of routers and access points
I had a setup where my modem was connected to my gateway Linux box which did routing, DHCP, DNS, etc. and was also connected to a switch which was connected to a WiFi router being used as an access point. This is too brittle for my tastes, as other members of my family can’t resolve problems with it. Something went wrong so I have temporarily reconfigured it so the WiFi router is connected directly to the modem, but this doesn’t let the WiFi clients connect to the Linux boxes or other hard-wired machines or let them connect to the internet. (I could connect the other devices to the router, but for WiFi propagation reasons, the WiFi router is far away from all the other devices, so this is not ideal.) So I was thinking of getting a https://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_1046_363&item_id=102961 router and connecting to that the Linux box (which would still do DHCP (possibly) and DNS, the router configured back as an access point (or a POE access point such as https://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_1056_356&item_id=031082, as well as the other wired devices. Thoughts? Thanks. ../Dave
Why don't you let the router do all the router work, such as Wifi, routing, DHCP, DNS, etc? I have my router RJ45'd to my Bell router, and let it do all that. The Bell router's wifi is rarely used, but is a backup. Connect all your boxes RJ45 to your router if you wish, then they can all play well together, no? Is this too simple a setup? On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 11:58, David Mason via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
I had a setup where my modem was connected to my gateway Linux box which did routing, DHCP, DNS, etc. and was also connected to a switch which was connected to a WiFi router being used as an access point. This is too brittle for my tastes, as other members of my family can’t resolve problems with it.
Something went wrong so I have temporarily reconfigured it so the WiFi router is connected directly to the modem, but this doesn’t let the WiFi clients connect to the Linux boxes or other hard-wired machines or let them connect to the internet. (I could connect the other devices to the router, but for WiFi propagation reasons, the WiFi router is far away from all the other devices, so this is not ideal.)
So I was thinking of getting a https://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_1046_363&item_id=102961 router and connecting to that the Linux box (which would still do DHCP (possibly) and DNS, the router configured back as an access point (or a POE access point such as https://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_1056_356&item_id=031082, as well as the other wired devices.
Thoughts? Thanks.
../Dave --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On 04/24/2019 03:10 PM, Don Tai via talk wrote:
Why don't you let the router do all the router work, such as Wifi, routing, DHCP, DNS, etc? I have my router RJ45'd to my Bell router, and let it do all that. The Bell router's wifi is rarely used, but is a backup. Connect all your boxes RJ45 to your router if you wish, then they can all play well together, no? Is this too simple a setup?
It might be that the router doesn't do all that's needed and so a Linux box or other might be needed. I run pfSense on a refurb computer. Also, if he's on Rogers, he'll want one that supports IPv6.
| From: Don Tai via talk <talk@gtalug.org> I'm confused about the network topology you are describing. | Why don't you let the router do all the router work, such as Wifi, routing, | DHCP, DNS, etc? Which router is "the" router? Bell's modem/router or your (non-Bell) router? | I have my router RJ45'd to my Bell router, and let it do | all that. Which router is "it"? | The Bell router's wifi is rarely used, but is a backup. Connect | all your boxes RJ45 to your router if you wish, then they can all play well | together, no? Is this too simple a setup? ==== Context ==== Almost all homes need NAT for IPv4, an abomination. So all home routers do NAT by default. The Bell Router will do the whole job (NAT, DHCP, WiFi). For a variety of reasons, some of us want to use out own routers. In most cases it makes sense to set the ISP's modem/router to just act as a modem -- bridge mode. ==== End of context ==== If you put your Bell modem/router in bridge mode, how can the WiFi on Bell's modem/router be useful? Only your own router should be connected to the Bell modem. If you actually use the Bell router functions, what do you use your own router for? - an AP + a switch? - double-NATting (seems like a bad idea)?
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:30:22PM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
I'm confused about the network topology you are describing.
Which router is "the" router? Bell's modem/router or your (non-Bell) router?
Which router is "it"?
==== Context ====
Almost all homes need NAT for IPv4, an abomination. So all home routers do NAT by default. The Bell Router will do the whole job (NAT, DHCP, WiFi).
For a variety of reasons, some of us want to use out own routers. In most cases it makes sense to set the ISP's modem/router to just act as a modem -- bridge mode.
==== End of context ====
If you put your Bell modem/router in bridge mode, how can the WiFi on Bell's modem/router be useful? Only your own router should be connected to the Bell modem.
If you actually use the Bell router functions, what do you use your own router for?
- an AP + a switch?
- double-NATting (seems like a bad idea)?
Agreed. I run my VDSL2 modem in bridged mode with it's wifi turned off (don't need more interference in the area), and then have a WRT1900ACv2 running openwrt doing all the real work. And since it is running openwrt I can install whatever service on it that I need. I used to route through a linux box 15 years ago, but whyever would I do such a thing today? One box does AP, switching, routing, PPPoE, DNS, DHCP, etc and nothing on the network is confused. Nice and simple. -- Len Sorensen
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 10:57, Lennart Sorensen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
If you actually use the Bell router functions, what do you use your own router for?
- an AP + a switch?
- double-NATting (seems like a bad idea)?
Agreed. I run my VDSL2 modem in bridged mode with it's wifi turned off (don't need more interference in the area), and then have a WRT1900ACv2 running openwrt doing all the real work. And since it is running openwrt I can install whatever service on it that I need. I used to route through a linux box 15 years ago, but whyever would I do such a thing today? One box does AP, switching, routing, PPPoE, DNS, DHCP, etc and nothing on the network is confused. Nice and simple.
Just to provide an example of what you can possibly do with an OpenWrt router having only 512 MB of RAM. My three-years old Buffalo WXR-1900DHP, with extroot on a 1 TB external USB drive, runs: - all the usual networking stuff: PPPoE, basic and advanced ipv4 and ipv6 routing, DHCP and DNS (dnsmasq) - Nginx - PHP7 - OpenLDAP - Postfix - Dovecot + OpenDKIM - Transmission - Proftpd and the box just runs for months until I have to reboot it for upgrade or some other reason.
This (letting the router do all the work) is a possibility, but the router is very far from all the other connections, so at the moment I have a long RJ45 cable to the router. So I’d have to run another long cable back to the switch where everything else is plugged in. Part of my question was whether anyone else is using POE access points, and whether it’s worth doing as right now I have an extension cord running to the router. If so I’d need a router that supported POE, so I mentioned the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter as such a (non-WiFi) router. To clarify the topology, the modem is just a modem (cable), so some router is needed. Also, I don’t think the DLink WiFi router does DNS other than relay (because I want to have names for my local servers). It also flakes out for a few seconds, so replacing it now seems like a reasonable thing. Lennart mentions the WRT1900ACv2, but I’d like to get the system so that it’s less brittle (i.e. if I’m not home for a week or 2 and bad things happen, i’d like others to be able to get things back to functioning) so I’m not sure about custom firmware. ../Dave On Apr 24, 2019, 3:11 PM -0400, Don Tai <dontai.canada@gmail.com>, wrote:
Why don't you let the router do all the router work, such as Wifi, routing, DHCP, DNS, etc? I have my router RJ45'd to my Bell router, and let it do all that. The Bell router's wifi is rarely used, but is a backup. Connect all your boxes RJ45 to your router if you wish, then they can all play well together, no? Is this too simple a setup?
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 11:58, David Mason via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
I had a setup where my modem was connected to my gateway Linux box which did routing, DHCP, DNS, etc. and was also connected to a switch which was connected to a WiFi router being used as an access point. This is too brittle for my tastes, as other members of my family can’t resolve problems with it.
Something went wrong so I have temporarily reconfigured it so the WiFi router is connected directly to the modem, but this doesn’t let the WiFi clients connect to the Linux boxes or other hard-wired machines or let them connect to the internet. (I could connect the other devices to the router, but for WiFi propagation reasons, the WiFi router is far away from all the other devices, so this is not ideal.)
So I was thinking of getting a https://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_1046_363&item_id=102961 router and connecting to that the Linux box (which would still do DHCP (possibly) and DNS, the router configured back as an access point (or a POE access point such as https://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_1056_356&item_id=031082, as well as the other wired devices.
Thoughts? Thanks.
../Dave --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:27:02PM -0400, David Mason via talk wrote:
This (letting the router do all the work) is a possibility, but the router is very far from all the other connections, so at the moment I have a long RJ45 cable to the router. So I’d have to run another long cable back to the switch where everything else is plugged in.
Part of my question was whether anyone else is using POE access points, and whether it’s worth doing as right now I have an extension cord running to the router. If so I’d need a router that supported POE, so I mentioned the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter as such a (non-WiFi) router.
To clarify the topology, the modem is just a modem (cable), so some router is needed. Also, I don’t think the DLink WiFi router does DNS other than relay (because I want to have names for my local servers). It also flakes out for a few seconds, so replacing it now seems like a reasonable thing.
Lennart mentions the WRT1900ACv2, but I’d like to get the system so that it’s less brittle (i.e. if I’m not home for a week or 2 and bad things happen, i’d like others to be able to get things back to functioning) so I’m not sure about custom firmware.
I have had a lot less trouble with openwrt (and lede before that) than I ever did with the factory firmware on any router/ap I have used. They are way more stable with the custom firmware. Other than if I decide to check for any updates I never seem to need to reboot it. Can't say the same for the VDSL modem from Bell which does occationally need rebooting to work (even though it is only in bridge mode and really shouldn't have much of anything to do). And with the openwrt setup, if it isn't working, power cycle it. Problem solved. I don't remember the last time I had to do that though, except if I mistakenly thought it was at fault when in fact it was an ISP problem or a Bell modem problem. -- Len Sorensen
I have a Netgate SG-1000 running pfsense inside my bridge-mode Rogers modem, which has been replaced by the slightly bigger SG-1100 ($159 USD). In the furnace room, and then some cat5 heads off to more convenient spots for access points, etc. I like separate access points, which are sometimes harder to find than all-in-ones (but you can usually turn off routing on those). PoE is convenient, but adds expense. I trust you know about PoE injectors? I like Ubiquiti, but sometimes they're happier if you buy into their ecosystem. But do you know about Ubiquiti's home systems? https://amplifi.com/ Not the cheapest alternative, but almost plug and play (in the good sense). Hope that helps - cheers! John On Thu, 2019/04/25 01:27:02PM -0400, David Mason via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote: | This (letting the router do all the work) is a possibility, but the router is very far from all the other connections, so at the moment I have a long RJ45 cable to the router. So I’d have to run another long cable back to the switch where everything else is plugged in. | | Part of my question was whether anyone else is using POE access points, and whether it’s worth doing as right now I have an extension cord running to the router. If so I’d need a router that supported POE, so I mentioned the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter as such a (non-WiFi) router. |
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 04:00:14PM -0400, David Mason via talk wrote:
Is there an openwrt non-wifi, PoE router? Also the WRT1900ACv2 seems to have limited availability.
Well that one is getting old. It was replaced by the WRT1900ACS (same FCC ID) and I think now the WRT3200ACM or WRT32X (same FCC ID apparently on those two just different nand flash chip and boot loader). The 3200/32X has increased the CPU speed about 10% and doubled the flash to a decent 256MB. Also has a newer switch and wifi radio. -- Len Sorensen
On 4/25/19 4:00 PM, David Mason via talk wrote:
Is there an openwrt non-wifi, PoE router? Also the WRT1900ACv2 seems to have limited availability.
Looks like the ERX you were looking at is compatible, TIL! https://openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/ubiquiti_edgerouter_x_er-x_ka I might try flashing mine sometime.
I have ordered a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X-SFP and long-range, 802.11ac, PoE, access point. Since the EdgeRouter is WRT compatible, I can install that and get DNS running there too, which means that I can power off the old Linux gateway machine. I could have continued using my existing router as an access point, but the new one is longer range, higher speed, and easier to wire. I looked at the Amplifi and it looks quite nice, comparatively priced with the option I went with, and very plug-and-play (with iOS/Android controls), but running WRT and DNS on the router was too good an option for me to pass up. Looks like the EdgeRouter can handle nearly a gigabit WAN throughput with some “buffer bloat” (essentially a bit of queuing delay) or about 200Mbit with SQM and very minimal delay, 550Mbit without SQM but still minimal bloat. https://forum.openwrt.org/t/ubiquiti-edgerouter-x-loading-openwrt-and-perfor... All those numbers are way beyond the bandwidth I’m currently buying, so I’ll probably use SQM https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/traffic-shaping/sqm I just ran http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/49045641 and you can see that the delays are highly variable and generally suck! I’ll post revised scan after I’ve installed the new router. Thanks for all of your advice. ../Dave On Apr 26, 2019, 12:52 PM -0400, Jamon Camisso via talk <talk@gtalug.org>, wrote:
On 4/25/19 4:00 PM, David Mason via talk wrote:
Is there an openwrt non-wifi, PoE router? Also the WRT1900ACv2 seems to have limited availability.
Looks like the ERX you were looking at is compatible, TIL!
https://openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/ubiquiti_edgerouter_x_er-x_ka
I might try flashing mine sometime. --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On 04/25/2019 01:27 PM, David Mason via talk wrote:
Part of my question was whether anyone else is using POE access points, and whether it’s worth doing as right now I have an extension cord running to the router. If so I’d need a router that supported POE, so I mentioned the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter as such a (non-WiFi) router.
I use a separate PoE AP. It's mounted high on the wall in my laundry room, which places it roughly in the middle of my condo. PoE works well and gives you more flexibility in where you place the AP.
participants (8)
-
D. Hugh Redelmeier -
David Mason -
Don Tai -
James Knott -
Jamon Camisso -
John Sellens -
lsorense＠csclub.uwaterloo.ca -
Val Kulkov