PowerLine for extending WiFi?

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Note: This is a separate discussion and scenario from another post that was focused on my GF's place. This discussion is now focused on my parents' home.

I'd like to help improve the WiFi situation in my parents' home. Most of the time, they're downstairs in the office (where the router is) or in the family room which is next door. WiFi is usually not an issue. However, upstairs, and in the far corners of the house, WiFi becomes pretty bad. There's also interference with the microwave, so it might make sense to look into a second router to cover areas away from the kitchen (or possibly 5ghz)

I'm thinking of setting up a second modem in the house, and my mom would probably flip if I told her the best way to do it is to drill holes for ethernet cables. And from what I read, a proper setup from a wiring guy could cost quite a bit as well.

I had heard of ethernet over powerline before, but never thought it was a realistic solution until I saw that modern solutions are pushing up to 600mbps now. I just want to be able for people to reliably stream content upstairs too across the NAS.

What are your guys' thoughts on Powerline networking? I have a spare second router lying around and I figure it might make sense to put it to use.

I'm thinking of trying this out: http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-PA6010KIT-Powerline-Adapter-Starter/dp/B00IBPLI48

Any thoughts? It certainly will depend on the electrical setup in our house and interference with appliances, but I'm guessing this is probably the most painless setup as running ethernet cables upstairs is gonna cost a bit of money.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Second post:

If indeed Powerline is recommended for this situation, how would I set this up?

Current Setup has the cable modem hooked into an 8 port Gbe switch which is then hooked into a WiFi router.

If I set the first powerline adapter in the office room, would I hook the switch into the adapter or the WiFi router into the adapter?

I imagine the second router has an ethernet cable hooked into the WAN port that connects to the second powerline adapter? I would then treat this like daisy chaining two routers where DHCP on the second router is turned off? Sorry for my network newbiness, but I figured out how to do it at my gf's place with just 2 routers, but with a separate switch now I'm confused.

 

[azazel1024]

You put one powerline adapter right by the router or switch and then the other powerline adapter in the other room and plug it in to the router as an access point/AP you want extending the wireless network. I suggest using the same SSID and password for both the router and the AP's wireless networks.

Also NO, connect LAN to LAN port. You do not connect the WAN port of either router to the other router. The only WAN port that should be hooked up ANYWHERE is the main router going out to the internet/cable modem. Everything is is LAN ports/switch ports connected together.

For the second router, go in to the admin webpage, disable DHCP and set the IP address to something like 192.168.1.200, or whatever the IP range is that the main router is setup with. You want to make sure that the IP address of the second router is set OUTSIDE the DHCP address pool range that the main router has. If you set it inside (especially x.x.x.2 like you indicated in your other post), you are going to get instand IP address conflicts as most DHCP server assign out IP addresses in ascending order, so a x.x.x.2 is going to be the first one handed out and incidently what you tried to set your TP-Link router to.

Unless the electrical situation is VERY dire, you should at least be able to squeeze 20-30Mbps through a powerline setup, which is plenty of general internet access and streaming.

 

[smitbret]

Just don't expect miracles. 50Mbps is a pretty reasonable expectation. The advertised speeds of powerline adapters are even more out of touch with reality than WiFi marketing.

 

[XLer8]

I used a powerline adapter to jump over a metal walled Gymnasium at a community center that didn't want extra cabling. They are ok but You have to see if they work. Its a hit a miss because all building's power wiring is so different and you never know.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

You put one powerline adapter right by the router or switch and then the other powerline adapter in the other room and plug it in to the router as an access point/AP you want extending the wireless network. I suggest using the same SSID and password for both the router and the AP's wireless networks.

Also NO, connect LAN to LAN port. You do not connect the WAN port of either router to the other router. The only WAN port that should be hooked up ANYWHERE is the main router going out to the internet/cable modem. Everything is is LAN ports/switch ports connected together.

For the second router, go in to the admin webpage, disable DHCP and set the IP address to something like 192.168.1.200, or whatever the IP range is that the main router is setup with. You want to make sure that the IP address of the second router is set OUTSIDE the DHCP address pool range that the main router has. If you set it inside (especially x.x.x.2 like you indicated in your other post), you are going to get instand IP address conflicts as most DHCP server assign out IP addresses in ascending order, so a x.x.x.2 is going to be the first one handed out and incidently what you tried to set your TP-Link router to.

Unless the electrical situation is VERY dire, you should at least be able to squeeze 20-30Mbps through a powerline setup, which is plenty of general internet access and streaming.

Whoops. Is there harm if I used the WAN port? That's how I setup my gf's internet over the weekend. I understand that's what one would use if you were to have 2 separate networks, but I did disable DHCP on the second router. I know some routers (under some circumstances) can have the WAN port turn into just another LAN port. What are the consequences of doing this plug effect for me?

I'll fix it next chance I get, but it won't be for another few days.

 

[Fardringle]

Whoops. Is there harm if I used the WAN port? That's how I setup my gf's internet over the weekend. I understand that's what one would use if you were to have 2 separate networks, but I did disable DHCP on the second router. I know some routers (under some circumstances) can have the WAN port turn into just another LAN port. What are the consequences of doing this plug effect for me?

I'll fix it next chance I get, but it won't be for another few days.

There's no real harm in it, but devices connected to the two routers will not be able to communicate with each other, and it will be difficult to host anything (like online game servers) on anything attached to the second router as you will have to forward ports through both routers.

However, if you disabled DHCP on the second router AND connected its WAN port to a LAN port on the main router, then anything connected to the second router will not have any useful network connectivity - and no Internet access - since they will not be receiving IP addresses from the router.

 

[edro]

I am also debating on this versus range extenders.
Or even a new high performance router.
Why are these new routers $200+?
They have 3 antenna, but I assume they have the same FCC limits as the $40 routers.

 

[smitbret]

I am also debating on this versus range extenders.
Or even a new high performance router.
Why are these new routers $200+?
They have 3 antenna, but I assume they have the same FCC limits as the $40 routers.

Dual Core CPU
AC standard
Dual-Band
Flashable Firmware
etc.

If you don't need these things, then don't waste your money. Range isn't something that can really be improved outside of a larger antenna (within reason).

 

[edro]

Dual Core CPU
AC standard
Dual-Band
Flashable Firmware
etc.

If you don't need these things, then don't waste your money. Range isn't something that can really be improved outside of a larger antenna (within reason).

So my Asus /w DD-WRT is fine? Now I need to decide on Wifi over Power and/or just range extenders.
I'll probably try the range extenders first.

 

[azazel1024]

There's no real harm in it, but devices connected to the two routers will not be able to communicate with each other, and it will be difficult to host anything (like online game servers) on anything attached to the second router as you will have to forward ports through both routers.

However, if you disabled DHCP on the second router AND connected its WAN port to a LAN port on the main router, then anything connected to the second router will not have any useful network connectivity - and no Internet access - since they will not be receiving IP addresses from the router.

Correct, which is why I was assuming the OP did this, has they mentioned they couldn't get the TP-Link to work correctly. I assumed they connected it using a WAN port and disabled DHCP on it (they mentioned doing that) as well as setting an x.x.x.2 IP address. Effectively nothing is going to get an IP connected to that router and nothing is going to see the router as the gateway by doing that (without configuring static IP addresses on each connected device).

You need to connect them LAN to LAN, not WAN to LAN or LAN to WAN, not unless you intention is to run two seperate networks (if you do that, by gods do NOT name both wifi networks the same SSID then. If you do, devices will roam and have serious issues since the networks are actually physically seperated).

So, LAN to LAN. On the secondary router, disable DHCP and set an IP address well above the reservation range set on the primary router. So if primary is handing out leases from 192.168.0.2-200, set the secondary router's IP address to 192.168.0.201. Set the SSIDs the same for both routers with the same password (easier than seperate SSIDs, as devices will not roam between wireless base stations if the SSIDs are distinct between them, they'll assume seperate physical networks and you'll have to manually switch what wireless network you are connected to).

Then you should be done and all should be in perfect networking harmony.

Oh, consider setting seperate channels on 2.4 and 5GHz on both routers. That way there is less/no overlap between the two basestations in regards to causing interferance with each other (this isn't a huge issue, but it is a bit of a consideration).

 

[azazel1024]

Dual Core CPU
AC standard
Dual-Band
Flashable Firmware
etc.

If you don't need these things, then don't waste your money. Range isn't something that can really be improved outside of a larger antenna (within reason).

Performance at range is significantly better with 11ac routers (in general) compared to 11n routers though. Even if the same overall range is the same. This is especially true with 11ac clients, but it is ALSO true of 11n clients. Check smallnetbuilders review of 11ac routers vs 11n routers with 11n clients. Imperically I verified this with my 11n clients weeks before SMB ever tested it. I see 20-80% better 2.4GHz performance with my 11n and 11ac clients (with higher performance at long range, IE about 80% better performance at long to extreme range, only about 20% better performance close to the router). Same deal with 5GHz and 11n clients (it isn't a valid test for my 11ac clients, as I cannot set 11n only mode on my router in 5GHz).

In terms of absolute maximum range, my 11ac router is effectively the same as my 11n router, or close enough to be quibbling. But again, performance AT range is a lot better.

The difference between 2.5MB/sec at very long range on 2.4GHz and 3.5MB/sec is resonably significant depending on what you are doing. More so at medium/long range where the performance is up around 8-9MB/sec instead of 4.5-4.8MB/sec. Close in, the difference between 28 and 25MB/sec isn't really of much concern.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Performance at range is significantly better with 11ac routers (in general) compared to 11n routers though. Even if the same overall range is the same. This is especially true with 11ac clients, but it is ALSO true of 11n clients. Check smallnetbuilders review of 11ac routers vs 11n routers with 11n clients. Imperically I verified this with my 11n clients weeks before SMB ever tested it. I see 20-80% better 2.4GHz performance with my 11n and 11ac clients (with higher performance at long range, IE about 80% better performance at long to extreme range, only about 20% better performance close to the router). Same deal with 5GHz and 11n clients (it isn't a valid test for my 11ac clients, as I cannot set 11n only mode on my router in 5GHz).

In terms of absolute maximum range, my 11ac router is effectively the same as my 11n router, or close enough to be quibbling. But again, performance AT range is a lot better.

The difference between 2.5MB/sec at very long range on 2.4GHz and 3.5MB/sec is resonably significant depending on what you are doing. More so at medium/long range where the performance is up around 8-9MB/sec instead of 4.5-4.8MB/sec. Close in, the difference between 28 and 25MB/sec isn't really of much concern.

I read Smallnetbuilder to try to solve my gf's wireless issues, and it seems aside from the new Linksys AC1750 router, the old Asus N66U Dark Knight router seems to be king at 2.4ghz still.'

Correct, which is why I was assuming the OP did this, has they mentioned they couldn't get the TP-Link to work correctly. I assumed they connected it using a WAN port and disabled DHCP on it (they mentioned doing that) as well as setting an x.x.x.2 IP address. Effectively nothing is going to get an IP connected to that router and nothing is going to see the router as the gateway by doing that (without configuring static IP addresses on each connected device).

You need to connect them LAN to LAN, not WAN to LAN or LAN to WAN, not unless you intention is to run two seperate networks (if you do that, by gods do NOT name both wifi networks the same SSID then. If you do, devices will roam and have serious issues since the networks are actually physically seperated).

So, LAN to LAN. On the secondary router, disable DHCP and set an IP address well above the reservation range set on the primary router. So if primary is handing out leases from 192.168.0.2-200, set the secondary router's IP address to 192.168.0.201. Set the SSIDs the same for both routers with the same password (easier than seperate SSIDs, as devices will not roam between wireless base stations if the SSIDs are distinct between them, they'll assume seperate physical networks and you'll have to manually switch what wireless network you are connected to).

Then you should be done and all should be in perfect networking harmony.

Oh, consider setting seperate channels on 2.4 and 5GHz on both routers. That way there is less/no overlap between the two basestations in regards to causing interferance with each other (this isn't a huge issue, but it is a bit of a consideration).

Understood. This is exactly what I did at my gf's place except for that setup I plugged LAN (1st) to WAN (2nd), which is probably why the TP Link messed up. I was confused and ended up buying the Dark Knight router. I'm wondering how my setup is working though. My guess is that when you set an Asus router to "Bridge" mode, it automatically turns the WAN port into another LAN port? That would be my only explanation as to how I'm able to connect to Router #2 and still get an IP address with DHCP disabled.

Anyhow, glad to get that clarification. The TP Link should've worked to begin with then.

 

[ElFenix]

i used a cheap powerline setup and a cheap tplink travel router to get better coverage at my mom's house. works fine. their bottleneck is their dsl so it doesn't matter that the powerline probably isn't all that fast.

 

[azazel1024]

I read Smallnetbuilder to try to solve my gf's wireless issues, and it seems aside from the new Linksys AC1750 router, the old Asus N66U Dark Knight router seems to be king at 2.4ghz still.'



Understood. This is exactly what I did at my gf's place except for that setup I plugged LAN (1st) to WAN (2nd), which is probably why the TP Link messed up. I was confused and ended up buying the Dark Knight router. I'm wondering how my setup is working though. My guess is that when you set an Asus router to "Bridge" mode, it automatically turns the WAN port into another LAN port? That would be my only explanation as to how I'm able to connect to Router #2 and still get an IP address with DHCP disabled.

Anyhow, glad to get that clarification. The TP Link should've worked to begin with then.

Should be an AP mode on the Asus AFAIK. Not aware of any actual bridge mode (unless it is WDS bridging), but at least for AP mode, it does turn the WAN port in to a LAN port, so it disables routing.