3 Wireless routers in a single premises?

USE NETGEAR do not use linksys and why are you trying to set up 3 routers one router can handle it all.

Reply to
arendtb
Loading thread data ...

Yes it is possible. Actually very easy in my opinion.

  1. From each of your cable/dsl boxes connect a wireless router.
  2. Have each router on a different channel 1,6,11 will provide the least amount of interference.
  3. The SSID can be the same for each router or different. The only downside to using the same SSID is that the client may need to rengotiate its IP address if it switches access points.

As far as the router that is the best depends on your needs. Linksys has never done wireless well that is why they sell an add on box to boost coverage. I have had both Dlink, Netgear and a Pre N Belkin and the best is hard to say. The Netgear may have had the best interface but it did not last nor did its replacement under warranty. The dlink has a good balance between performance and managability. The Belkin has in my opinion the worst interface but the best range.

Jim D> Is it possible to run three wireless routers connected to three

Reply to
kbloch2001

how is he going to hook all that into one router?

Reply to
Jorge Padrone

Is it possible to run three wireless routers connected to three different networks in the same house? I have ADSL and two cable internet connections and would like all of them to have wireless capability.

If possible, which are the best routers to buy for this config?

Reply to
Jim Donald

"Jorge Padrone" wrote in news:431382b5$0$9054 $ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:

drag some cat5 cable

Reply to
Duane Arnold

You must be wealthy to afford all that connectivity. Well, you're going to need some way to keep them separate so that the client computahs can distinguish which access point to connect. Use different SSID's for each access point and you'll have a choice. To avoid mutual RF interference, put them on the three non-overlapping channels of 1, 6, and 11.

That quality and type of router or access point depends on your requirements and price limitations. I'm partial to separate boxes for the DSL and cable modems, for the routers, and for the wireless access points. Give some specs (coverage area, price, expected performance, anticipated range, number of wall and floors to penetrate, construction material, available CAT5 wiring, ad nauseam) and I'll offer a suggestion.

I think you're doing this all wrong. You've got multiple broadband connections, so why not run everything through one load balancing router? See:

formatting link
WAN ports (one for each cable) connection. $170. You won't get twice as much speed as it can't combine streams, but it will balance the load between cable connections automagically. You also only need one wireless access point connected to this router.

If you really wanna combine all three broadband connections, then there are more expensive multi-homed routers.

formatting link
formatting link
one of these, you only need one wireless access point.

Combine and conquer?

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Hehe. Not really. Just a bit impulsive. But now I've signed those contracts I want to make the most of what I'm paying for. The basic setup is:

  1. 1 x ADSL on a Netgear DG834G plugged ino my telephone line
  2. 1 x home cable
  3. 1 x business cable

2 and 3 are from the same provider (but different services) and I would like to have each of them wireless or, as you suggest, combine both through the one router. I didn't know such devices were available. Also - I have 4 x AXIS IP cams to connect to the business cable service (cos it offers the fastest upload speed). And I am rather keen to run WS-FTP Server on one of the networks. There are also various other small WiFi devices that would benefit from wireless connectivity (IPAQs etc.). My house is a bijou apartment with lots of reinforced concrete, as well as some Gyproc partition walls ;-) A sort of 1970s 'throw it up quick' affair. Y'know?

Interesting. I didn't know about this either.

Thanks. I don't mind spending to get the right kit that will work without problems. Then again - none of this is mission-critical (I'm an old retired codger with time on his hands). So a happy medium would be nice. If that's possible.

This sounds like just the ticket Jeff. I'll have a look at that link right away. Thanks again.

I am much obliged for your input. Any further advice or comment gratefully received. Thank you.

Jim

Reply to
Jim Donald

It can actually work to deliver twice the speed depending on the client. For something that creates multiple TCP connections it does. With a multithreading download manager, the load balancing router works great.

What might not work so well is port forwarding. At least it didn't seem to on the router that I once used. What seemed to happen was that the inbound would come in via one route and the return had a 50/50 chance of going the same path thus connections were unreliable and the only affinity that was hard settable was that for SMTP.

Mileage may vary with a different router.

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

Well, you already have wireless in the DG834G, so I would leave that alone. Incidentally, this is why I detest all-in-one conglomerated units and prefer seperate DSL modem, router, and wireless.

Just cable modems? No routers?

I'm still trying to figure out why you need all this bandwidth.

Well, combining a multi-homed router will do nothing for outgoing bandwidth. You'll still have two different IP addresses for each of the cable modems. Users will need to select which one gets the traffic. No way to load balance this traffic. However, you could put two cameras on one IP and the other two cameras on the other IP.

Same problem as the cameras. Outgoing FTP will not be load balanced and users will need to select which of the two IP's to use for their file transfers.

Yeah, but an IPAQ doesn't need huge amounts of bandwidth.

Yech. That's RF hell. 2.4GHz does not go through concrete very well. Sheet rock is so-so. You'll probably need an access point in each of the main user areas, with CAT5 cable interconnections.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Not necessarily a question to you Jeff and a wholly arbitrary bit of quoted text there but do any of the US cable/dsl providers offer bonding? There are plenty of UK ones that do which and obviously that would work much better if outgoing bandwidth is an issue.

I wonder if he can persuade his DNS host to provide DNS round robin (if it doesn't already do so)? No aggregation but at least it would load balance connections.

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

No. None that I know about. Of course, I can get ISDN bonded channels, but not DSL.

The reason my customers get load balancing multi-WAN port routers is not for the speed improvement, but reliability It's for the automatic redundancy via a backup ISP. The speed improvement is just an added bonus. I usually see two ISP's with radically different service methods mixing cable, DSL, satellite, wireless, dialup, or packet. If one goes down, the customer usually doesn't even notice.

Amazing. When I asked the local ISP's if they were interested in offering channel bonding, the usual answer is that there's not enough demand to justify the offering. My guess is that they're right.

I doubt it. However, there's nothing wrong with running your own nameserver and doing the balancing act locally. The only thing the ISP needs to do is deal with the reverse DNS service on their DNS servers.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

formatting link
Those are "storage routers" in addition to the usual wireless routers. They're used mostly for wireless connectivity to USB hard disk drives, but not USB printers. You probably have it setup as a wireless router from your cable connections. I haven't played with these yet and would be interested to know how they work as I have a possible application.

Installing the wireless devices as high as possible really helps eliminate blockage by furniture and people. However, there's still the matter of walls and floors.

It sometimes gets in the way but the setup wizard is easy enough to bypass. What I like about the older Netgear products in the blue metal boxes is that I can drop them and they will survive. I can't say the same for the new plastic packaging. The box looks like an ash tray, collects garbage on top which drips into the circuitry, has a horrible heat buildup problems if stacked, and flys apart when dropped. I guess the aerodynamic shape makes it easier to use as a frisbee.

OK, good luck.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Many thanks, Jeff, to you and your colleagues for sharing your considerable expertise. I am very grateful for all your time and trouble.

Since last writing I have been able to 'borrow' a couple of Netgear WGT634Us from my old office and, so far, these seem to be working well (with the channel spacing you suggested earlier, though I haven't used the cordless phone yet). I've put one in the hall and the other in the kitchen running two Cat 5 cables from the modems in the study. I've put them quite high up on the walls. I'm also using two of the Netgear

8-port unmanaged switches for the cams.

I have no knowledge of other manufacturers' products, but the thing I like about Netgear stuff is that it seems to work straight out of the box without any tweaking (other than port forwarding, WAP config etc).

Apparently here in the UK these Netgears can be bought for about 70 UKP each. So, if I'm still laughing after a few days, it looks like

140 quid will sort me.

Again - very much obliged for the expert input.

Jim

Reply to
Jim Donald

Of course I meant 'WPA' config - not 'WAP' (which is probably something to do with mobile phones) ;-) Sorry.

Reply to
Jim Donald

Interesting, that surprises me, some ISP's here will happily bond up to

8 DSL lines.

Nope, nothing at all, just more effort and something else to have to support/fix when it goes wrong. :)

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.