Student Housing Coverage Efficency

[1eydjax]

Hello all,

I have a property with two buildings separated by 100ft which will be used by around 15 Students. It can be safely assumed that they would have more than two devices connected each at any given time.

Each building has seven students living in it all rooms within single story hallways that a single AP can cover. There will also be common areas at the far edges of the buildings. To put things in perspective, if you draw a single line from one edge to the other, it would follow like this.

Common Area 1
Hallway of rooms
100 FT of Open Ground
Hallway of rooms
Common Area 2

The entire span would be from Common Area 1 to Common area 2 would be 200 feet in total with more than ten wooden walls in between.

The modem connection will be in Common Area 2.

I have been reading quite a lot on this forum but still have a few questions I was hoping could be answered.

We are planning on having the wirless network be on 2.4GHZ. We also want to do the same SSID for both with each AP being on different channels. Is this wise?

The current hardware that we have is a Netgear N600 WNDR3400. It is my understanding that I should purchase another Netgear to make the AP process easier?

How many APs do we need? I realize that the more APs the worst off the Common Area 1 speeds will be. Would three consumer grade APs be enough, or should we dish more money out and get two "high powered" APs or one "high powered" and use the Netgear on the far end?

We want to also attach a guest SSID similar to the feature that is provided on new routers these days on only one router in Common Area 1 where guests will be. I believe we would just purchase another consumer grade router at a cheap cost. Would it be possible to limit the speed on this connection verses the other AP and connected devices or give priority to the other connections first so that the guest users won't interrupt the resident's connections?

We currently will be using Charter for internet and am still deciding if a 15MB/S connection is sufficient or a 30MB/s upgrade is needed. Thoughts?

Thanks for your help!

 

[thiggins]

You would be better served by getting Comcast service to each building.

Buy as much bandwidth as you can afford. Your students will eat it all.

You will need to connect the additional APs via Ethernet. If you are going to do all of this using wireless bridging/repeating, you will be pulling your hair out with problems.

The "open ground" needs to have no obstacles, including trees and
vegetation.

You would be best served by a pair of outdoor bridge/antenna units if you have to go wireless. Check EnGenius' and Ubiquiti offerings.

 

[Mark Uhde]

I respectfully disagree with Tim on the wireless bridging needing no trees/obstacles. I just setup my first wireless bridge (for a campground I've been doing a large project for) and I had concerns myself. In fact, the EnGenius product did NOT work because they don't pass VLAN tags (though they've been great as AP's including VLAN-seperated VAP's). I'm using a pair of Ubiquiti NanoStation Loco M5's to create a 129 meter (423 ft) bridge, and there are some large pine trees in the path - not dense forest, but far from nothing. I do have a clear radio path other than the trees though.

Received signal levels hover around -58dBm on the vertical chain and -67 on the horizontal chain. PHY speed varies from 240-300mbps, and I'm running the units in Ubiquiti's AirMax mode (not standard 802.11), on a 40MHz channel 149.

LigoWave's Link Calculator verified my clear path, and predicts -41dBm received signal strength with no compensation for foliage added. If I specify a foilage depth of 40m (rough guess on my part for how much of the path is impacted by trees), their prediction changes to -65dBm, which is pretty much dead on (right in between the vertical and horizontal readings).

Wireless to my MacBook Pro, through the EnGenius AP's on the other side of the bridge, I can iperf 50+mbps to the gateway server. The link hasn't had any downtime I'm aware of, and I watched it's performance be mostly unaffected (a couple dB signal drop but still solid) during an extremely heavy storm.

These products are designed to be reliable enough for WISP's to serve their customers, and our short links are nothing.

Here would be my expected proposal without seeing the property if you were my client from:

pfSense-based server in common area one where the cable comes in, and a Gig-E PoE switch. This will allow you to traffic shape and prioritize certain uses and users.

6 EnGenius EAP350's using channels 6,1,11,6,1,11 from end to end (2 for each group of 7 rooms, 1 for each common area). This isn't about "can I cover 7 rooms with one AP" but rather "reliability, reliability, reliability" under much heavier load than you might think. At the least I'd do four AP's - 2 per building. Which would probably be totally adequate to be honest.

1 pair of Ubiquiti NanoStation Loco M5's to bridge the buildings, with another gigabit PoE switch in the second building.

The only expected problem I'd see with this is if local file transfers are happening between the buildings, then the wireless bridge will definitely bottleneck you, but I don't think it'll be an issue.

DEFINITELY make sure you specifically prioritize HTTP/HTTPS traffic so torrents don't kill you.

 

[thiggins]

I'm surprised that you can get that far through foliage with 5 GHz. But obviously, the proof is in the doing.

 

[Mark Uhde]

I'm surprised that you can get that far through foliage with 5 GHz. But obviously, the proof is in the doing.

I'll post some pics to my blog of the link tomorrow, it's not too bad of foliage really.

 

[stevech]

"The entire span would be from Common Area 1 to Common area 2 would be 200 feet in total with more than ten wooden walls in between."

Lacking more detail, I envision a situation where WiFi in either band wouldn't work for bridge-pairs, except perhaps at the lower modulation rates. For the same radiated power, the two band differ by about 6dB in free-space and that's small compared to the path loss and that antenna gain is easier to achieve at the higher frequency. The attenuation due to construction materials isn't greatly different either; see http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build97/art123.html which I use as a planning guideline.

I agree with Tim - esp. considering the user hand-holding, help my WiFi isn't working and my xxx is due in ten minutes and blah blah. Or I can't get my free music and the world is coming to an end.

 

[Mark Uhde]

"The entire span would be from Common Area 1 to Common area 2 would be 200 feet in total with more than ten wooden walls in between."

Lacking more detail, I envision a situation where WiFi in either band wouldn't work for bridge-pairs, except perhaps at the lower modulation rates. For the same radiated power, the two band differ by about 6dB in free-space and that's small compared to the path loss and that antenna gain is easier to achieve at the higher frequency. The attenuation due to construction materials isn't greatly different either; see http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build97/art123.html which I use as a planning guideline.

I agree with Tim - esp. considering the user hand-holding, help my WiFi isn't working and my xxx is due in ten minutes and blah blah. Or I can't get my free music and the world is coming to an end.

That's not the span he needs to wirelessly bridge though, that's the entire length of the install. He needs to wirelessly bridge 100ft of common area.

I have good reasons for doing it all as one network - no one accidentally connected to a weak "wrong network" (the other building) and using a disproportionate amount of wireless airtime and causing excessive interference issues. Load balance two cable lines if that's needed. As long as there's no LOCAL network use, it'll be fine.

 

[stevech]

"IT consultant in western Montana"

Is a beautiful area. I remember driving west for hours and not passing another car, en route to Salt Lake City. The wide open spaces almost make IT there an oxymoron.

 

[Mark Uhde]

"IT consultant in western Montana"

Is a beautiful area. I remember driving west for hours and not passing another car, en route to Salt Lake City. The wide open spaces almost make IT there an oxymoron.

Where were you? I'm from Helena, but currently living in Kalispell. I do work all over though. Kalispell is cold and wet

 

[1eydjax]

Thank you for the responses...

however, this is way beyond our budget.

At this point, two routers connected by outdoor ethernet cable may work out better.

What types of routers would you recommend for this and is overhead or underground cat5 hookups better?

 

[Mark Uhde]

Thank you for the responses...

however, this is way beyond our budget.

At this point, two routers connected by outdoor ethernet cable may work out better.

What types of routers would you recommend for this and is overhead or underground cat5 hookups better?

You only need one router. What I proposed wasn't terribly expensive:

pfSense server - you could make do as long as you don't need proxy, content filtering, etc with an embedded solution for about $250. Gives you traffic shaping and all the functionality you need.

EnGenius EAP-350's with power injectors (sold separately) - under $150/ea. Buy 4 if you're trying to get off cheap.

Ubiquiti NanoStation Loco M5's - $70/ea

A box of outdoor-rated CAT5e (outdoor so you can connect the NanoStations with it) - $150ish

Cheap unmanaged 8-port Gigabit switch - $40ish

Random install parts and tools - $50ish

Total cost - $1250ish in parts for four AP's. Can't beat that really, that's cheap.

 

[Mark Uhde]

P.S. I had a brain freeze, obviously you need a smaller switch in each building. Two 5-port gigabit switches. Similar total cost, though.

Another option might be Ubiquiti UniFi AP's. At only about $75/each you could cut some costs there BUT you need to be able to dedicate a computer to manage them. Cut $300 from cost of AP's but spend it on a cheap computer to manage the things. Get less robust coverage, but stick to one brand and get a bit nicer control interface and functionality. Same total cost.

Also, I forgot to mention on the outdoor Ethernet between buildings - just don't do it. If you MUST, use direct-burial CAT5e (flooded) underground, certainly never, ever, ever consider an overhead drop of CAT5! Static electricity is not your (or your equipment's) friend. P.P.S. I'm not an electrician, and I certainly wouldn't be familiar with legal requirements in your area, all I'm saying is if you're going to do it, underground is much preferred to overhead! Both are a bad idea, and possibly illegal depending on your local codes. Fiber is the way to go if near-100mbps Ethernet performance like you'd get from the wireless isn't good enough for your needs.

 

[Mark Uhde]

Here's your proof Tim, and anyone else who wanted photos of the link I described having just completed:

http://www.markuhde.com/2012/06/wireless-bridging.html

 

[thiggins]

Thanks, Mark. Would be helpful in the second photo to mark where the far end link is.

 

[Mark Uhde]

Thanks, Mark. Would be helpful in the second photo to mark where the far end link is.

Will post one when I can, I'm actually in the sound booth at the camp now, mixing sound for a conference that's here. But I'm not sure I'll get a chance to take another photo before it's dark.

 

[stevech]

Where were you? I'm from Helena, but currently living in Kalispell. I do work all over though. Kalispell is cold and wet

I'm in San Diego where TV weather reporters are bored.

 

[thiggins]

I was thinking more of marking the current photo with an image editor.

 

[1eydjax]

P.S. I had a brain freeze, obviously you need a smaller switch in each building. Two 5-port gigabit switches. Similar total cost, though.

Another option might be Ubiquiti UniFi AP's. At only about $75/each you could cut some costs there BUT you need to be able to dedicate a computer to manage them. Cut $300 from cost of AP's but spend it on a cheap computer to manage the things. Get less robust coverage, but stick to one brand and get a bit nicer control interface and functionality. Same total cost.

Also, I forgot to mention on the outdoor Ethernet between buildings - just don't do it. If you MUST, use direct-burial CAT5e (flooded) underground, certainly never, ever, ever consider an overhead drop of CAT5! Static electricity is not your (or your equipment's) friend. P.P.S. I'm not an electrician, and I certainly wouldn't be familiar with legal requirements in your area, all I'm saying is if you're going to do it, underground is much preferred to overhead! Both are a bad idea, and possibly illegal depending on your local codes. Fiber is the way to go if near-100mbps Ethernet performance like you'd get from the wireless isn't good enough for your needs.

I've looked into both options and need some help in clarifying...

Assuming I have the ethernet connection and switches setup all I need for the first option are: PFSense server and Engenius EAPs

while the 2nd will just need multiple Ubiquiti Unifi AP with no need of a dedicated server unless I would like to do a guest portal login where a cloud service can be used instead.

I realize PF Sense has the option for a captive portal with a local user manager but does Unifi have that ability?

Does Unifi or PFSense have the ability to restrict certain types of activity or restrict speeds on specific users? I'm most concerned about limiting heavy downloading or illegal activity with the former taking away speed from other users.

It also seems Unifi is easier to setup but is a lot less customizable than PFSense. The main things I would like are a user database login, restrictions on speeds per user or user group and ability to adjust speeds per user in order to prevent hogging of internet connection. Would Unifi be sufficient in what I'm asking for?

 

[Mark Uhde]

UniFi has some control, but it isn't a network gateway. You need a gateway of some type. So really, you'd still need pfSense or some other form of router with the UniFi. The benefit to the UniFi is one brand, a bit prettier looking units, and the controller system. The benefit to the EnGenius is a bit better range (NOT nearly as much as you'd think from their marketing unless you have high power client cards) and the fact they can be powered from an 802.3af switch.