Wireless bridge

[ggadrian]

Fiber has finally arrived to my street and I'm going to sign up for it next week, but I have a problem: the point where the finer is going to arrive to my home is not where I have the router and the server, and as I don't have the house wired I need to do something about it.

Wring is out of the question, and the only viable solution I can find is a wireless bridge, but the area is really crowded with WiFi signals in the 2'4GHz range (heck, I have 3 AP's myself).

So I need a solution to make a wireless brigde with the two AP's like 3 meters apart with 2 walls in between and I want to be able to use the full 100/10 connexion, so a stable 100Mbit/s is a must.

The setup will be as follows:

I just need to buy the bridge, any recommendations? I suppose that the best bang for the buck will be to buy a coupe of routers and flash them with dd-wrt. I don't have a defined budget, I'm gonna spend as much as I need to make it work, but I'd like it to be as cheap as possible (without compromising quality).

Will this increase the latency too much? I need to remote to the server, and it also streams video and music (Plex) when I'm not at home.

Thank you.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Will this increase the latency too much?

it won't affect anything behind bridge 2. anything going past bridge 2 is YMMV since it's a wireless signal

I need to remote to the server, and it also streams video and music (Plex) when I'm not at home.

Depends on what speed wireless bridge setup is implemented, compared to what the WAN speed is. Don't setup a "wireless g" setup, go for n or ac.

So I need a solution to make a wireless brigde with the two AP's like 3 meters apart with 2 walls in between and I want to be able to use the full 100/10 connexion, so a stable 100Mbit/s is a must.

Stable 10/100 between what nodes? again, everything behind bridge 2 will not be affected by this unless their traffic goes out to the WAN. Local traffic will stay at the switches behind bridge 2...

IMO, wired is a better way to go. A cable from ISP "router" (assuming it's a full on router) to the switch is all that's necessary.

If the ISP router is actually a router, then you don't even need that second router connected to bridge 2, unless you are using it for some special function.

 

[ggadrian]

it won't affect anything behind bridge 2. anything going past bridge 2 is YMMV since it's a wireless signal



Depends on what speed wireless bridge setup is implemented, compared to what the WAN speed is. Don't setup a "wireless g" setup, go for n or ac.



Stable 10/100 between what nodes? again, everything behind bridge 2 will not be affected by this unless their traffic goes out to the WAN. Local traffic will stay at the switches behind bridge 2...

IMO, wired is a better way to go. A cable from ISP "router" (assuming it's a full on router) to the switch is all that's necessary.

If the ISP router is actually a router, then you don't even need that second router connected to bridge 2, unless you are using it for some special function.

I'm worried about the speed and latency of the bridge, the rest of the setup is how I have it right now. If I can manage to get a stable 100mbps with wifi n routers instead of ac I'd save a lot of money, so I'd like to know if someone has a similar setup and how much bandwidth he gets.

I like to use my own router, so I don't depend of the ISP router and I can avoid them snooping into my settings and network; I don't trust a device that can be controlled remotely by a third party.

I can't run a cable, so wireless is almost my only way to go. Powerline isn't a very good option either because I have 3 computers, one screen and other devices connected to the same outlet and the quality of the signal is very bad (I actually tested it).

 

[John Connor]

Powerline isn't a very good option either because I have 3 computers, one screen and other devices connected to the same outlet and the quality of the signal is very bad (I actually tested it).

How did you test this? With power line adapters? You can always plug into a separate outlet and run an Ethernet cable.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm worried about the speed and latency of the bridge, the rest of the setup is how I have it right now. If I can manage to get a stable 100mbps with wifi n routers instead of ac I'd save a lot of money, so I'd like to know if someone has a similar setup and how much bandwidth he gets.

I like to use my own router, so I don't depend of the ISP router and I can avoid them snooping into my settings and network; I don't trust a device that can be controlled remotely by a third party.

I can't run a cable, so wireless is almost my only way to go. Powerline isn't a very good option either because I have 3 computers, one screen and other devices connected to the same outlet and the quality of the signal is very bad (I actually tested it).

Wireless will always be YMMV. Even if someone else got awesome speeds, it's no assurance that you will also.

 

[ggadrian]

How did you test this? With power line adapters? You can always plug into a separate outlet and run an Ethernet cable.

Yes, I had a pair of them, but I stopped using them because of that.

Yes, but there're just two outlets and both of them are crowded, I have a lot of electronics in my room.

 

[John Connor]

Honestly, I would get some pre-made Ethernet cable and run it. WIFI is just a crapchute.

 

[ggadrian]

Honestly, I would get some pre-made Ethernet cable and run it. WIFI is just a crapchute.

I would too, but that's not possible, as I can't pass it from where I get the finer to where I need the router. The thing is that wireless is a must, not because I like it but because I have no other choice. The question is, which hardware do I need?

 

[JackMDS]

"10 feet apart with two wall and 100Mb/sec. Wireless is a Must".

With an adult psychological acceptance that "I want" does not mean that it is possible.

I would get two Dual Band Routers like the Asus RT-N66U Set then as bridges and try.

I do not know what the exact environmental lay out is.

But if it is two rooms are off a mutual halfway, there is a much better chance to succed if you lay a cable from inside of the room and install a Bridge in the hallway near the door, and do the same with second room.

 

[ggadrian]

"10 feet apart with two wall and 100Mb/sec. Wireless is a Must".

With an adult psychological acceptance that "I want" does not mean that it is possible.

I would get two Dual Band Routers like the Asus RT-N66U Set then as bridges and try.

I do not know what the exact environmental lay out is.

But if it is two rooms are off a mutual halfway, there is a much better chance to succed if you lay a cable from inside of the room and install a Bridge in the hallway near the door, and do the same with second room.

Well, I'm trying to get 100Mbps, but just if that's possible.

For more details, I measured the exact distance and it's 12 feet +-0.5 and the signal will have to go across a 0.6 inch wooden door with a mirror in it (are mirrors a problem?) and a brick wall. There are no electronics or appliances in between. Also, the 5GHz spectrum is clear apart from my AP.

From the same location (without the wooden door), with my macbook connected to a 5GHz 300mbps router i get 12MB/s, which equals to around 96Mbps, that would be really good. So I suppose that a couple of routers with 3 antenas each just doing bridge are capable of, more or less, the same, a I wrong? Is there a lot of overhead in bridge mode?

If I'm being way too optimistic about the bandwidth just tell me, as I said, 100Mbps is my goal, but I'll have to settle for whatever I can get.

The Asus RT-N66U is a little on the expensive side for a N router, isn't it? I can find it in ebay for around 112€ (166$). In that case I'd go for the RT-AC66U if there isn't any problem with it, as it's just 140€ (190$).

Those look nice indeed, but is there something that is not going to cost me 280€ (380$) for just one bridge?

As I said I'll buy what it takes, but I'll try to spend as little as possible. I'm also OK with getting around 70-80Mbps if that means that I'll save a lot of money.

 

[JackMDS]

If I have to use sub $100 I would use this - http://www.amazon.com/BUFFALO-AirSta...ref=pd_sim_e_4

However, with "extreme" demands on Wireless there is No guarantees and a person has to be prepared with an Exit strategy (like getting hardware that can be returned with minimal loss).

 

[ggadrian]

If I have to use sub $100 I would use this - http://www.amazon.com/BUFFALO-AirSta...ref=pd_sim_e_4

However, with "extreme" demands on Wireless there is No guarantees and a person has to be prepared with an Exit strategy (like getting hardware that can be returned with minimal loss).

In amazon in my country is like 135$ instead of 70$, so it isn't much of a value proposition here. I think that's because Buffalo doesn't sell here in my country.

 

[smitbret]

I can safely recommend a pair of TP-Link Archer C7 routers with one of them in bridge mode. Run one in bridge mode on the 5Ghz AC band. I'm getting between 350-450mb/s between my upstairs and downstairs with this setup.

They're $99 each on Amazon right now.

 

[ggadrian]

I can safely recommend a pair of TP-Link Archer C7 routers with one of them in bridge mode. Run one in bridge mode on the 5Ghz AC band. I'm getting between 380-450mb/s between my upstairs and downstairs with this setup.

They're $99 each on Amazon right now.

Are they dd-wrt compatible?

380Mbps is really impressive.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I can safely recommend a pair of TP-Link Archer C7 routers with one of them in bridge mode. Run one in bridge mode on the 5Ghz AC band. I'm getting between 380-450mb/s between my upstairs and downstairs with this setup.

They're $99 each on Amazon right now.

That sounds really sweet. Can they pass IPv6 over the bridge?

 

[JackMDS]

I hope that the 380 was measured as a real transfer and it Not Just the number that the Driver table displays in the status screen.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I can safely recommend a pair of TP-Link Archer C7 routers with one of them in bridge mode. Run one in bridge mode on the 5Ghz AC band. I'm getting between 380-450mb/s between my upstairs and downstairs with this setup.

They're $99 each on Amazon right now.

that's good speeds for sure. What's the distance between the devices? what's the angle?

speeds measured with file transfers and iperf?

 

[smitbret]

I hope that the 380 was measured as a real transfer and it Not Just the number that the Driver table displays in the status screen.

It was measured via a LANSpeed Test between 2 gigabit connected PCs.

Here's my in depth review that I put up on Amazon along with testing speeds, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1OD0AR...cm_cr_rdp_perm

Looks like I was a little high on the measurements. Just reread my review and it is 350-425mb/s. I haven't remeasured lately. Keep in mind this is an AC setup, not N.

 

[smitbret]

that's good speeds for sure. What's the distance between the devices? what's the angle?

speeds measured with file transfers and iperf?

Check the Amazon review I posted above and it'll give you most of that information. The angle between the two devices is about 45-60 degrees.

The router interface on the Archer C7 is a little archaic compared to other networking devices, but everything is there and I can't complain about the overall performance.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Good review, very informative

 

[smitbret]

Are they dd-wrt compatible?

380Mbps is really impressive.

I was a little high on the 380 and would feel more comfortable had I posted 350 (so I edited my other post).

Not sure if it is DD-WRT compatible. It's based on the Atheros chip instead of Broadcom, though so I don't think so. That's one reason I stayed with the exact same router on both ends of the bridge.

 

[dealguru]

I can safely recommend a pair of TP-Link Archer C7 routers with one of them in bridge mode. Run one in bridge mode on the 5Ghz AC band. I'm getting between 350-450mb/s between my upstairs and downstairs with this setup.

They're $99 each on Amazon right now.

So, only one will be configured as bridge and the other one as a wireless router,, and they will be able to talk? hmmm , my understanding was both should be in bridge mode.

 

[smitbret]

So, only one will be configured as bridge and the other one as a wireless router,, and they will be able to talk? hmmm , my understanding was both should be in bridge mode.

Only one device is the "Bridge". That is the one picking up the signal and distributing the signal via wired connections to connected devices. That one is in bridge mode because you want it to be transparent. The other router is the "Router" and is assigned the task of DHCP Server and provides the other true router activities. You could have multiple bridges throughout the building, all working from the router.

Modem --- Router [Broadcasting/DHCP Server] )))))))) Bridge [Disabled DHCP/NAT] ---Devices

At least that's how I have always done it. With dedicated bridges, you leave the settings alone in the broadcasting router. I have always just mimicked a dedicated bridge when I set up a 2nd router as a bridge.

 

[JackMDS]

Well, I do not know if there Alternate Realities, but this is what usually occurs. :sneaky:

The following is a typical result that I get across all my Networks with similar hardware level.

Hardware.

i7 high range Giga capable computer with Samsung fast SSD.

Wired to a Giga capable Dual Band Asus RT-N66U

Wireless i7 high range fast SSD Laptop with Dual Band Wireless Card Laptop.

Placed 12' away from the Wireless Router.

Wireless card Status.

Yeah as you can see, it states nice and clear 300Mb/sec. However, be aware that this number is Not a result of any real Bandwidth Measure.

-------------
OK, what LAN Speed says when measuring from the Laptop to a clean second partition on the wired desktop.

See any 300Mb/sec reading above?

--------------
Cross check with Real 101MB file transfer.

11.3 MB x 8 = 90.4 Mb/sec. (B=Byte, b=bit).

Which validates the LAN Speed measure.

--------------------------
As a frame of reference.

Same Hardware same Network.

Transferring File to second Giga capable computer. Both computer are hooked to the same Asus Router as above.

131 x 8 = 1048Mb/sec. Real Giga.

 

[ggadrian]

Well I do not know if there Alternate Realities, but this is what usually occurs.

The following is a typical result that I get across all my Networks with similar hardware level.

Hardware.

i7 high range computer with Samsung fast SSD.

Wired to a Giga capable Dual Band Asus RT-N66U

Wireless i7 high range fast SSD Laptop with Dual Band Wireless Card Laptop 12" away from the Wireless Router.

Wireless card Status.

Yeah it says nice and clear 300Mb/sec. Howvevr this number is Not a result of any real Bandwidth Measure.

-------------
OK What LAN Speed says when measuring from the Laptop to a clean second partition on the wired desktop.

See any 300Mb/sec reading above.

--------------
Cross check with Real 101MB file transfer.

11.3 MB x 8 = 90.4 Mb/sec. (B=Byte, b=bit).

Which validates the LANspeed measure.

--------------------------
As a frame of refernce.

Same Hardware same network.

Transferring File to second Giga cable computer, both computer are hooked to the same Asus Router as above.

131 x 8 = 1048Mb/sec. Real Giga.

Yes, those numbers are really similar to the numbers I'm getting with my 5GHz AP and my macbook.

That kind of performance would be perfect for my bridge, as it just has to provide enough bandwidth for a 100 down / 10 up connection.

So you can use one as a router and the other as a bridge? I always thought that I needed booth devices in bridge mode.