How do I set up a large, seamless wifi network?

[hat]

So, I moved out of my one bedroom apartment to a two story house, with a basement and a garage. I keep my modem and router in the basement. Previously, we were using Armstrong's "enhanced wifi" which consisted of Plume hardware, but I didn't like it. The speeds and coverage were fine, but they were sorely lacking in configuration options that I need, and the router only had one LAN port. The former is more of a dealbreaker than the latter, as I can always just add switches, but still, it's quite a disappointment.

So I replaced all the Plume stuff with my crappy spare router, a Linksys E5350. Surprisingly, the wifi reaches to the 2nd floor well enough for the TVs to function, but it's still just a slow unit and the Ethernet is only 100mbit. I'll be replacing it eventually. I would also like to add a... something... somewhere in the house where I can boost/amplify/extend the signal so the 2nd floor wifi works better. But I don't want to mess around with separate SSIDs, either. Essentially, I'm trying to build my own mesh network without buying specialized, costly, sometimes subscription based(!) hardware. I just want to use a router and an extra AP or something. How do I set this up?

 

[Thimblewad]

Place a second router, with the same SSID working on the same band as the original one, somewhere where the reception from the 1st one is still decent and set it up as a "repeater". Very easy to do. I'd recommend an extender, but they're usually trash and since you're thinking about getting a new router you can repurpose the old one as an extender.

 

[joemama]

I think you only need a router with a wifi extender, you just have to set which wifi to connect to and the extender will act as another router using the original router's network

 

[Mussels]

Wireless mesh.
There is no other way to do what you want properly.

Other methods end up segmenting the network, preventing parts from talking to each other - they all have internet access, but they end up unable to directly communicate and more complex things like IPv6 just downright break.


Ideally you'd bridge your existing modem directly to tje primary mesh unit (unless you're already getting an ethernet WAN from whatever you're using), then used wired or wireless backhaul as needed.

I Do not recommend it due to the absolute lack of configuration options (some that have gone backwards since launch), but i've got a google mesh setup with one main router and 4 'points' for their ethernet output and at worst it adds 2ms extra latency with zero packet loss, at the farthest end of the network after going through the wifi-wired-wifi transition

 

[Thimblewad]

Wireless mesh.
There is no other way to do what you want properly.

Other methods end up segmenting the network, preventing parts from talking to each other - they all have internet access, but they end up unable to directly communicate and more complex things like IPv6 just downright break.


Ideally you'd bridge your existing modem directly to tje primary mesh unit (unless you're already getting an ethernet WAN from whatever you're using), then used wired or wireless backhaul as needed.

I Do not recommend it due to the absolute lack of configuration options (some that have gone backwards since launch), but i've got a google mesh setup with one main router and 4 'points' for their ethernet output and at worst it adds 2ms extra latency with zero packet loss, at the farthest end of the network after going through the wifi-wired-wifi transition

Like this?

 

[Mussels]

Graph checks out, antique linksys device does not

Just sure it's actual mesh and not wifi repeaters, as those all add their own seperate networks with no cross-communication. Fine for internet access, but it breaks QoS (since many devices appear as one, it cant balance the load out) and you get things like network shares, printers etc not working

The key is that the mesh satellites are invisible - you cant loginto them, control them, they have no webpage etc. The master unit is the only one 'visible' on the network, the others are entirely transparent to devices and users other than the primary unit (which needs to be connected to a modem in bridge mode, or DMZ as second best choice)

End devices see one network, not multiple with the same name and they'll automatically bounce traffic to the lowest ping AP even as you move around with a device physically, allowing everything involved to run as low wattage as possible and reduce overall interference and congestion

One good example of the repeaters being bad was simple old steam networking, had a friend who would could not get their second PC that their other half used to connect to the locally hosted games without massive pings - because her PC was off their wifi repeater, there was no local traffic and it all got routed through steam relays adding upto 300ms

 

[hat]

Graph checks out, antique linksys device does not

Just sure it's actual mesh and not wifi repeaters, as those all add their own seperate networks with no cross-communication. Fine for internet access, but it breaks QoS (since many devices appear as one, it cant balance the load out) and you get things like network shares, printers etc not working

View attachment 281638

The key is that the mesh satellites are invisible - you cant loginto them, control them, they have no webpage etc. The master unit is the only one 'visible' on the network, the others are entirely transparent to devices and users other than the primary unit (which needs to be connected to a modem in bridge mode, or DMZ as second best choice)

End devices see one network, not multiple with the same name and they'll automatically bounce traffic to the lowest ping AP even as you move around with a device physically, allowing everything involved to run as low wattage as possible and reduce overall interference and congestion

One good example of the repeaters being bad was simple old steam networking, had a friend who would could not get their second PC that their other half used to connect to the locally hosted games without massive pings - because her PC was off their wifi repeater, there was no local traffic and it all got routed through steam relays adding upto 300ms

That's really unfortunate. I'd really rather just add an AP without doing the mesh crap. Here's a sample of what I'd like my network to look like:

 

[Mussels]

If you can do wired backhaul it's possible, but not over wireless - without mesh, wireless connections become 'repeated' meaning an entire seperate network is created


On wired you need to set this second router/AP up completely, then change how it's wired to the network and it's internal settings


Default setup: Router 1 LAN -> Router 2 WAN
You'd have two IP ranges, such as 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.1.1 (If they both ran the same, they'd just break here with no network or internet access)

Once the second router is configured with its own second wifi details (Can't use the same SSID/wifi channels as the first one, as they'd just fight each other and congest the bandwidth) you need to disconnect it from the first routers network, and change it's LAN config to match the first one - so both have their LAN networks in the same subnet (192.168.0.1) then disable the second routers DHCP server -
Give it a static IP in the first routers LAN range like 192.168.1.254 and disable it's DHCP server so it never gives out any IP addresses to LAN clients (this makes sure it never routes any traffic out its WAN port, or any routing at all)

On the first router, you shrink it's DHCP pool down so that it stops at .253 so they never conflict over that IP, but with both being on the 255.255.255.0 subnet they can still see and communicate.

Then you reconnect the second router into the wired network, but using it's LAN port - not WAN. With DHCP disabled and traffic going across its LAN network and not the WAN one, all processing, firewalling etc is bypassed and that second router becomes the wireless equivalent of a dumb old switched ethernet hub.

If you connect to it while the primary router is down or disconnected, you'll get no IP address assigned and need to manually set your own device to an IP in that range to access its login page or factory reset it and do it all over again every time you want to change something

 

[hat]

I can run ethernet from the router to the AP. That's not a problem. But what if I want the wifi from the router and the AP to work together? What is it about mesh networks that make them operate differently from adding in some extra APs? Is there no way to make APs operate in a mesh mode, even with DD-WRT or something?

 

[Mussels]

I can run ethernet from the router to the AP. That's not a problem. But what if I want the wifi from the router and the AP to work together? What is it about mesh networks that make them operate differently from adding in some extra APs? Is there no way to make APs operate in a mesh mode, even with DD-WRT or something?

It's not possible to have the wifi's work together without mesh, it's like asking two bluetooth adaptors to work together - they're both hosts with no method of co-ordination.

mesh has hardware and software protocols to negotiate everything, which requires compatible hardware from the start - they need to be able to tell each other which mesh device has the lowest ping and highest bandwidth to the client device constantly and swap them on the fly so the client device never loses a signal, and that's not possible between devices with different hardware - in normal networks thats controlled by the client device, but a PC doing that mid game or a phone doing it mid skype call is going to get a different IP and drop all connections

Much like they change the 802.11 standards over the years for speed (a/b/n/ac/ax) they also have standards for mesh and enterprise features

IEEE 802.11s - Wikipedia

You can think of it as an optional addon to the networking, but all devices need to be designed from the start to work together from the very basic hardware level

 

[Bill_Bright]

I keep my modem and router in the basement.

Not good. Well, okay for the modem, but not the router (assuming the WAP - wireless access point - is integrated with the router). The WAP (because it has an omni-directional antenna array) should be centrally located in the building. I realize this likely means the need to drill holes in the floor/ceiling and a wall. But a nice Ethernet wall plate will cover that up nicely, and the rewards for better coverage will make it worth it (and not jeopardize your damage deposit - if renting).

Once the WAP is centrally located, you may find you don't need any repeaters, extenders, or mesh system.

Alternatively, run the incoming coax up to a cental location then put the modem/router/WAP there too.

the router only had one LAN port

Ummm, that's standard. Routers connect (or isolate) two networks. Therefore they only have one input and one output.

What is common (and confusing perhaps), however, is for routers to also have an integrated 4-port Ethernet switch on the LAN side (your side) of the router. The router and the switch (and often a WAP too) are discrete network devices that just happen to share a main circuit board, chassis, case, and power supply - and maybe even a common admin menu.

If there really is only one LAN port and one WAN/Internet port then that LAN port needs to be connected to a single computer only, or to an external Ethernet switch to add more Ethernet ports, or to a WAP to connect wireless devices, or to some combination thereof.

 

[hat]

Once the WAP is centrally located, you may find you don't need any repeaters, extenders, or mesh system.

True. Even with the crappy Linksys router, my wifi is good enough for things to work upstairs. Surely putting an AP on the first floor, rather than the basement, and disabling the main router's wifi would offer better results. But that's not the point. I want to learn how to make APs talk to eachother so I can build a large network. Even then, how do I get wifi to the garage? I'd prefer to stick an AP in there that talks to the AP in the house and gives me a better signal. In other words, a lot of this thread's purpose is for me to learn about this so I can confidently know how to do it myself.

Ummm, that's standard. Routers connect (or isolate) two networks. Therefore they only have one input and one output.

What is common (and confusing perhaps), however, is for routers to also have an integrated 4-port Ethernet switch on the LAN side (your side) of the router. The router and the switch (and often a WAP too) are discrete network devices that just happen to share a main circuit board, chassis, case, and power supply - and maybe even a common admin menu.

If there really is only one LAN port and one WAN/Internet port then that LAN port needs to be connected to a single computer only, or to an external Ethernet switch to add more Ethernet ports, or to a WAP to connect wireless devices, or to some combination thereof.

You're splitting hairs again. I know enough to know that most consumer routers, at least going back to the year 2002 (the release year of the Linksys BEFSX41, the first router my family ever owned) all had 5 ports: one WAN port, and four LAN ports. I know that technically speaking, this means there is a switch integrated into the router. Going on in years when wifi routers became common, they added an AP too, so now it's a router, switch, and AP all in one box. But you ought to know that most consumer routers have been this way. And this is the reason why the Plume router with one LAN port seems odd to me.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I am not splitting hairs. I am stating the technical facts. You are assuming (1) everyone reading can read your mind and already knows that "hat" has all that experience and (2) that everyone reading (now and in the future) automatically has the same level of experience and understanding. Both are bad assumptions.

There are a lot of technical terms involved in computing and networking, many of which the layperson doesn't known, and should not be expected to know. It doesn't help when marketing weenies make up names that don't make technical sense. For example, "technically", there is no such thing as a "wireless router". We frequently see new users on this forum call their ISP provided "residential gateway device" (modem integrated with the router, WAP and switch) a "router", or a "modem". Or they may call their tower case a "CPU".

I learned long ago not to make such assumptions about any individual unless I know them personally. Do we know each other personally? Nope. And when I post in "public" forums, I never treat the conversation as a private, 2-way conversation. I assume there are all sorts of folks, with a variety of experience, participating, or at least listening in. Therefore, unless specifically stated, I am always talking "to the crowd".

"Forums" - by definition - are places for "open" discussions where all can participate, learn and share what they have learned. Those offering advice must perform the tricky challenge of not speaking over the heads of some, while at the same time, not appear condescending to others. This is a near impossible balancing task when everyone has different levels of expertise and experience. Therefore, when it comes to technical information, one must not be offended, or take it personally if something said "appears" condescending or is information they feel is simple common knowledge.

But that's not the point. I want to learn how to make APs talk to eachother so I can build a large network.

And that cannot be done if the WAP is located in a central location? I am being sarcastic there, but the point applies. The point is, determining and utilizing the optimal location (when possible), especially for RF devices, is part of that learning process. And even if you could centrally locate the WAP - the learning process is the same. And you may still need to extend the wifi to get satisfactory coverage out to the garage. But of course, since we have no clue how distant the garage location is, or how many barriers (walls) are in between, (and since we still cannot read your mind), we cannot tell if moving the WAP upstairs will work there, or not.

One other point, many wireless routers allow users to remove and extend the antennas - mounting them high up a wall or on a shelf. Just something else to think about.

 

[kapone32]

Buy 2 Asus Routers and connect one to your Modem and 1 to your PC. Enable AI Mesh network and Bob's your uncle. Otherwise like said before move the router onto the Main floor.

 

[dirtyferret]

Essentially, I'm trying to build my own mesh network without buying specialized, costly, sometimes subscription based(!) hardware. I just want to use a router and an extra AP or something. How do I set this up?

several ways of doing it, I'm just not sure what your definition of "so the 2nd floor wifi works better" is

one way which I have don in the past is run a powerline adapter from the router to the second floor, you can hook up a spare router as an AP there or get a powerline adapter kit that has a built in AP, hardwire the TV's if need

another way is to get a repeater and plug it in close enough to the wifi router and secon floor so it expands your wifi range

a third way is to get a better router, something like the Asus AC86U or AX86U

personally, I agree with Bill and I would centralize the router (and get a better one). If thats a no go than I would use the power line option

Surely putting an AP on the first floor, rather than the basement, and disabling the main router's wifi would offer better results. But that's not the point. I want to learn how to make APs talk to eachother so I can build a large network. Even then, how do I get wifi to the garage? I'd prefer to stick an AP in there that talks to the AP in the house and gives me a better signal. In other words, a lot of this thread's purpose is for me to learn about this so I can confidently know how to do it myself.

How large is this house? Too much Wi-Fi in too small a space creates many potential headaches. My single router fills my whole house and covers my half acre lawn, actually goes well into my neighbors lawn.

 

[Operandi]

I can run ethernet from the router to the AP. That's not a problem. But what if I want the wifi from the router and the AP to work together? What is it about mesh networks that make them operate differently from adding in some extra APs? Is there no way to make APs operate in a mesh mode, even with DD-WRT or something?

I don't have a lot of experience mesh networks but to my understanding the key difference to keep in mind with mesh networks is each component of mesh network node has a dedicated channel to at least one other node. All the nodes run the same software are aware of the network performance as a whole and use their proprietary algorithms to ensure each client and other nodes are operating as optimally as possible. You can get something simple like range extender (use another router as one if it supports it) and extend your network but its just standalone component. Or all out with a gateway (router) and dedicated APs but those are also individual components as far as the network is concerned, so you have to use some common sense as to where you place your APs.

From my perspective there are varying degrees to get what you want. The cheap and dirty way with a Wi-Fi extender. Two consumer routers that can be linked together to make a quick mesh network like kapone32 mentioned. Go all out with a mesh network, probably the easiest but expensive and no advanced features. The last option would be to build a real network with a gateway, basic switch with PoE, and 1-3 APs from someone like Ubiquiti, its the most expensive option (but not much more than mesh) but will be the most flexible, is upgradable and will have the best longevity in terms of software support.

 

[Mussels]

I don't have a lot of experience mesh networks but to my understanding the key difference to keep in mind with mesh networks is each component of mesh network node has a dedicated channel

Most do (and should) but not all - very common for example is what google did with their setup with the nest router having AC2200, with two 5GHz channels and the second one is dedicated for mesh and invisible to the end user - but some really crappy ones will use 2.4GHz for the mesh and 5GHz for the clients, or vice-versa resulting in pretty poor performance (this is also what happens with repeaters)



What people are missing here with this whole discussion is confusion because of different types of internet connections and their lack of experience with various types.

American Cable and Fiber users are used to seeing an ISP provided modem with a single Eth output, often designed to be ran in bridge mode - they often made you pay monthly for these trashy items for whatever reason, with the expectation that you'd run your own wifi router after them.

Some countries (Like the better half of australia with the newer FTTP NBN program) get a gigabit eth port at the wall and just slap a router on to that - like a hard-mounted bridged modem bolted onto your wall.

Aussie users get their cake, eat it too, with chocolate topping sprinkles and a kitchen sink included, even when we had ADSL1.
Look at this thing: ADSL1 and 2, VDSL1 and 2, gigabit WAN and LAN ports, PSTN, VOIP and 4G/LTE all in the one package. This has been our standard for about 10 years now.
Even our cable fixed-wireless (LTE) and FTTP people get variants of these, as they're hard-wired to gigabit ports in our homes.
Those sockets at the top are LTE aerials (not wifi) and it's got backup LTE data for when your connection goes offline, i run mine off the ISP provided UPS and have an unlimited 25/5 connection in my car because why not?

TL;DR: This stuff changes WILDLY depending on where you live and what connection type your ISP offers. You can travel 30 minutes in the USA and be forced to use entirely different ISP's and technology - your experience may be entirely unique to your location.


@hat - can you simply run ethernet from where the modem connects (or re-terminate where the wiring ends up in the house) and run ethernet cabling to a central location from there?

If the modem is bridged, an eth cable to a wifi router somewhere central and things might work out well for your network that way
(If you need devices to connect to the basement modem-router directly or via its wifi, thats where you need to modify the second one's settings as above, if those two segments are meant to communicate)


Mesh is the simplest and most reliable, but requires a minimum purchase of 2 compatible devices (Around $120 Au is the starting point for wifi AC mesh, 3 packs around $150Au)

 

[Bill_Bright]

but some really crappy ones will use 2.4GHz for the mesh and 5GHz for the clients, or vice-versa resulting in pretty poor performance (this is also what happens with repeaters)

But this actually makes sense to me - well, not the vice-versa part but 2.4GHz for the mesh and 5GHz for the clients does.

To me, using 2.4GHz to link the mesh network nodes makes sense because 2.4GHz supports much greater ranges. And then going with 5GHz for the local (and much closer) clients also makes sense to me because greater range is not needed, and going with 5GHz for the clients helps keep the 2.4GHz band less crowded. In fact, I thought using both 2.4GHz and 5GHz simultaneously was a, if not the main point of mesh. Is that not right? Or what am I missing?

Now if you mean the really crappy ones use the same channel between the 2.4GHz links, then yeah, that sounds pretty crappy to me and likely would impact performance - especially is you lived in a crowded wifi neighborhood (like in or near a large apartment complex).

 

[qubit]

I would also like to add a... something... somewhere in the house where I can boost/amplify/extend the signal so the 2nd floor wifi works better.

Sorry if this has been answered in previous posts.

I suggest buying a high quality router with a known strong signal (check reviews) and placing centrally in your new house. The Wi-Fi signal should then hopefully comfortably reach all corners of the house with good speeds. I say "should", because it also depends on the physical construction of your house since thick walls and steel trusses will tend to dampen and disrupt the signal, so you may need a repeater anyway.

This router won't be cheap, so make sure that it can be returned easily for a refund if you're not happy with it. Amazon is normally my preferred choice for this and avoid Marketplace.

 

[Ware]

One of the most simple options is to move your router out of the basement to a more central location.
I'm assuming you haven't done this because of the issuse of running the ethernet cable.
Depending on your internet speed and house wiring, powerline adapters(aka HomePlug) may be an option.
https://www.tp-link.com/us/home-networking/powerline/

A mesh system doesnt have to be costly, and is definitley not a subscription service.
I don't like repeaters, or things like the 3-pack mesh setup above. Extending wifi with wifi is my last choice.
I didn't want to do the work to run 100 feet of CAT6 under the house.
I used a TP-Link mesh router with powerline connection to a remote AP in the opposite corner of the house.
The remote AP also has an ethernet port if I want to wire up a TV or console.
Wifi is strong everywhere now, and I can be on a Fi call and move between AP's seemlessly.
My powerline connection to the remote AP gets about 300MB/s down and 200MB/s up - not ideal, but for me good enough.
My powerline connection could be better if both adapters were on the same breaker.

 

[thewan]

If all you want is a mesh network using standard routers, Asus has AIMesh, Tp-Link has EasyMesh, Synology also has their own mesh, all using most of their existing routers. You do not need to buy mesh kits. Just mix and match according to your budget and needs with different router models, as long as each of them support their mesh technology.

Been doing this for a long time already with Asus AI mesh. Bought one router, bought a new router few years later to upgrade that router, the old one became a node. Then the old one kinda got wonky fast as it was WiFI 5 only while the new one was WiFI 6. So replaced the old one that was a node with a newer Wifi6 router thats a lower end than the 2nd router but its more than enough for my mesh needs while being more compatible and also getting more updates.

You don't have to get Asus. Just get one that fits your needs and budget. Synology for example has way more control over what you can do on your mesh network while being compatible with all its existing routers (admittedly small selection since they are relatively new to the market). I am sure other traditional brands have their own mesh that work with their traditional routers too. no need for specialiazed mesh kits.

Or go crazy with Open source stuff.

FREEMESH | FAST, STABLE, SECURE WIFI

freemeshwireless.com

Home | LibreMesh

libremesh.org

 

[Mussels]

But this actually makes sense to me - well, not the vice-versa part but 2.4GHz for the mesh and 5GHz for the clients does.

To me, using 2.4GHz to link the mesh network nodes makes sense because 2.4GHz supports much greater ranges. And then going with 5GHz for the local (and much closer) clients also makes sense to me because greater range is not needed, and going with 5GHz for the clients helps keep the 2.4GHz band less crowded. In fact, I thought using both 2.4GHz and 5GHz simultaneously was a, if not the main point of mesh. Is that not right? Or what am I missing?

Now if you mean the really crappy ones use the same channel between the 2.4GHz links, then yeah, that sounds pretty crappy to me and likely would impact performance - especially is you lived in a crowded wifi neighborhood (like in or near a large apartment complex).

2.4GHz has 150Mb/s bandwidth when used this way, while the 5GHz has 866Mb/s
Mesh didnt exist on the older standards, but if you upgrade to AX you find that... oh right the 2.4GHz didnt get faster.

Theres zero point even having 5GHz if you're going to artificially limit the speeds that way. A 100Mb ethernet cable will end up faster, since every device using 2.4Ghz erodes that number lower and lower.

 

[Bill_Bright]

In no way am I comparing wifi to Ethernet. If I have a choice, I will always go wired.

Theres zero point even having 5GHz if you're going to artificially limit the speeds that way.

This is where I disagree - for certain scenarios.

If you live out in the burbs, in a single dwelling house, and you don't have a smart thermostat, smart lightbulbs, smart home security, Alexa/Siri, smart TVs, and a herd of teenagers, all with smartphones and wireless laptops living with you, then I agree.

Even Bluetooth uses the same 2.4GHz band and can interfere with wifi. Not to mention wireless home phones, baby monitors, car alarm/key bobs, some TV remotes, some garage door openers, microwave ovens, and more.

But if you live in the big city, in or near a large apartment complex where there may be dozens of wifi networks in your immediate area, the 2.4GHz band will most likely be very congested. And that is where the advantages to using the 5GHz band for devices in close proximity to the network node (WAP, mesh, etc.) excel.

In other words, it is not about the speed advantages of 5GHz being underutilized (and I agree - that is a shame). It is ALL about moving devices away from the crowded 2.4GHz band where those devices may end up walking all over each other.

 

[kiddagoat]

I have been using Ubiquiti devices for quite a while now. I have their EdgeRouter X, two 2 8-port switches, and two of their AC-Lite LR access points in a mesh setup that covers my house, my garage, my basement, and both yards. My APs are hardwired to the network with the option for wireless uplink to one another if I wanted.

There is quite a bit of configuration options in their hardware, and I haven't had any issues aside from my Nest Thermostat getting drowned out and blasted by too strong of a WiFi signal. Once I adjusted the power levels, it was fine.

As others have noted, you would need to buy a Mesh Kit, or keep like manufacturer products for best compatibility.

 

[lemonadesoda]

Everyone has their own solution. Let me tell you what I have, and it works for me:

• Internet router, supplied by ISP. Wifi not used. Only a "Engineer" wifi, not used, but available for connecting via wifi in cases of problem solving.
• Hardware firewall connected to Router via RJ45. (All devices, including webserver, that is protected via the firewall)
• 1G Switch, off which run
• NAS, not available to/from internet
• Webserver
• Printers
• 3x ubiquiti unifi flying saucers, all POE RJ45, one located near the router. I do not use the routers wifi. One in the basement. One in the garage and facing the garden. I run the unifi via a DreamStation, but it is not strictly necessary. You can run the software on your laptop to configure, you don't need the DS
• You can mesh, but I don't (need to)

100% cover. QoS excellent for multiple users doing VoIP/video.

It is an investment. But it is rock solid.

This is the login page.

This is the dashboard

This is the currently connected devices (wifi only, not at the switch)

Once you have got it set up, it is very easy to run, and I have NEVER had a network/wifi failure requiring a reboot. It really is rock solid.