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

[Operandi]

Ubiquiti is also what I run at home. Unifi gear is an incredible value for what it is; a complete network with a basic gateway, switch, and a few APs would be right around the same price as one of the higher-end mesh kits. Its not as simple as a mesh network that you just unbox and follow the instructions in the app but its honestly not far off if you want to keep it dead simple. If you have the technical know-how (anyone here really), and can run CAT5 to the APs I think thats the way to go. Ubiquiti also has mesh nodes that you can add into the mix so you can extend you network that way if you can't get CAT5 everywhere you need to get Wi-Fi coverage.

 

[Mussels]

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

You'd have to, if you tried using 2.4GHz as a wifi backhaul - it cant be done and keep performance even vaguely usable.

I've definitely heard good things about ubiquiti and unifi, but they're more expensive and require more setup than a TP link or amazon mesh setup - the average user is generally fine with a single mesh satellite to fix coverage issues, but if you need to go above and beyond those are the brands to do it with

 

[Operandi]

I've definitely heard good things about ubiquiti and unifi, but they're more expensive and require more setup than a TP link or amazon mesh setup

For anyone following along thinking about going with a Ubiquiti setup; a basic setup is about the same price as a nicer mesh kit. The Unifi Security Gateway (router) is $140 (actually don't buy this as it looks likes unofficially EoL so you'll want to wait for the next gen or step up to the Dream Machine), a 8 port (4 PoE) US-8-60W switch is $110, and a Unifi 6 Lite AX1500 (Wi-Fi 6) AP is $100. Thats ~$350 for professional business class hardware, that can upgraded, expanded and will receive better support. A similarly priced mesh network might have better coverage but its features are limited and its capabilities set in stone and support??

Complexity wise it really is no harder to get running than any other home / small business router, I have multiple VLANs, SSIDs, do IP reservations but you certainly don't have to do any of that.

 

[dirtyferret]

You'd have to, if you tried using 2.4GHz as a wifi backhaul - it cant be done and keep performance even vaguely usable.

Why not? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you just curious to your opinion on it

If you have two mesh nodes and the 5ghz channel simply does not reach, why not use the 2.4ghz. Granted wired and 5ghz are the better solution or getting a third node but for a simply set up like TV streaming and/or one or two mobile clients for web surfing why not use the 2.4ghz channel for backhaul if it's the only option besides tossing more money at the the situation?

 

[Bill_Bright]

You'd have to, if you tried using 2.4GHz as a wifi backhaul - it cant be done and keep performance even vaguely usable.

Sorry - but I'd have to what?

It seems to me we are all talking hypotheticals, trying to fine one setup that suits all scenarios. That is not practical since every network, and the facility they run in, is different. And that is not even considering the budget.

If I were setting up a wifi mesh today to support many nodes over an extended range, I would look at wifi 6E.

But if I needed to setup a wifi mesh in this house I am living in now to provide better coverage in my basement (upstairs is already all good), 2.4GHz would suit my specific needs just fine. But since my house, upstairs and down, is already wired with CAT-5e, I would still go Ethernet.

I am more or less out of the business now and fully retired. But when I was still doing consulting, I would never - as in NEVER EVER make any suggestions, recommendations or proposals without doing an on-site survey first - a survey of the premises, and a survey of the users to determine their needs, wants AND their expectations. I learned a long time ago that "needs", "wants" and "expectations" very often are very different.

 

[Lost_Troll]

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:

Look at Aruba Instant On, they have some nice AP's, like the AP11D that has a 4 port switch built in. Another option is the ASUS line of routers that have the extendable router feature. It lets you run two routers as one or in a mesh.

I run a MikroTik RB4011 with two of their AC AP's. One is mounted in my basement, and the other is mounted on the second floor with a switch. I pretty much run everything wireless except my game pc and NAS with no issues (2 Roku TV's, 2 Rings, and a NUC).

 

[hat]

So, I've learned that ant kind of wifi extension, bridges, repeaters etc really don't work all so well, and mesh networking is entirely different. I guess it exists for a reason... the router needs replaced anyway as it's a really low end unit with only 100mbit ethernet. A stronger router may work just fine as the wifi up on the 2nd floor is already acceptable... if not, an AP on the first floor will do fine. There's still the issue of the garage though. /shrug

 

[Mussels]

Why not? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you just curious to your opinion on it

Because it maxes at 300Mb total, 150Mb each direction - so if you're in a perfect environment with ZERO 2.4GHz devices you're getting <20MB/s total bandwidth

Since that never happens, you're going to get half that or less - which is why most mesh setups rely on using tri-band devices and using one of the two 5GHz channels for backhaul - even wifi AC1200 runs 866Mb, getting triple the speed at worst

 

[Lost_Troll]

So, I've learned that ant kind of wifi extension, bridges, repeaters etc really don't work all so well, and mesh networking is entirely different. I guess it exists for a reason... the router needs replaced anyway as it's a really low end unit with only 100mbit ethernet. A stronger router may work just fine as the wifi up on the 2nd floor is already acceptable... if not, an AP on the first floor will do fine. There's still the issue of the garage though. /shrug

If you put the router in a central spot in your basement and put the AP on the 2nd floor in a center spot, you should have no issues in having a signal in the garage. I mounted my AP's like that and have a signal in my shed and back yard that is pretty strong.

Also, you might want to check out Netgear, they are making AP's now and have one priced under 100$.

 

[Mussels]

they are making AP's now

all wireless routers are an AP/access point - the problem is that they're all routers with DHCP servers, which isn't a seamless network - it's segmented

 

[claes]

You misunderstood, Netgear actually makes access points (and has for awhile), not that I’d recommend them over other brands or anything

Wireless Access Points - NETGEAR

Shop NETGEAR Wireless Access Points offering top-level security, flexibility for small business users, and enterprise speed and range.

www.netgear.com

 

[hat]

You misunderstood, Netgear actually makes access points (and has for awhile), not that I’d recommend them over other brands or anything

Wireless Access Points - NETGEAR

Shop NETGEAR Wireless Access Points offering top-level security, flexibility for small business users, and enterprise speed and range.

www.netgear.com

I thought this was common knowledge. I've had a Wireless G standalone access point before (incidentally, by Netgear) probably over 10 years ago when I was messing with stuff like x86 dd-wrt.

all wireless routers are an AP/access point - the problem is that they're all routers with DHCP servers, which isn't a seamless network - it's segmented

Yeah, when I mentioned using APs to extend the network, I meant strictly APs, not a bunch of wireless routers. Just to be absolutely clear, would one still encounter issues using strictly APs rather than routers? Side note: DHCP can usually be disabled in any router configuration page...

 

[claes]

I thought this was common knowledge. I've had a Wireless G standalone access point before

Thus the comment

Can’t help you with fake mesh though, never tried. I think dd-wrt supports it now, but it may be hardware dependent (802.11s, as mentioned by someone else previously). I just buy ubiquiti stuff these days

 

[A Computer Guy]

So, I've learned that ant kind of wifi extension, bridges, repeaters etc really don't work all so well, and mesh networking is entirely different. I guess it exists for a reason... the router needs replaced anyway as it's a really low end unit with only 100mbit ethernet. A stronger router may work just fine as the wifi up on the 2nd floor is already acceptable... if not, an AP on the first floor will do fine. There's still the issue of the garage though. /shrug

If you can't run a new network wire to the garage you might consider using a powerline adaptor then hook it up to another router in the garage for wireless access. I realize to others points made this creates a segmented network however depending on your needs it might be fine and you will be able to access resources from the house network (printers, nas, etc...) from the garage and with adjustments to routing you would be able to access garage network resources from the house (3d printer, etc...) assuming your house router allows that kind of configuration. Of course if your going to run some power tools on that same circuit that could be a problem.

 

[Mussels]

They're not an un-managed switch with magical wifi here, they run their own DHCP server, have their own login page, etc.
They're still a router - it's just the name they're calling them.

Notice how the word "router" is included in that screengrab?



And if we go to one of the more expensive cloud managed ones

Ah right, while it has cloud options you can still login, it has its own SSID, own password and its own DHCP server for clients

It's a router.

These are not transparent on the network or anything just because they're using a different name for them - In theory a wireless access point would just add a wifi network and be invisible to the network, but because that makes them hard to configure NONE of these do that by default - they're all setup as wireless routers, and need you to disable DHCP to become a dumb 'access point'


And when you do that, disable the DHCP servers, assign them a static IP and do all these extra steps it's still not meshed - each AP is independent of each other, those AP's will never pass a client to another AP, they don't coordinate on frequencies to use and they rely entirely on wired backhaul

 

[Lost_Troll]

I thought this was common knowledge. I've had a Wireless G standalone access point before (incidentally, by Netgear) probably over 10 years ago when I was messing with stuff like x86 dd-wrt.



Yeah, when I mentioned using APs to extend the network, I meant strictly APs, not a bunch of wireless routers. Just to be absolutely clear, would one still encounter issues using strictly APs rather than routers? Side note: DHCP can usually be disabled in any router configuration page...

For me, they are new since I do not follow Netgear. I had a bad run in with their Equpment a long time ago, though they might be better now.

When you use a standalone AP like the AX5400, they will go into a bridged mode to work with the routers wireless, or if used with other AX5400 style AP's, they will be control with a management software that will run them in a mesh.

From the data sheet: Instant WiFi Mesh forming wireless backhaul with other Pro WiFi Insight managed access points to form a WiFi mesh network.

 

[dirtyferret]

Because it maxes at 300Mb total, 150Mb each direction - so if you're in a perfect environment with ZERO 2.4GHz devices you're getting <20MB/s total bandwidth

I understand this is the best cased link rate on 40hz bandwidth which I would assume the mesh units would not be set at (unless manually) so bandwidth would most likely be cut in half

Since that never happens, you're going to get half that or less - which is why most mesh setups rely on using tri-band devices and using one of the two 5GHz channels for backhaul - even wifi AC1200 runs 866Mb, getting triple the speed at worst

I understand the benefits if using 5ghz (or hardwire backhaul) with a mesh units that have three radios


I think you are missing the point of my question and may be projecting your own standards to the hypothetical question

My question was based on using the 2.4ghz signal as a backhaul in a situation where 5ghz and hardwire was not working/available and no desire to invest more money into the equation. I said it would work in situation where all you are doing is streaming and have a mobile client or two to surf the web.

In the US, which the OP lives in, the average internet download speed is 120-170Mbps (yes we are slow). That means most people have 100 or 200 Mbps offerings. Many places have introduced 500+ Mbps where these is ISP competition but mush of the USA is still a a monopoly for the ISP with little reason to increase speeds.

So if you have a situation where all you want to do is handle a streaming TV so your wife can watch cooking shows in the bedroom and your daughter can watch Tik Toks, even a delivery of 75 Mbps would work. Streaming at 4k with Hulu or Netflix even at 4k, we are talking about burst needing maybe 15 Mbps and oven less. In my home we have a 4k TV, 1080p TV, kids are on their phones and tablets, I'm on the computer and we barely break speeds of 15 -18 Mbps.

Now I'm not saying it's ideal and with a high speed ISP package you should be getting what you are paying for. My example is more of a lower tier package like many people have and a small dead zone with 1-3 clients you just want covered with basic wi-fi.

 

[Shrek]

I don't like the way repeaters half the bandwidth, so I tend to connect two wi-fi units back to back, so they run at different frequencies that don't overlap; but this tends to make things not seamless.

 

[Operandi]

These are not transparent on the network or anything just because they're using a different name for them - In theory a wireless access point would just add a wifi network and be invisible to the network, but because that makes them hard to configure NONE of these do that by default - they're all setup as wireless routers, and need you to disable DHCP to become a dumb 'access point'


And when you do that, disable the DHCP servers, assign them a static IP and do all these extra steps it's still not meshed - each AP is independent of each other, those AP's will never pass a client to another AP, they don't coordinate on frequencies to use and they rely entirely on wired backhaul

Ubiquiti does that by default and is actually the only way you can use their Unifi hardware, new hardware needs to be adopted by the controller before you can use it. There is no local login for APs, switches or APs or any of it. Pretty sure you can still SSH but I've never had to do that for anything.

 

[1freedude]

List all of the gear, besides the Plume stuff, that you have.

Something I have done....

Use a wifi router as a wifi adapter of sorts. I think some companies call it bridge mode. You put the credentials of main wifi router or AP in, and it spits out the main network to the switch ports. That's how I get my network into my garage now. I also have dedicated/matched extenders that use a dedicated backhaul channel. For my needs right now, I dont really notice a difference in the bridge mode setup vs the official extenders. I kniw I could stress test it to make the deficiencies show up.

Also, can you drill holes and run cable? You own or rent?

One more thing... Does garage have 75 ohm coax from the house? If so, you could do MoCA.

 

[Mussels]

I had to look up the technical differences between a "wireless access point" and a "router" and quite simply it's at a software level - it's what they support on the WAN port.
An access point only supports DHCP or static addresses only, while a "router" supports PPoE with usernames and passwords

The next step is a modem-router will add on a second (or multiple) WAN interface(s) with whatever technology the user requires (Be it xDSL, cable, fiber, LTE, etc) - but that's at least a hardware difference



Again, the big key there is that mesh has the seamless ability to transfer clients around, all invisibly to the client - they see it as one network.
Routers/AP's are seperate, and while you can take steps to keep the visible on the same network subnet for local traffic like file transfers or printer access, you still have seperate wifi networks that the client must be configured to use (and the client is very likely to drop connections if it bounces between them)

List all of the gear, besides the Plume stuff, that you have.

Something I have done....

Use a wifi router as a wifi adapter of sorts. I think some companies call it bridge mode. You put the credentials of main wifi router or AP in, and it spits out the main network to the switch ports. That's how I get my network into my garage now. I also have dedicated/matched extenders that use a dedicated backhaul channel. For my needs right now, I dont really notice a difference in the bridge mode setup vs the official extenders. I kniw I could stress test it to make the deficiencies show up.

Also, can you drill holes and run cable? You own or rent?

One more thing... Does garage have 75 ohm coax from the house? If so, you could do MoCA.

bridge mode turns a modem router into a modem, letting the next router in line do the login side of things.

As an example i've got a Telstra DJA0230 'gateway router' with LTE, VDSL and gigabit WAN and if i enable bridge mode, my google mesh setup is the one i need to enter my ISP's credentials into - and devices connected to that Telstra gateway get no internet access, no local LAN access, and don't even receive an IP address - bridge mode disables everything except for a literal bridge from the WAN port to a LAN port, for the next router in line to do all the authentication and routing

In a setup like the OP wants, that would disable half their network

 

[claes]

Huh? Access points are often seamless to the end user… This is how basically every business and university etc is setup. One network id/password, seamless and uninterrupted connection between AP’s.

Mesh networks operate in the same way but are far more convenient to setup. It’s usually plug and play versus having to have a backhaul and setting things up.

 

[Mussels]

Huh? Access points are often seamless to the end user… This is how basically every business and university etc is setup. One network id/password, seamless and uninterrupted connection between AP’s.

Mesh networks operate in the same way but are far more convenient to setup. It’s usually plug and play versus having to have a backhaul and setting things up.

When you look into those enterprise ones, they're not setup like home equipment is - they require matching compatible hardware just like mesh because they're all centrally controlled by one master unit.
The only difference there is they're designed to only use wired backhaul, vs the modern mesh standard 802.11s which allows wired or wireless backhaul.

Those networks are all segmented to prevent users accessing things they shouldnt for security, they're not giving you full network access. It's not how they work - they get all the wireless traffic in and route it upstream, not sideways to other local clients. 99% of those setups have wireless user isolation enabled or even mandatory, preventing local communication.


I can cut the eth cable running from my main nest router to my google mesh satellite in my PC room and within milliseconds it switches to the wireless backhaul - I can connect any wired device to that eth port and it'll appear to the primary router as an ethernet device, instantly.

This from todays news? Mesh with ethernet out, just waterproofed.

My first gen google wifi (before they went nest) - Mesh.
With the LAN ports, you can have wired backhaul on that mesh, or wireless backhaul.

I've already covered this several times including a detailed guide that no one wants to read - the only way to use a wireless AP and have it truly invisible involves disabling all its routing features and DHCP server, and using it's LAN ports exclusively and not it's WAN port

That gives you local network access with whatever routers you have on hand, but without something like 802.11s these devices can not, will not, EVER, coordinate those wifi networks. They're unaware of each other.





The biggest problem people are having here is that these names became so interchangeable that they've lost their meaning and some companies have gone alone with it, like how users say "The wifi is down" when the wifis perfectly fine - it just has no internet

A wireless access point is a wifi router that only has DHCP options on it's WAN port. It's not a dumb ethernet switch that invisibly passes traffic through with wifi on top.
It creates a seperate network that shares an internet connection, but segregates all it's local traffic from that of the uptsream routers local traffic.

 

[claes]

Idk maybe it’s because I moved to dd-wrt in the aughts and prosumer hardware a decade ago (ubiquiti) but I have no idea what you’re talking about. Then, I’m no network admin, just a hobbyist who only understands things well enough to make them work for me. Paging @Solaris17

When you look into those enterprise ones, they're not setup like home equipment is - they require matching compatible hardware just like mesh because they're all centrally controlled by one master unit.

If you’re talking about access points, they don’t actually, they just need a dhcp server, provided by any router

The only difference there is they're designed to only use wired backhaul, vs the modern mesh standard 802.11s which allows wired or wireless backhaul.

True I think

Those networks are all segmented to prevent users accessing things they shouldnt for security, they're not giving you full network access. It's not how they work - they get all the wireless traffic in and route it upstream, not sideways to other local clients. 99% of those setups have wireless user isolation enabled or even mandatory, preventing local communication.

Idk what you mean by sideways but I can access any device connected to my network from any of my access points. Like I mentioned, this is how most businesses and campuses and other places that need a huge wireless network are setup. It’s not like mesh was around in the aughts.

I've already covered this several times including a detailed guide that no one wants to read - the only way to use a wireless AP and have it truly invisible involves disabling all its routing features and DHCP server, and using it's LAN ports exclusively and not it's WAN port

If you’re referring to post #8 that mostly made sense except for the ip and subnet parts… in any case I know my access points don’t have routing features or a “wan port” (maybe the lan port can be configured to be a wan port but afaik it’s just connecting to my lan)

That gives you local network access with whatever routers you have on hand, but without something like 802.11s these devices can not, will not, EVER, coordinate those wifi networks. They're unaware of each other.

Idk what you mean by coordinate but my devices see all my AP’s and switch between them seamlessly

The biggest problem people are having here is that these names became so interchangeable that they've lost their meaning and some companies have gone alone with it, like how users say "The wifi is down" when the wifis perfectly fine - it just has no internet

A wireless access point is a wifi router that only has DHCP options on it's WAN port. It's not a dumb ethernet switch that invisibly passes traffic through with wifi on top.

With respect, I think you’re confusing terms. I think it may be because most consumer “routers” are actually three devices bundled in one: a router, a switch, and an access point.

It creates a seperate network that shares an internet connection, but segregates all it's local traffic from that of the uptsream routers local traffic.

…I can access all devices connected to my switch through any access point though? I think you’re forcing a distinction that doesn’t exist (although certainly can be configured into existence if one so chooses).

Anyway like I said I’m no network admin hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in

 

[Solaris17]

Yall are wild.

If you walk into a bestbuy or a target or a walmart or w/e and a router says the word "Mesh" on it. In 99% of cases this is a device with the ability to pair with other devices to create wireless backhaul.

Dont do this. You just made an expensive repeater network and your latency increased like 900%

If you want to do this right:

Take your router
Buy a small switch
Buy 2+ access points
Connect access points to switch
Configure them using whatever terrible phone app they are using now

Congrats, you now have proper wifi that supports wifi ROAMING (IEEE 802.11r/k/v) it looks a lot like "mesh" on paper without the catastrophe.

No seperate networks
No seperate SSIDs
Wired backhaul to switch

You just walk from one room to another and seamlessly continue watching tiktok videos about recipes you will never actually try.


What equipment would I recommend?

Ubiquti
Aruba

simple, easy, works with your router.

mesh systems became a way for bad routers to sell more because of bad features.

Mesh seems cool because it’s the biggest thing they print on the box but all you have really managed is taken your shit Wi-Fi and made it more complex shit Wi-Fi.

Just don’t.