Best solution: WAP vs. Second router vs. Repeater

[doctordoctor]

The situation:

1. Three story house with cable running into the first, second and third floors (probably split at the entry to the house).

2. Motorola Surfboard Modem connected to a Linksys WRT54GL router on the second floor broadcasting a single wireless network which is more or less accessible throughout the house (obvious dead spots at times).

3. LG-BD390 Blu-Ray player (with Netflix streaming) sits hidden in a media cabinet on the first floor that severely dampens its signfal.

4. Panasonic Viera Plasma Television above it needs to connect to the LAN to gain access to Vieracast features (though I don't really care about this at the present time, it will be a future consideration as "television delivery" via the internet becomes more pervasive.

The question:

Initially thought that I should "repeat" the wireless signal on the first floor adjacent to the television (since both the TV and Blu-Ray need access and are in the same location, and since that overall location is a deadspot). However, wondering about the following:

1. Since there is a coaxial cable feed to this location, would it be better to split the cable feed, and attach it to an access point that is connected to the existing router?

2. Split the cable and attach it to another router configured to broadcast the same network name but on a different channel (and let the various clients determine which is the stonger signal and connect via that router).

3. Get a WAP and configure it as a repeater? Few repeaters support WPA2, however, and it seems that repeating the signal causes a significant loss of throughput.

Bonus Question

In options #1, or #2, is it reasonable to use a draft-N device since we will soon upgrade to a draft N network? Will we have trouble communicating with our draft-G router if using a draft-N WAP?

 

[JackMDS]

Repeaters lose hlaf of the bandwitdh. Two repeater you woold end up with 1/4 of the bandwidth.

I do not follow the coaxial cable aspect. Network does not use coaxial (at least Not any more).

However if you meant cat5e/6, or you can install one, you can avoid the Repeater issue by extending a network cable as much as you can, connect it to the source Router and use other Wireless Router as a switch with ab Access Point.

Here how, http://www.ezlan.net/router_AP.html

In general, Wireless Bridging - http://www.ezlan.net/bridging.html

 

[ScottMac]

Here's a wireless repeater that uses powerline communication to talk to teh remote wireless AP.
http://www.cdw.com/shop/produc...fault.aspx?EDC=1289242

 

[doctordoctor]

I guess I should have better summarized our connections. We have TW Cable service.

In their box attached to the outside of our house, (a picture says a thousand words), what you'd see is three cables entering three splitters. One of the splitters is a two-way splitter and two of the splitters are five-way splitters.

The two-way splitter is rated at -3.5 dB and the five-way splitter is rated at -7 dB. Thus, there are 12 coaxial cables entering the house, carrying TW's signal.

Two of these cables enter the second floor room where one is attached directly to the TV and one is attached to a Motorola Surfboard 5101 Modem. There is Cat 5e connecting the Motorola SB5101 to the Linksys WRT54GL which then broadcasts wirelessly throuhgout the house.

One additional cable enters the corner of the first floor room where the TV and Blu-Ray sit (and where the largest dead zone exists).

It is not convenient to attach 5e cable to the second floor router and then connect an access point to it, in effect, "extending" its range.

Instead, the solution I thought might be best is to split the first floor coaxial signal (from the TW Box outside), sending one to the TW Set-Top HD Box (where it is currently connected), and one to another Motorola SB modem. I currently have an old Surfboard 5100 (as opposed to 5101) model sitting in a box. I could then connect 5e cable from that to another router and broadcast a wireless signal directly from the first floor.

Since these two routers are operating on different "spokes," I wasn't sure how best to accomplish my goal.

I had thought I could establish the second router as an "access point" since it would be connected to a hard wire, but it will not be connected to same hard wire to which the current router is connected. I think that this means I can't use the access point solution.

Is it possible, however, to connect another router, essentially in parallel with the existing router, and have it broadcast the same wireless network, yet on a different channel, and let the client determine which is the stronger signal and use that one (like switching between different cell towers as you drive down the highway)?

 

[JackMDS]

I do not think that you can connect a second Modem to the TW system.

Call them and ask, it might be that if you pay for second account (or portion of it) they can configure the system to use two Modems.

However two Modems would Not solve the problem since what ever would be attached to them can Not yield one cohesive network (each one would have its own External IP).

As far as Wireless is concerned, as long as only one Router acts as a Router, you can connect few Wireless Access Points (or Routers as an Access Points, configured as explained in the link that I posted above) in"Parallel" using same SSID and different channels.

However the Access Points have to be on the same network in order to create one cohesive Network.

As Scott posted above it is possible that you can bridge between locations with PowerLine modules and maintain one cohesive Network.

Example, http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833156234

Otherwise, install Network cables or scale down the "Media Dreams".

 

[Madwand1]

Consider a MoCA bridge and switch or router configured as a WAP.

E.g. http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833122243


A standard wireless bridge, e.g. D-Link DAP-1522 or Linksys WRT310 running DD-WRT in client bridge mode, would be less expensive solutions which should work for basic network connectivity, but bets are off for reception issues and bandwidth requirements.

 

[JackMDS]

FWIW, http://www.crn.com/digital-hom...ZIWQSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JVN

 

[doctordoctor]

I'm not sure I understand the MoCA technology completely, though it seems like a great solution. If I have an existing router attached to Coaxial cable, can I then use the MoCA at any existing cable outlet and connect into the network being broadcast by my existing router?

That is, I would essentially have a "wired" connection since Cat 5e cable attaches the MoCA and a local client (e.g. blu-Ray, TV, laptop). Is is it further possible to connect the MoCA device into a switch allowing multiple wired connections?

 

[JackMDS]

The Powerline and the MoCA are similar solution in nature.

The power line uses the electrical cable in the wall and the MoCA is using coax cables (like the one installed for cable TV).

You buy two little boxes one goes from an Ethernet Port on a Router/switch to the power line and the second goes from the power line back to Ethernet in other location.

Similarly the MoCA pluggs into the coax cable system in one spot and inject the Ethernet to the coax system, and in the second spot taks it from the coax and inject it back to the Ethernet.

Both are Not popular because they are relatively expensive to what they do and have variety of difficulties.

MoCA is more expensive than powerline but might provide better result since the coax cable system is quieter (electrical wise) than the powerline.

You can give it a try (it only money), YMMV.

 

[doctordoctor]

What about getting multiple clients connected from the single LAN connection on the MoCA gear? Is that possible?

 

[JackMDS]

What ever traffic is on the switch would be available through the MoCA too.

A pair of units are simply a replacement for an Ethernet cable, just like Wireless is a replacement to an Ethernet cable too.