quick advice re expanding my network

[gcstanat]

My situation:
Upstairs: Networking closet. Closed doors, both to the closet and bedrooms.
Downstairs: Open, and I can position a router that will have decent line of sight to a fair amount of stuff, or maybe even two routers that should cover the whole floor. Downstairs routers can be connected via cable to the closet, so that's great (yay for me for running CAT6).

Until last week, I just used a one-router system: my old DLink dir-655 stuffed into the networking closet. Doesn't really reach the whole house very well, so I'm trying to fix that.

I just bought a TPLink Archer c7 ac1750 router, and for the time being have simply used it to replace the upstairs DLink. Coverage is better, but still not great, so I'd like to add an access point. I could use either my old dir-655 or the asus RT-N12/D1 (also just N300) that I just picked up for $10.

Here's the conundrum: It seems like stuffing the archer (dual band) into the closet upstairs is silly. It means the 5GHz band doesn't really get to play since there are lots of doors in the way. So does it make sense to use one of my "lesser" routers as the main router in the upstairs closet and use the brand-spanking new archer as a downstairs access point where at least some of the wireless devices might be able to take advantage of the 5Ghz band. Or do I really just need to buy another C7 archer and have a matched set.

New to all this, so sorry if this question is ignorant. Any/all help much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[stevech]

reason to use 5GHz at all is that a neighbor's WiFi in 2.4GHz is a bandwidth hog. Meaning not that it's SSID exists, but that it is frequently carrying a lot of traffic, AND there's no other channel area you could move to.

To improve coverage, use access points, not routes. You can purchase an access point (AP), or you can reconfigure/repurpose an router to be an AP.

Usually, it's best to use one or two added APs in 2.4GHz to improve coverage.

Not to use WDS/repeaters.

 

[gcstanat]

first off, thanks for the response. much appreciated!

i'm not sure how to tell if the neighbors are hogging. i can see some networks, but our overall speed seems just fine (until we get out of range, that is).

when i said adding a router i meant as an access point. i'm probably not using the terminology correctly, but i mean to have ONE router handling DHCP and everything else (one or two additional units) simply providing additional wireless coverage.

perhaps i wasted my money on a new ac1750 router then? after rebates it was only $80 so i guess it's not a big deal, but maybe it's overkill? but i thought the 5GHz band was good just 'cause it's a lot faster, too.

sorry that i may be lacking in some of the basics here. i definitely appreciate the advice.

 

[stevech]

your added access points, implemented using WiFi routers... are configured as access points meaning the WAN port isn't used, correct?

 

[gcstanat]

my understanding is that i'm supposed to run cable into one of the AP's LAN ethernet ports and simply ignore the WAN port. correct?

 

[Samir]

For range expansion like this, there's a couple of things that are important. One is where the Internet source is. If that's upstairs, then that's going to have to be in the plan somewhere. Second, is where the computers/devices are. If most are on the first floor, then it's a better idea to use the more powerful access point closer to the devices.

The good thing is that with the cat6 wire, you've got a solid link between both floors.

 

[gcstanat]

again, thx tons for all this help. much appreciated!

i currently have the internet coming in upstairs, near my office. so it basically goes:
MODEM -> ROUTER -> SWITCH -> EVERYTHING ELSE (hardwired)
(everything is upstairs until after the switch)

so it looks like i should use my fancy new ac router as an AP downstairs and keep an older router upstairs and use it as a… um… router.

geesh… so many questions:

1. Should I connect the AP to the ROUTER directly or to the SWITCH?
2. If I have a bunch of devices near the AP, should I connect them directly to the AP or should I use a MINI-SWITCH (connected to the main SWITCH upstairs) and then connect all the devices and the NEW ROUTER to the MINI-SWITCH?

In a desperate attempt to make this easier for anybody willing to answer, I've attached a network diagram with a number of different wiring choices. If anybody can respond to that, then they are the awesomest. I'll mail you a cookie.

 

[jlake]

1. It doesn't matter
2. It doesn't matter

Experiment. Try with and without switch.
Most people would probably use their most capable router as their "router". But that's up to you depending on your situation. If you're not happy with the performance, then change things around.

The most important thing is that you know how to cascade your AP's properly and configure them properly.

Every procedure is different when you repurpose a router as an AP. Use google. For example..google "how to use asus Rt-12 in AP mode?" You can use the WAN port on the asus rt-12 when it's in AP mode but on the dlink, you can't use it's WAN port when it's being repurposed as an AP in a LAN to LAN cascade. Or "how to use tp link archer as an AP" or how to use dlink as an AP.

Here's the instructions for dlink if you decide to use it as an AP instead of your main router. You'll have to google on your own for the rest.

http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=c9054b3dbf15c9c2a85bea0420e8d3af&topic=40856.0

 

[sinshiva]

- if the wan port can be configured as lan (all the asus routers and anything running dd-wrt should), you're giving the router a dedicated nic compared to the lan bridge, so potentially better performance.

- just make sure one of the two nicer routers is actually the router.

- also, i think most of these mini switches are actually a single network card, i wouldn't use them as any kind of backbone. same deal as the routers, but these have better ones. in other words, use direct connections between the routers and the mini switch to serve multiple clients. i wouldn't expect the switch to be any kind of choke in this configuration.

 

[Samir]

so many questions:

1. Should I connect the AP to the ROUTER directly or to the SWITCH?
2. If I have a bunch of devices near the AP, should I connect them directly to the AP or should I use a MINI-SWITCH (connected to the main SWITCH upstairs) and then connect all the devices and the NEW ROUTER to the MINI-SWITCH?

In a desperate attempt to make this easier for anybody willing to answer, I've attached a network diagram with a number of different wiring choices. If anybody can respond to that, then they are the awesomest. I'll mail you a cookie.

1. It depends on how many cables you have running between the floors. The more cables you have, the more bandwidth you have. If you can connect all the downstairs equipment that's wired directly to the switch upstairs, or move the switch downstairs and connect all the upstairs to the switch downstairs, that's the biggest gain as everything has the full bandwidth of a port and the entire switch bandwidth for interport transfers. Short answer is yes, if you can connect the AP directly, I would.

2. If the AP has a hub/switch built-in (since it's a re-purposed router I assume it does), I'd just connect everything to the AP. This is assuming you can't just run each of these devices directly to the switch or router upstairs.

The thing you want to avoid is a lot of devices for a packet to get to its destination. The more switches, routers, wires, the more delay (even though it's in micro-seconds), and the more chance for something to go down since there's so many things that can break.

Since the computers upstairs are the most important, I'd keep the modem there and the router there. Plug those hardwire devices in directly into the main router if possible. Leave one port open for the switch. Then I'd connect as many of the downstairs devices directly to the switch upstairs. Whatever you can't connect directly, plug into the AP downstairs. Done.

 

[stevech]

.

It depends on how many cables you have running between the floors. The more cables you have, the more bandwidth you have.

This is true in theory... but one 100BT or 1000BT cable is more than adequate for home networking.

 

[Samir]

. This is true in theory... but one 100BT or 1000BT cable is more than adequate for home networking.

It usually is, but if there's any type of simultaneous high-bandwidth streaming going on between upstairs and down, it could be a bottleneck. Besides, it's also eliminates a point of failure.

 

[gcstanat]

again, i'd like to express my thanks for the people that have responded. getting expert advice is great and i feel like i have a much-improved chance of setting things up optimally.

of course, i'm open to any more tips, but i think i have a good plan now.

 

[Samir]

of course, i'm open to any more tips, but i think i have a good plan now.

Tell us your plan, and we'll give you some more tips if we have any more.

 

[gcstanat]

my "plan" is basically a modified version of option D in the PDF file i uploaded earlier. the text version is this:

MODEM (upstairs)
----> ROUTER (upstairs)
--------------> most important computers upstairs
--------------> Gigabit Switch
----------------------> Everything else I can get to w/ a cable
--------------> AP (downstairs)
----------------------> PS3
----------------------> XBox

So to be clear, the following will be connected directly to the ROUTER:
- the two most important computers
- the Switch
- the AP

That uses all the ports.

And I just decided to bite the bullet and spend another $100 to buy a second TP-Link Archer c7 ac1750. For the price, it seems a great deal compared to everything else available at the moment and it makes it so I don't have to fret about where my "best" router is deployed. If necessary I can use my (almost free) Asus RT-N12 as a second AP (though this would displace one computer over to the Switch - no biggie I think).

That all sound good?

 

[Samir]

That sounds awesome! Having the AP directly connected upstairs also eliminates that leg of the network going down if the switch goes bonkers.

I think it's well planned out and has good uptime potential in case something breaks besides the main router.