireless AP next to the TV limits the access from the opposite side of the house.
4) Placing the wireless router (as an AP) where the TV is and a non wireless router in the closet is better (for now I have a Asus RT-N66U; perhaps a newer model will have better range?); I also have add on +9dB antennas for that router.

One way that I know would sole the issues is to:
a) If I have a good non-wireless router in the outside closet (TP-LINK TL-R470T+), acting as the main router for the house.
b) The same Asus RT-N66U centrally located and connected with an ethernet cable to the router above (all laptops, tables, smartphones, printer, NEST, etc.., will wirelessly connect to this)
c) Either a switch or a router/AP at the end of the other ethernet cable coming out next to the TV (TV, Apple TV, Onkyo receiver,...)

Would the switch be enough and act just like additional ports on the main router and provide full transparency for things like Apple Airplay?
Or should I use a router/AP? And I would I configure the Router/AP if needed?

Any particular suggestion as far as :
- cloning the MAC address from the router to the Asus

I suspect this is extremely simple to answer for most of the people on this forum.

Thanks in advance.

Mik

 

[joegreat]

My suggestions for the wireless part are simple:
1. remove the new antennas for your good old N66U as they do no good for you (narrow the wireless signal)
2. install HGG's fork firmware on the Asus router and you I bet you will have full wireless coverage (at least for the 2.4 GHz band) - if the router is positioned nearly in the middle of the flat
3. if still not good wireless coverage in all areas (most likely for the 5 GHz band): add one or two repeater(s) - again from Asus - to cover the weak places

Alternatively you can buy a WLAN beast from Asus (like AC87U, AC88U or even AC5300) - if the budget - allows it to cover the whole flat with only one router - still need to have HGG's firmware to unlock the power and to place it centrally!

 

[Klueless]

3. if still not good wireless coverage in all areas (most likely for the 5 GHz band): add one or two repeater(s) - again from Asus - to cover the weak places

Very intrigued. I'm very happy with my Asus router so when it came time to buy an extender / repeater my first thought was, of course, Asus (the very one you mention in fact).

Then I checked out the SNB reports/reviews and wound up going with a Netgear. I'm happy but you do have me 2nd guessing myself. Was there something special I overlooked? Thanks.

 

[sfx2000]

Alternatively you can buy a WLAN beast from Asus (like AC87U, AC88U or even AC5300) - if the budget - allows it to cover the whole flat with only one router - still need to have HGG's firmware to unlock the power and to place it centrally!

Not sure why folks continue to recommend HGG's fork when there's serious ethical issues behind that build...

1) Allows people to run their Router/AP radios outside of regulatory domain certifications that ASUS has completed - in some areas, this can cause serious interference with licensed owners of spectrum

2) HGG steadfastly refuses to share his changes in accordance with GPL - after repeated requests, still no source code available for community review.

 

[L&LD]

Not sure why folks continue to recommend HGG's fork when there's serious ethical issues behind that build...

1) Allows people to run their Router/AP radios outside of regulatory domain certifications that ASUS has completed - in some areas, this can cause serious interference with licensed owners of spectrum

2) HGG steadfastly refuses to share his changes in accordance with GPL - after repeated requests, still no source code available for community review.

1) Just because a Ferrari allows doing quadruple the speed limit, doesn't mean most owners don't obey the law and should be assumed guilty, by default. Punishment should be for actions (done), not simply what one is capable of. I do not condone using this firmware as a method of circumventing legal operation. I also do not like to be babysat with how to use the tools available to us either.

2) The changelog is sufficient, no? Source code for me would mean learning Greek. Not going to happen in this lifetime. As for the 'accordance with GPL', I find no reason to follow those seemingly arbitrary rules? No reason as in written (documented) and enforced. No reason also as in this is 'free' until it's not.

Why hggomes doesn't simply post a rar file of the source code is up to him to answer, but I do not see any negatives when I tested in my limited way the firmware hggomes offers (running on a router behind a router running stock firmware). Being based on RMerlin's work, I feel it is intrinsically secure (mostly because there seems to be at least some communication between RMerlin and hggomes as each new release is made available).

If any light can be shed on issue 2), via links, I will gladly read up and could change my mind then.

 

[sfx2000]

The changelog is sufficient, no? Source code for me would mean learning Greek. Not going to happen in this lifetime. As for the 'accordance with GPL', I find no reason to follow those seemingly arbitrary rules? No reason as in written (documented) and enforced. No reason also as in this is 'free' until it's not.

In GPL - change log is not sufficient - source must be provided... the request has been done many times.

Here - let me do it again - as a member of SNB Forums, and as a member of the IETF/IEEE, I formally request all source code for the HGG branch/fork of the ASUS firmware and subsequent forks.

I formally expect to hear the sound of crickets... HGG has never complied with any pull requests..

The language in the GPLv2/GPLv4 is not arbitrary - EFF and others have been very successful at enforcing this license across many courts... go read it.

 

[sfx2000]

Here - let me do it again - as a member of SNB Forums, and as a member of the IETF/IEEE, I formally request all source code for the HGG branch/fork of the ASUS firmware and subsequent forks.

I formally expect to hear the sound of crickets... HGG has never complied with any pull requests..

HGG - if you're reading this - contact me via PM here on SNB, and I will provide a location that you can copy your source to.

 

[L&LD]

In GPL - change log is not sufficient - source must be provided... the request has been done many times.

Here - let me do it again - as a member of SNB Forums, and as a member of the IETF/IEEE, I formally request all source code for the HGG branch/fork of the ASUS firmware and subsequent forks.

I formally expect to hear the sound of crickets... HGG has never complied with any pull requests..

The language in the GPLv2/GPLv4 is not arbitrary - EFF and others have been very successful at enforcing this license across many courts... go read it.

Any links you may provide? Not to court cases, to the requirements to comply with such requests.

And to be clear, the request is from a random forum member making it.

No offense, but everyone here except Tim is a 'random forum member' in this aspect.

 

[sfx2000]

Any links you may provide? Not to court cases, to the requirements to comply with such requests.

And to be clear, the request is from a random forum member making it.

No offense, but everyone here except Tim is a 'random forum member' in this aspect.

read and heed...

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html

 

[sfx2000]

So make the source available for public review...

 

[L&LD]

read and heed...

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html

For something that is supposed to help the end user, this sure seems written by a lawyer.

I did read somewhere in that link (I also followed links within it) that the source should be provided, but I still do not see the 'required' part. Free to use and modify software, except it's not?

Thanks for the link, but this is as far as I need to know, right now.

 

[sfx2000]

For something that is supposed to help the end user, this sure seems written by a lawyer.

I did read somewhere in that link (I also followed links within it) that the source should be provided, but I still do not see the 'required' part. Free to use and modify software, except it's not?

GPL license is nothing to trifle with... it's written by a lawyer to protect the rights of all who have contributed, and yes, it's withstood the test - Busybox folks have been extremely successful at pursuing this...

FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is provided under many different licenses - GPL is just one - but this is the one of interest - and one that basically compels HGG to release his source - it protects his rights to his contributions, but the community should benefit as well...

With my pull/demand request - crickets from HGG - which means at this moment, HGG is in violation of the GPLv3 that Asus released their source against, along with many other contributors - and he's also in violation of GPLv2 against those contributors.

@hggomes - man up and provide the source or get a good lawyer... I've got a feeling you're in for a bad summer...

 

[jegesq]

For something that is supposed to help the end user, this sure seems written by a lawyer.

I did read somewhere in that link (I also followed links within it) that the source should be provided, but I still do not see the 'required' part. Free to use and modify software, except it's not?

Thanks for the link, but this is as far as I need to know, right now.

You say you don't want to hear about court cases (and yes, I'm a lawyer so not reading the law or being aware of case authority interpreting and applying the license is no excuse....as in "ignorance of the law" does not excuse a willful violation), but the GPL does impose restrictions on what someone can do under it. It also grants the right to copyright holders whose work has been violated when someone incorporates copyrighted material (for example, BusyBox, which is used in Asus' firmware) that has been licensed for use under the GPL but which isn't distributed with the source code, to sue the infringer who violates the license terms.

The license does in fact require publication and availability of the source upon request, and when someone refuses/fails to provide it, any holder of copyrighted material incorporated into the derivative work under the terms of the GPL, can bring suit for damages and/or to enjoin further distribution. (see, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html) I mention BusyBox specifically as a prime example, because they have been very active over the years in suing a number of people who have violated the GPL by failing to disclose source code when incorporating their copyrighted work into the new and derivative work. (see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits ).

Of course, beyond complying with the GPL and not misusing someone else's work, there's also the issue that arises when source code is not made available of not being able to verify what's in the purported derivative work. I find it extremely odd and more than a bit ironic that you (and lots of others) say that you can't read the source code and are not interested in knowing about it, but at the same time, you're willing to place trust and confidence in the work of someone who won't let those who can read and analyze the code do so. How do you know there's nothing malicious going on "under the hood" of his firmware? The answer is that you don't know, and can't know. So using HGGomes' firmware is purely an article of faith, unconfirmed, unknowable by you, and yet you trust it, as you would a religious belief. Very odd IMHO. Very odd indeed when unlike religion, if he posted and made his source available, the facts could be actually confirmed.

The difference between Merlin (and John's fork), on the one hand, and HGGomes' on the other, is that at least the former publish their's so it can be scrutinized to determine if there are any obvious security risks and to verify nothing malicious is going on. That's something that you'll never get any reassurance about using HGGomes' firmware.

 

[L&LD]

GPL license is nothing to trifle with... it's written by a lawyer to protect the rights of all who have contributed, and yes, it's withstood the test - Busybox folks have been extremely successful at pursuing this...

FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is provided under many different licenses - GPL is just one - but this is the one of interest - and one that basically compels HGG to release his source - it protects his rights to his contributions, but the community should benefit as well...

With my pull/demand request - crickets from HGG - which means at this moment, HGG is in violation of the GPLv3 that Asus released their source against, along with many other contributors - and he's also in violation of GPLv2 against those contributors.

@hggomes - man up and provide the source or get a good lawyer... I've got a feeling you're in for a bad summer...

You say you don't want to hear about court cases (and yes, I'm a lawyer so not reading the law or being aware of case authority interpreting and applying the license is no excuse....as in "ignorance of the law" does not excuse a willful violation), but the GPL does impose restrictions on what someone can do under it. It also grants the right to copyright holders whose work has been violated when someone incorporates copyrighted material (for example, BusyBox, which is used in Asus' firmware) that has been licensed for use under the GPL but which isn't distributed with the source code, to sue the infringer who violates the license terms.

The license does in fact require publication and availability of the source upon request, and when someone refuses/fails to provide it, any holder of copyrighted material incorporated into the derivative work under the terms of the GPL, can bring suit for damages and/or to enjoin further distribution. (see, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html) I mention BusyBox specifically as a prime example, because they have been very active over the years in suing a number of people who have violated the GPL by failing to disclose source code when incorporating their copyrighted work into the new and derivative work. (see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits ).

Of course, beyond complying with the GPL and not misusing someone else's work, there's also the issue that arises when source code is not made available of not being able to verify what's in the purported derivative work. I find it extremely odd and more than a bit ironic that you (and lots of others) say that you can't read the source code and are not interested in knowing about it, but at the same time, you're willing to place trust and confidence in the work of someone who won't let those who can read and analyze the code do so. How do you know there's nothing malicious going on "under the hood" of his firmware? The answer is that you don't know, and can't know. So using HGGomes' firmware is purely an article of faith, unconfirmed, unknowable by you, and yet you trust it, as you would a religious belief. Very odd IMHO. Very odd indeed when unlike religion, if he posted and made his source available, the facts could be actually confirmed.

The difference between Merlin (and John's fork), on the one hand, and HGGomes' on the other, is that at least the former publish their's so it can be scrutinized to determine if there are any obvious security risks and to verify nothing malicious is going on. That's something that you'll never get any reassurance about using HGGomes' firmware.

Okay, replies a week later.

Still don't see an average 'forum joe' as the official copyright holder and able to enforce anything? Wrong or right?

I don't need to see how an engine works to know the effects it may have (see previous posts why hggomes firmware seems harmless to mere laypersons like myself).

With source code available, nothing can be confirmed with mere 'theory'. Only running the code would confirm or deny whatever it is you're trying to prove (good or bad). Even Asus' own firmware requires an act of faith to use. As does every other third party authors' efforts too.

Is there something not right here? Yes, there is. But hggomes (from what I vaguely remember now) tried to explain it once before and I'm sure is now sick of the subject.

I would like his work to be carried forward (some great programming there by him) and I'm sure this will be all worked out in the end.

Threats (veiled or otherwise) or not in the tone of these forums and I would expect better from the users here.

 

[sfx2000]

Okay, replies a week later.

Still don't see an average 'forum joe' as the official copyright holder and able to enforce anything? Wrong or right?

Must understand how GPL works - and average Joe on a forum could very well be a contributor... never know, eh?

I don't need to see how an engine works to know the effects it may have (see previous posts why hggomes firmware seems harmless to mere laypersons like myself).

Don't blame or thank the Sun for the warmth you bask in... in any event, this isn't a mess you want to be part of... see below...

With source code available, nothing can be confirmed with mere 'theory'. Only running the code would confirm or deny whatever it is you're trying to prove (good or bad). Even Asus' own firmware requires an act of faith to use. As does every other third party authors' efforts too.

The "source code" you mention - those skilled in the art... can request a copy, and I do...

Is there something not right here? Yes, there is. But hggomes (from what I vaguely remember now) tried to explain it once before and I'm sure is now sick of the subject.

There is something clearly not right - a number of people have requested source, I'm one of many...

As for you, you jumped into this mess - now you're part of it...

I would like his work to be carried forward (some great programming there by him) and I'm sure this will be all worked out in the end.

Threats (veiled or otherwise) or not in the tone of these forums and I would expect better from the users here.

No threats - just a polite request - and it will become more impolite as time goes on...

HGG can't hide behind a forum - he will be found - and it's an easy thing to solve - provide the darn source...

 

[L&LD]

The "source code" you mention - those skilled in the art... can request a copy, and I do...

There is something clearly not right - a number of people have requested source, I'm one of many...

As for you, you jumped into this mess - now you're part of it...

But then I'd be stuck with believing what you may have to say of how safe that source is or not, correct? Even if I actually do blindly believe a lot of what you say on this forum, how do I know you're not in this with hggomes and others to make it look A-Okay in the end? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Trust is implicit for any interaction we do with others. This 'requirement' for providing source materials won't give me any further trust than the small amount of due diligence I've done already.

I'm not in any mess. I'm having a discussion on an open forum to learn about something which I obviously don't right now.

I know for sure that I won't be writing any firmware soon (make that ever).