|
As it would happen, right after I sold off my spare routers... my WRT320N seems to have croaked. I haven't yet tried beating it with a stick or sacrificing a chicken but I woke up this morning to find no SSID being broadcast and being inaccessible via wired networking. Power cycling makes it seem to hang during boot. I don't use it as my actual router, I run a pfSense VM for that, so I don't give a flying gently caress about QoS performance / firewall / USB hosting / whatever else consumer routers come with now. I just use it as a wireless access point and a switch. So, assuming I can't resurrect the WRT320N, I'll be shopping for something to replace it with. I've had it in my head that it should be gigabit because I don't like the idea of a '300Mbps' wireless connection being choked down to a 100Mbps link to the rest of my network. However, as I think about this right now, I think I'm being overly paranoid on that - correct? Any particular recommendations anyone has for something cheap, ideally with concurrent dual-band?
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Ihmemies posted:Have you tested wireless speeds? Are you able to get at least 10MB/s even with a '300Mbps' wireless? Yeah, I'm ashamed to say I've never specifically tested them, at least not in any way that could be conclusively linked to wireless performance and not bottlenecked by something else.  Point taken!At any rate, the WRT320N has been resurrected after all - turns out the 12V brick it's been plugged into will only hold up 12V to the very lightest of loads. After plugging it into the WRT320N, the load voltage plummets to around 3V. Found another compatible 12V brick and it's back in business.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:
Pure chance, basically  I hadn't yet tried a hard reset with it wired into my laptop and nothing else, so I took it out of the media center in my living room and took it into the garage. I didn't fish the brick out of my media center since I had some other 12V adapters out in the garage that were compatible with it and easier to access. As soon as I plugged it into one of those adapters, it came to life immediately.If I hadn't plugged it into a different brick out of laziness, I would've tossed the whole thing out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Mook posted:Hmm, the Asus RTN16 doesn't do 5ghz band though. Does that really make a difference? My apartment is pretty small, my router is maybe 10 feet from where I do my computing and within line of sight, though I do have poured concrete walls. I get full signal right now. I just feel like Im wasting my 50Mbit bandwidth only accessing 10 of it over wifi. Though if I get the N16 I could try to use their built in NAS/Torrent stuff to mitigate that slightly. That actually all adds up to better reasons to switch to 5GHz. It has poor penetration of walls but it works great with direct line of sight, and the biggest benefit is that the 5GHz band is downright empty compared to the 2.4GHz band - which is only really three channels, and you're fighting cordless phones, baby monitors, and microwave ovens. Craptacular: Disable WPS, use a nice long WPA2 key.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Win8 reports in MB/sec, not Mbps. That's closer to 15-20 Mbps, which seems realistic for a G connection.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Keep in mind that QoS also means you won't be able to take advantage of any 'powerboost' type offerings that your ISP may have. You'll want to set your pipes to be sized relative to your maximum consistent speeds, not whatever advertised "50Gbpswith powerboost, 5Mbps normally" they sold you on. I used to use it when I was running m0n0wall and it worked pretty drat well. I never bothered setting it up once I went to pfSense, though, since in the interim I switched to a seedbox for torrenting, and standard rsync/sftp/http downloads don't seem to rape my HTTP performance the same way torrenting did.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Guessing he meant the SG300-10MP, and yeah, that's definitely overkill. For nearly everyone in this thread a dumb unmanaged gigabit switch is more than fast enough and is almost never the actual limiting factor in throughput, so a managed switch should easily be able to handle anything you toss at it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
That looks to me like that twisted pair is being used for phone, not network - is it actually Cat5 or is it Cat3?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
If it was me, I would just disconnect it all from the phone system and reterminate it with RJ45 at both ends.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Yeah, you do not want a combination modem/gateway device. If cost is a concern, it's probably just as cheap to buy a regular cable modem + a low-end router for the time being and you'd be at worst equivalent to the combo device... but then when budget allows, it's cheaper / easier to upgrade to a higher-end router when you don't have to replace the cable modem at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:
This is... bizarre. A few test cases: *Can wireless devices talk to each other still during the outage, or do they lose all connectivity whatsoever? *Can other wired devices talk to each other and/or the internet when this happens? *Can wireless devices reach any other wired devices? *Does the same problem happen if the ethernet cord is unplugged from the desktop during boot? The best I can think of is your motherboard's on-board LAN is doing something really really bad until the driver initializes it, and your router reacts to it by basically shutting down. If that's the case, it seems like popping an add-in NIC into your desktop might solve it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
I'm 99% certain long-distance carriers are only for your outbound calls, not inbound.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
If your signal coming to that point is clean enough, a splitter is fine. The amount of data the cable modem is chugging through won't impact the cable box whatsoever, it's entirely a matter of whether or not there is too much signal loss once you split the signal again. Every cable jack in your house is coming off of a splitter somewhere - the cable company gives you one line and you have splitters coming off of that to feed your rooms. The only time splitters are problematic is when they are low quality, and/or you end up stacking splitters.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
Commander Keenan posted:It looks like DD-WRT is now supported on Netgear WNDR3700v3. I'm pretty satisfied with the base router functionality; what benefits would I receive if I flash it with DD-WRT? If it works, probably nothing. I flashed my dad's WNDR4300 to DD-WRT because apparently all of the stock firmwares on that thing have a fun bug where it will just stop responding to DNS requests after an hour... but you can't configure it to not make itself the default DNS server when you use DHCP. 
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
There's only three actual channels - 1, 6, and 11. Every channel in between has overlap - 2 through 5 overlap with 1 and 6, while 7 through 10 overlap with 6 and 11. If everything else is on 5 or 6, your best bet would be 11, followed by 1.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
LCD Deathpanel posted:For wired-only connection sharing you could just get a gigabit switch like this one though: Unless he gets multiple public IPs from his cable company, or his cable modem has gateway functionality built-in, he'll need a router. Anyone have any specific recommendations for the highest speed possible on a short-distance (150' tops, 110' if I can put the endpoints at the most optimal LOS locations) wireless link? These 5Ghz Ubiquiti Locos seem really tempting, especially since the area is saturated as all hell on 2.4GHz but I wonder if I'd be able to get higher throughput either with some routers aimed at each other with gigabit ports instead of 100Mbps, or if this would justify 802.11ac. Area restrictions mean that even if the gear is outdoor capable, each endpoint will likely be indoors, but in windows aimed mostly at each other. IOwnCalculus fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Get a pair of Ubiquiti Nanostation M5s, then add switch/access point of your choice in the shed. Funny you should mention that, I actually just finished setting up my extremely similar link using two Nanostation Loco M5s. Overview of the setup:  This is the least-obstructed path; other paths have more trees and/or other obstructions in the way. One end will be mounted outside, the other is suction-cupped to the inside of a double-pane window. Right now, however, the one that can be outside mounted, isn't. It's just kinda haphazardly leaning on a shelf inside my garage, shooting through a metal/glass garage door, and there are some low-hanging branches that are somewhat in the line-of-sight path between the two. Even with all of that, here's the signals and speeds I see:   I need to get something hooked up to the other end to do throughput tests with outside of Ubiquiti's interface, and get the near end mounted outside, but this is great stuff. Plus the interface is awesome. For reference, the 2.4GHz band is hellishly crowded in the area (10+ other APs visible when standing smack between my two endpoints), but 5GHz is wonderfully empty.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
TheQat posted:Okay, took the thread's advice and went with a Nanostation to try to extend my network out to the backyard shed. Received the Nanostation today and cannot under any circumstances get it to associate with my Airport Extreme 5th-gen. I'll just repost what I put on the ubiquiti forums in case anyone here has any ideas: The best way to use a Nanostation in this setup is with a pair of them aimed at each other on their own WLAN, but at the same time if it has sufficient signal there's no reason it can't just hang off of your existing WLAN. Did you actually set the WPA2 password on the Nanostation? Also, isn't your Airport's IP address set to 192.168.1.1? Why are you trying to set the IP of the Nanostation to that as well?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
5Ghz will go through more walls than you realize. I have my desktop using a Linksys AE3000 USB stick to a DD-WRT loaded WRT320N on 5GHz through one insulated wall and two interior walls (only covering about 20') and I show a solid four bars on the desktop. I do need to do an actual speedtest, though. Powerline actual throughput is in most situations about 40Mbps.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
How are you phyiscally setting this up - is OPT1 a VLAN or a physical NIC? Have you tried plugging another device in where you're plugging the Obi into? Alternatively, have you tried plugging it into the rest of your network (i.e. not in a DMZ) to see if it works there? I'd bet you still have some work to do on making OPT1 communicate with the rest of the world properly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Khelmar posted:I also tried a firmware update, with no luck. I'm really, really lost at this point. Anyone know how to simulate the DMZ option of Linksys routers with pfSense? I've never used a Linksys' DMZ before but some quick Googling says it's really just a matter of setting up an OPT interface that you want to use as DMZ, giving it a pass-any rule, and giving it rules to block it from the rest of the LAN (other than DNS, but if you run DHCP then it seems that you should be able to have a DNS inside the DMZ subnet). Are you having pfSense act as a DNS server or just passing the Google DNS IP to your clients? On the OPT1 side... why are you only allowing TCP/UDP traffic to any (but still blocking ICMP/etc)? Why not just open it up to all traffic types?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Khelmar posted:I've tried both using the pfSense as the DNS server and passing through other DNS servers (my ISPs and Google's). The other aspect of Linksys' DMZ is that it gives the external address to the DMZed host through DHCP, so the host can't tell it's not directly hooked up to the ISP. Don't ask me how, though. Can you manually set DNS on the Obi itself so that it ignores the DNS that DHCP tells it to use? It seems like the fact that the Obi is trying to provision using its 192.168.x IP instead of your network's actual external IP is likely the problem here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
Or just run two routers  I use pfSense as the actual gateway, and with DD-WRT on it the WRT320 is a perfectly serviceable device (gigabit switch with VLAN capabilities, and 2.4 or 5GHz selectable). It would have cost me a lot more to duplicate this with a modern dual-band router, so it was cheaper to pick up a near-as-possible identical device on eBay (ended up with a Cisco Valet Plus for about $20 shipped, which is basically the WRT320N minus 5Ghz) and flashed it as well. The interesting thing to me, and what tells me the bigger issue is likely congestion, is that I have both of them sitting in the garage, and I haven't boosted the transmit power on either one at all - and I can still get perfectly fine performance on wifi to my bedroom which is at least as far away / through as many walls as Toshimo's layout.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
BlackMK4: Yeah, you could do that - in Windows you would just bridge the connections, I'm sure there's a more elegant solution in Linux. Personally I'd just try something cheap and DD-WRT compatible first and set that up as a client bridge rather than dicking around making a laptop do the job.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:Ubiquiti NanoStation M is what you want. Yep, and assuming the distance is short you're probably fine with the Nanostation Loco M. 5GHz if the connection is very short distance / low obstruction, 2.4 if the band isn't assraped in your area and you have more obstructions to deal with, 900Mhz if you're trying to get wifi to the inside of the Chernobyl sarcophagus. I have a pair of Nanostation Loco M 5GHz - one mounted inside a window and roughly aimed at the other, which is haphazardly laying in my garage. Point to point is only 130' or so, through a garage door and a few low trees. Signal strength and performance is damned near perfect (150Mbps total throughput); I'm still going to mount the end that's currently in my garage on the front of the house but it's honestly not really necessary. Ubiquiti gear is awesome to work with and really amazingly priced for how kickass it is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Powerline? If you're considering an external AP then there's presumably power out there. You can get powerline adapters with built-in APs so that all you would really need to do is plug one end into the wall near the router and connect it via ethernet, and then plug in the second end outside and have wifi clients connect to its AP.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
The Gardenator posted:I have to upgrade and expand the wireless and wired coverage at my workplace. There are two floors with two separate areas. Currently, I have a cable modem hooked up to a linksys E1000 flashed to ddwrt hooked up to a old 16 port switch and then to an old dlink router set up as an access point. I am planning on getting one of the routers in the OP that is over $100 as the "main" router, then hooking in up to a new unmanaged switch, and then branching it off to three areas. I will reuse the E1000 as one of the access points. Is there a recommended router to use as an access point? Our budget is $340 and I would prefer to spend less than that. Get three Ubiquiti Unifi APs, ditch the E1000. The price is right (about $200 for a 3-pack on Amazon) and they're meant for exactly that type of deployment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
As discussed quite recently in this thread, the 300Mbps number represents full duplex speeds on your local wireless network - which can only be reached if you have a MIMO adapter and ideal wireless conditions. Real-world throughput will be lower, but typically a router with a better peak performance will still do better in the real-world than one with worse peak performance. 300Mbps is pretty much standard for any wireless-N router, and you are really hurting yourself in the long run if you get anything with lower capabilities than that (i.e. 150Mbps single-radio N, or heaven forbid wireless-G  ) It will also come in handy if you ever do anything locally between your computers, since then all that will matter is the wired/wireless speed, not your internet speed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Those wires aren't Cat5, that's wiring running to alarm sensors in your house. The phone connection isn't where it "comes in", those Ademco alarms are designed to phone a monitoring station if it goes off. In other words, there should be nothing to do with any network and/or phone cabling around your house in that box.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Nighthand posted:1) The person in the back has offered to throw money at the problem by way of purchasing a new modem. Would that be likely to help, and if so, what modem should I look for? I see a recommendation for a SB6141, but I'm open to suggestions. We have already replaced the router after past issues. Even if the modem wouldn't solve the issue, would it be worth updating from the old hardware? 1) Cable modem won't do anything unless you're seeing problems too - if your internet connection is solid, then it has nothing to do with the cable modem. Might not be a terrible upgrade either way (my SB51xx finally died and the 6120 I replaced it with does work a decent bit better) but the core problem here is the link from your router to the studio, not your router to the rest of the world. 2) This is actually the best idea if you're willing to put in the work (aka properly run some outdoor cable). Connect it to one of your router's LAN ports, then manually configure the new router to use an IP that isn't being used on your network (if your router is 192.168.1.1, 192.168.1.2 is probably a good idea) and disable DHCP on it. This basically turns it into a wireless access point. You can actually buy dedicated WAP devices but for most purposes, it's actually cheaper to turn a router into one. Connect the other end of the cable to one of the LAN ports on the new router. They can then connect to the wireless network in their studio, and the link between the studio and your network is a nice reliable cable instead. 3) Not sure what you plan on here - would the printer still be connecting back to your router wirelessly? Still going to have the range problem. 4) If running an actual cable is difficult / not possible (as I am doing since my link in this situation goes across a street) you would want to run some form of dedicated point-to-point wireless. Best way is to get some dedicated gear for this from Ubiquiti, but you can fake it with some consumer routers if you want to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Since I know 802.11ac experience in this thread is still relatively limited... I decided to pick up a couple of these Western Digital "AC1300" routers. One will be going into my mom's house to replace her failing m0n0wall / WRT54G setup, the other is going into my place to act as an 802.11ac access point in my bedroom. Initial testing on the latter looks quite promising (about 1.5-2x faster than my existing 2.4GHz 802.11n setup), and it's nice that they throw a proper AP-only mode into the stock firmware. I should have the one at my mom's to act as an actual router set up later this week. The other nice bit about those WDs is that they're actually naming them conservatively. Using the naming conventions everyone else is using, this would actually be an AC1750 router.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Yeah, you really want to use some Ubiquiti gear there. I have a couple of Nanostation Loco M5s pointed at each other across a street (very short distance, even for them) and even though one is inside my garage (and not even wall mounted!) and the other is behind a window, the signal quality between them is damned near perfect. Easy as pie to set up and it's a proper transparent bridge, too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Since I know 802.11ac experience in this thread is still relatively limited... I decided to pick up a couple of these Western Digital "AC1300" routers. One will be going into my mom's house to replace her failing m0n0wall / WRT54G setup, the other is going into my place to act as an 802.11ac access point in my bedroom. Initial testing on the latter looks quite promising (about 1.5-2x faster than my existing 2.4GHz 802.11n setup), and it's nice that they throw a proper AP-only mode into the stock firmware. I should have the one at my mom's to act as an actual router set up later this week. Quoting myself - the one for my mom's house was DOA. Fired up with a flashing blue power light and no amount of resets / power cycling / unplugging would make it respond to anything, wired or wireless. Oh well, sending it back to Amazon and having them send me another.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
The fact that it seems like you're having to go to great lengths to get everything assigned an IP properly still makes me think there's another issue at hand. What does your network layout look like, and what IP does each device have?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Alright, I was probably reading more into what must've been a typo when you said you had your NAS on a 192.168.1.x IP and then started rattling off 192.168.0.x IPs for everything else. If you map the share to a drive name on the Win8 box, does that work? Does \\192.168.0.107 work even when the name doesn't?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
I think the point is that if a five-port will work, a DD-WRT router (even with wireless disabled) can be a cheaper VLAN-capable switch than the cheapest actual VLAN-capable switches.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:Yeah that's what I figured. Turns out I was just being too specific by searching for things like "apple tv compatible ac cord" and "time capsule ac cord". Which makes sense because it's a generic part. Don't feel bad. I once (drat near 15 years ago) made the mistake of going into a Radio Shack and asking for one of these cables - the power brick for the ancient Thinkpad I had bought on eBay used one, and the seller forgot to include it. They tried to insist that it was a Sony specific part and that they couldn't possibly carry it, let alone help me find it in their shoebox of a store. I walked out and went two doors down to the grocery store and found one. You can find one drat near anywhere that sells cables of any sort. It's also known as a C7 connector, by the way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Psimitry posted:Sorry - this information was (as far as I'm aware) earlier in the thread. It's running Samba on a NAS4Free server. Windows 8 machines don't seem to want to access it by using a \\servername command, but they WILL sometimes do it, sometimes not. Sometimes if I try it, and then go back to it a moment or two later, it works. Sometimes I have to reboot it. Recently it doesn't seem to want to access it through the name at all, but I can still get to it by entering the IP directly. Win 7 seems to not have this problem at all (and no, I'm not willing to go to Win 7, other than this issue, I REALLY like Win 8 with Start8 installed). This is really bizarre, it seems like Win8 doesn't want to resolve the server name properly. Maybe manually enter the server IP and hostname into your HOSTS file? And I don't have a Win8 box to test this myself, but can you not just browse to \\IP address, right click on the share you want, and "Map Network Drive"? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:Sorry if I missed this already get posted, but if you have an ASUS RT-series router, you should go double-check your settings right away. Jesus gently caress that's terrible. Every time I think I might be overcomplicating my home network and should just get a consumer router like everyone else... nope.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Are both devices on the same local network? If so port forwarding isn't the issue. You need to tweak Plex to make it actually run on port 32400, not sure why yours isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 05:22
|
|