|
I just ordered an EdgeRouter Lite 3 and a Unifi 802.11ac PRO... Time to upgrade the Linksys E4200v1 that I've been running for a long-rear end time. I'll also be ordering a larger switch for the basement, since I'm losing some ports compared to the current setup. I assume I can convert my E4200 into another AP, as it's running DD-WRT, right? Any conflicts I should know about ahead of time?
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
sharkytm posted:I just ordered an EdgeRouter Lite 3 and a Unifi 802.11ac PRO... Time to upgrade the Linksys E4200v1 that I've been running for a long-rear end time. I'll also be ordering a larger switch for the basement, since I'm losing some ports compared to the current setup. Yes you can use the old E4200 as an AP if your turn off its DHCP server and ignore its WAN port. Just put in on a non overlapping channel (1, 6, and 11 in the 2.4ghz band, every 4 channels in the 5ghz band, 36, 40, 44, ect...) and give it the same SSID and encryption settings as your UAP-AC-Pro.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Antillie posted:Yes you can use the old E4200 as an AP if your turn off its DHCP server and ignore its WAN port. Just put in on a non overlapping channel (1, 6, and 11 in the 2.4ghz band, every 4 channels in the 5ghz band, 36, 40, 44, ect...) and give it the same SSID and encryption settings as your UAP-AC-Pro. Perfect. Is there a way to set up the E4200's multiple networks to include the guest wifi/portal, or is that limited to the Ubiquiti gear only? I've got a tenant, and want them to have coverage across the property, but not access to my WiFi network.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
If you can afford it, you'll be better off buying another Unifi WAP. It will save you a lot of headache. The Unifi units and similar wifi really shine when you start talking about multiple WAPs. When you say you "want them to have coverage" but you "don't want them to have access to my WiFi network," I am assuming you want them to have access to their own guest network with no access to your LAN, but you still want them to have access to the Internet. On the Unifi side, you can set up a guest or tenant wifi network that has Internet access, but no access to your network. Then they would have coverage where any of your Unifi WAPs are, not just the one area you put their WAP. That all is easy to set up and one of the big benefits of centrally managed WAPs like the Unifi units. Trying to do a similar thing with the E4200 is certainly possible, it's just not nearly as clean. You could even go with one of the lower end Unifi WAPs if you did not need AC.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:If you can afford it, you'll be better off buying another Unifi WAP. It will save you a lot of headache. The Unifi units and similar wifi really shine when you start talking about multiple WAPs. When you say you "want them to have coverage" but you "don't want them to have access to my WiFi network," I am assuming you want them to have access to their own guest network with no access to your LAN, but you still want them to have access to the Internet. On the Unifi side, you can set up a guest or tenant wifi network that has Internet access, but no access to your network. Then they would have coverage where any of your Unifi WAPs are, not just the one area you put their WAP. Thanks for the info. I'll see if I can swing the cost of another AP. If not, I'll try using the Linksys.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:If you can afford it, you'll be better off buying another Unifi WAP. It will save you a lot of headache. The Unifi units and similar wifi really shine when you start talking about multiple WAPs. When you say you "want them to have coverage" but you "don't want them to have access to my WiFi network," I am assuming you want them to have access to their own guest network with no access to your LAN, but you still want them to have access to the Internet. On the Unifi side, you can set up a guest or tenant wifi network that has Internet access, but no access to your network. Then they would have coverage where any of your Unifi WAPs are, not just the one area you put their WAP. Pretty much this. The Linksys can be made to do it with a mix of DD-WRT, a managed switch, and vlans. But it will be hard to configure, hacky, and ugly. On the Unifi APs its just a checkbox in the GUI. Clean, easy, simple, and effective.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Thanks CrazyLittle: that makes sense. The home network and WiFi are up. Cox comes on Monday to run their cable from the street and turn on service. I'll try to find time to make an effortpost later. It's full of fun things like "Ynglaur learns that PoE devices need to be powered for the switch to see them" and "a 1-foot Ethernet cable is really, really short."
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Antillie posted:Pretty much this. The Linksys can be made to do it with a mix of DD-WRT, a managed switch, and vlans. But it will be hard to configure, hacky, and ugly. On the Unifi APs its just a checkbox in the GUI. Clean, easy, simple, and effective. Roger that. I'll probably use the E4200 to extend my network, and place the Ubiquiti AP centrally for the tenant. Thanks for the information!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Under no circumstances should you flash a 802.11ad device with dd-wrt. This will probably stay true for quite a while too. No poo poo; I was speaking to using a device as a bridge.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
I have a wired ethernet cable running from my router through to my loungeroom. My loungroom now has a poo poo ton of devices that I'd like to plug the ethernet cable into (Smart TV, Amazon FireTV, Console, Steam Link, maybe my Chromecast via some sort of adapter). I assume this means I need a to buy a Switch, but I'm just wondering if I can have the Switch in the loungeroom for those device but still just connect the PC in the Study directly to the router. Or do I need to connect all my devices to the Switch?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
xcore posted:I have a wired ethernet cable running from my router through to my loungeroom. My loungroom now has a poo poo ton of devices that I'd like to plug the ethernet cable into (Smart TV, Amazon FireTV, Console, Steam Link, maybe my Chromecast via some sort of adapter). I assume this means I need a to buy a Switch, but I'm just wondering if I can have the Switch in the loungeroom for those device but still just connect the PC in the Study directly to the router. Or do I need to connect all my devices to the Switch? It shouldn't pose an issue, no. I'm going to assume you just have a modem/router(and usually /switch) basic ISP provided thing. If so a switch on one of those ports should be fine. You might have to do a little bit of work if you wanted to add a router (as an AP) if you wanted better reception or something.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
xcore posted:I have a wired ethernet cable running from my router through to my loungeroom. My loungroom now has a poo poo ton of devices that I'd like to plug the ethernet cable into (Smart TV, Amazon FireTV, Console, Steam Link, maybe my Chromecast via some sort of adapter). I assume this means I need a to buy a Switch, but I'm just wondering if I can have the Switch in the loungeroom for those device but still just connect the PC in the Study directly to the router. Or do I need to connect all my devices to the Switch? If whatever the internet comes from has more than one "LAN" port then no, your PC does not need to be on the switch. <internet modem thing> -> <switch> -> <other things> | --><PC> Or if there is only one LAN port you can use two switches: <internet modem thing> | <switch> -> <PC> | <switch> -> <other things> If you are going to connect two switches together like this make sure at least one of them has a feature called auto-uplink (most consumer grade switches have it). That way you don't need to worry about cross over cables. Antillie fucked around with this message at 15:39 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Thank you kindly people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Hey I somehow lost my old USB wireless network adapter. I think it was some rosewill thing you guys recommended like 6 years ago to me that was maybe 10-20 dollars. Is there a good recommendation for this kind of thing now? Preferably on amazon because woo same day shipping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:Hey I somehow lost my old USB wireless network adapter. I think it was some rosewill thing you guys recommended like 6 years ago to me that was maybe 10-20 dollars. Is there a good recommendation for this kind of thing now? Preferably on amazon because woo same day shipping. I don't know if there's a go-to model, but for a USB wireless AC on Prime this is $20: https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-AC1200-WiFi-USB-Adapter/dp/B00UA98HS8
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Wilford Cutlery posted:I don't know if there's a go-to model, but for a USB wireless AC on Prime this is $20: https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-AC1200-WiFi-USB-Adapter/dp/B00UA98HS8 Looks like driver support for that USB adapter is poo poo in windows 10, so I'd avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Wow, just Googled and read about it, no wonder they were on Groupon for like $12 a while ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
I bought one of these a little while back for streaming videos to an HTPC: http://amzn.com/B00U2SIS0O Never heard of the brand before and I'm sure there's better out there but for the price it seems pretty solid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
I have an odd issue with my Netgear Router. I have DNS set up this way: - OpenDNS A - OpenDNS B - Google DNS What happened once and awhile was that OpenDNS test web site indicated a failed test. I am wondering if there was a racing condition and Google DNS simply returned the IP address faster than OpenDNS? I am terrified that a virus got into my router or something like that. The DNS settings haven't changed though. I am probably going to force OpenDNS up addresses in all my home devices to override he router. Added: I also checked with this site: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy If it happens again I can check that site and see what DNS server is being used. I set the routers DNS like this now: - OpenDNS A - OpenDNS B - OpenDNS B Three-Phase fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Yeah, DNS is generally not guaranteed to be done in a priority order. If you want to use a specific service like OpenDNS, do not enter any of Google's DNS servers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Yeah, DNS is generally not guaranteed to be done in a priority order. If you want to use a specific service like OpenDNS, do not enter any of Google's DNS servers. I came to a similar conclusion in part using this neat tool called "DNS Randomness Tester" https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy I don't care about the entropy data that much, but what I do care about is the information it pulls on your DNS servers. One thing it does it talk to all the DNS servers on the router, and while the two OpenDNS servers only resolve one or two IP addresses, for some reason when I put in the google DNS (I think 8.8.8.8) it vomits a dozen different servers that appear to be part of Google's IP space along with two to three OpenDNS servers. I have a feeling that may have been part of the problem. So needless to say I removed Google's DNS from the list and will only be using OpenDNS servers. However, when I put Google's DNS back on my router in slot 3, I cannot replicate the failure (warning page) I saw OpenDNS report, but it may have been one of those "moons have to align" sort of problems. I think that's much more likely than someone hacking my router and seripticiously changing the DNS settings. (The DNS settings looked unchanged, and I also verified that other security-related settings like Remote Management and UPnP were disabled, the firmware is up-to-date (Updated in February) and the default password was changed to a very strong one.) Three-Phase fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
This is a stupid question that I am embarssed to ask, but... Can someone explain reverse proxies to me? What problem do they solve? I recently realized I have some weird blind spot in my LAN/WAN foo that is causing me to not understand the significance...It's actually really annoying. Lets say I want a LAN client to serve up apache/port 443 to the internet. Normally I would forward 443 on my router to the clients LAN address. If I want to set this up exclusively so that I can access this service across the internet, is a reverse proxy a better solution? FUCKIN' REVERSE PROXIES. HOW DO THEY WORK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
You would forward port 443 on your router to the computer with statically assigned internal IP. This makes whatever is on port 443 available on the internet. I don't think you need to think about proxies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Something Awesome posted:This is a stupid question that I am embarssed to ask, but... Reverse proxies serve a few purposes: 1) A single end point for everything, enabling simple maintenance notification, logging, performance profiling, security analysis. 2) SSL acceleration, and any other protocol enhancement not natively or poorly, or simply not cost effective to implement in the backend, e,g, HTTP/2. 3) Edge caching of content. 4) Rewriting stupid headers, requests and responses as required. I say (1) is the biggest performance win, all clients should only have one HTTP/2 connection to the reverse proxy and multiplex everything over that. Creating sockets is really slow and limits the scalability of servers due to port limitations per IP. MrMoo fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
My router is saying it's not connected to the internet, but it is, and all the poo poo on my network... works. I don't know enough about networking to fix this other than "reboot and refresh", and that didn't work.   Linksys EA6300v1 (6400)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:My router is saying it's not connected to the internet, but it is, and all the poo poo on my network... works. Is that one of those "cloud enabled" devices? If so it probably just cant call home to confirm connectivity .. either whatever linksys uses is down or routing to it isn't working. If everything works just fine I would ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
My ISP provides a combination router/modem that handles both the external IPs and internal IPs. I'm having trouble getting ports to forward. On multiple wireless devices every port shows as closed even ones that should be open (port 53, 80) and when I set specific ports for the router to forward for one device they still are closed. I tried disabling the software firewall and the router firewall for one computer and somehow all ports remain closed. What could be blocking all the ports? And why am I still able to browse the internet on devices that show no ports open?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Sanctum posted:handles both the external IPs and internal IPs. This is essentially the definition of a router, FYI. quote:I'm having trouble getting ports to forward. On multiple wireless devices every port shows as closed even ones that should be open (port 53, 80) and when I set specific ports for the router to forward for one device they still are closed. What are you using to check on ports being closed? If it's your router, then I suspect that a closed port may not be synonymous with a blocked port, but antonymous with a port that has an open connection, and your ports wouldn't appear to be perpetually open unless you're running a data transfer literally 100% of the time. You probably don't need to worry about blocked ports, though, the only one that most IPs worry about is port 25. What you need to worry about is that an external party tries to initiate a connection to a machine behind your router but gets turned away because your router isn't interested in letting some rear end in a top hat drop a bunch of unsolicited packets on your LAN, and your machines aren't interested in reading them. The latter might be what you're observing, if you're using a webpage or other external tool to check your ports; even if they're correctly forwarded, an external observer will hear nothing if the machine on your end just ignores their ping. Here's the skinny: Usually when you receive connections from outside your network (messages, patches, whatever) it's because one of your own machines actually opened the connection and let the external server know where to find you. Further communication from the external device is, thus, part of a session that you started. Deliberate port-forwarding is for the cases where you're the guy that other people's machines are going to say hello to, and your router needs to know which machine on your network is actually expecting the calls. Are you running a game server, or something? Because unless you're listening for strangers in the night, this shouldn't be something that needs fixing, and if you've got some other problem then I surmise you're looking in the wrong place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Eikre posted:What are you using to check on ports being closed? If it's your router, then I suspect that a closed port may not be synonymous with a blocked port, but antonymous with a port that has an open connection, and your ports wouldn't appear to be perpetually open unless you're running a data transfer literally 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Have a standard ISP-provided N router. If I get a 802.11ac USB stick for my desktop with SoftAP, can I a) turn on the SoftAP and connect another ac device to that network so that those two devices are visible to each other over an ac-speed connection and b) simultaneously use the desktop's internet connection to the home router (but only at N-speed)? My guess is no, like the SoftAP thing wouldn't actually act as a router making the two devices aware of each other?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Edit: never mind
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
A few times per hour, my laptop will be unable to connect to any external IP addressess, but still be able to ping internal devices. This will last for up to 10 minutes. My router is a Virgin Super Hub, and while this is happening I can log in to the admin page and use the ping command from the router, which can ping external IPs. What's going on here? EDIT: Only my laptop (13-inch Mid 2014 Retina MacBook Pro running 10.11.5) has this problem, and it will instantly reconnect if I renew the DHCP lease. Obviously I'd rather it didn't lose connection in the first place, but I can take this to a Mac thread if it's better suited. ArcticZombie fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Hello networking thread. I am moving into a new shared house with 2 other dudes. I'm the tech guy, but I'm not really a networking guru. With the TP-LINK C9, will I be able to get a report of which devices (mac addresses I guess, or IP address if we can bind an IP to a specified MAC in DHCP?) used how much bandwidth for a given period e.g. the last 30 days? I don't want to know what they were downloading, just how much was downloaded and uploaded. Our only broadband internet provider has bandwidth quotas + per GB fees for going over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Ranter posted:Hello networking thread. You're asking for bandwidth metering / accounting, and that's a non-trivial task. The stock firmware on a TP-Link C9 won't do it. Even DD-WRT won't do it by itself without additional plugins that have increased storage requirements. With a Ubiquiti Edgerouter, you're looking at using netflow to capture traffic statistics, and then you'd run your accounting over that. https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX/netflow-for-home-usage/m-p/608785
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Darn. The DD-WRT on my ancient WRT54G logs WAN traffic per day and per month, so didn't realize it was non-trivial to include which IP/MAC was generating said logged traffic. http://www.flashrouters.com/blog/2014/07/01/bandwidth-monitoring-with-dd-wrt/
Bald Stalin fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
I'm looking for a higher-endish access point to hook into some wired audio equipment (see picture below, I'm not using dante btw and there would be maybe 7 devices in the chain with one end user on a tablet) and I want something that's pretty basic in terms configuration and settings (it doesn't have to have nuclear missile-level security) but can blast 2.4 or 5Ghz throughout an arena from basically the center of it on the ground. What would be recommended for that? I see the ubiquity stuff on the front page but not sure which one would be best in a high-traffic environment several hundred feet away. I don't need it to blast through concrete but I'd want something that could stomp existing APs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
IceLicker posted:something that could stomp existing APs. Unpossible. You can't actually stop RF interference. You can avoid it, and you can try to focus around it using directional antennas, but nothing on earth can prevent a microwave oven or a baby monitor from stomping all over your 2.4ghz signal. If you absolutely need directional point to point WiFi connectivity, you could try 24ghz (twenty-four ghz) radios... they're just really really big. other options: smuggle in the world-radio version of some point-to-point 5ghz radio that lets you use DFS channels (which almost no other hardware currently does)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Unpossible. You can't actually stop RF interference. You can avoid it, and you can try to focus around it using directional antennas, but nothing on earth can prevent a microwave oven or a baby monitor from stomping all over your 2.4ghz signal. I guess I should clarify. I understand that there's no way eliminate the interference and that it just takes some coordination. I just mean that I need something that will still be strong at 500 feet away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
IceLicker posted:I guess I should clarify. I understand that there's no way eliminate the interference and that it just takes some coordination. I just mean that I need something that will still be strong at 500 feet away. Directional antennas should be plenty for 500ft range. The bigger issue is whether the tablet can send its signal back strong enough for whatever AP's/antennas you use to pick it up. CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
IceLicker posted:I don't need it to blast through concrete but I'd want something that could stomp existing APs. You do that with power and focused antennas, which FCC rules don't allow. Your only option to guarantee coverage is multiple access points. Which you'd need anyway since your tablet definitely won't have power and focused antennas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:05
|
|