dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2029
patmac
join:2007-01-10

patmac

Member

Extender or Upgraded Wireless Router?

Hi,
We have a Netgear WNDR3400 router, and I need to know if a wireless extender or a better router would be the best choice.
We have a 24'x48' raised ranch with a 24'x24' addition on the end opposite where the router is (downstairs)
Somewhere around 30' from the opposite end of the house, the Wi-Fi signal dies out/down.
Any input will be appreciated.
Thanks for your time.

billaustin
they call me Mr. Bill
MVM
join:2001-10-13
North Las Vegas, NV

1 recommendation

billaustin

MVM

The best option would be a second access point to provide coverage for the area. If running cable is a problem, then look at powerline
adapters to make the connection to the router.

The problem with most wireless extenders is they only have one radio. It has to do double duty, relaying packets between the router and clients, which reduces throughput by at least half.
patmac
join:2007-01-10

patmac

Member

Are you also saying the powerline adapters lose throughput too?
Thanks

billaustin
they call me Mr. Bill
MVM
join:2001-10-13
North Las Vegas, NV

billaustin

MVM

The throughput of powerline adapters will vary with the wiring in the home. They will work great in some places, not as well in others.

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI

Nightfall to patmac

MVM

to patmac
That router is an older model. I replaced one of those at my house for a ASUS RT-N66U and my wireless signal range doubled. Obviously the construction of the house and where your access point is can be a factor, but mine was centrally located on the first floor of my house. Before I upgraded, I would barely get access outside. Now, I can surf in my yard if I want to.

IMHO, I would replace the router, but as you said, the extender would work as well. I just don't like having two pieces of equipment to play with when one will work just fine. Besides, you are going to spend for the extender and you may just spend a bit more for the new router instead.

rescue85
In Memory of Guinness 03-30-07
Premium Member
join:2002-06-12
Eatontown, NJ

rescue85

Premium Member

Why not just get a wireless repeater / booster? Like one of these guys? Wouldn't something like these work or am I missing something here?

»www.bestbuy.com/site/sea ··· extender

billaustin
they call me Mr. Bill
MVM
join:2001-10-13
North Las Vegas, NV

billaustin

MVM

The problem with most of the wireless extenders available is they only have one radio. That radio has to communicate with the router and wireless clients and relay the data between them. This reduces throughput by at least half, and sometimes more. An extender with two radios, one to make the connection to the router and one to communicate with the wireless clients, will usually work quite well.
patmac
join:2007-01-10

patmac

Member

Thanks for all the great input.
I just checked the router, there are two open ports.
Can I run a CAT5 out of one of those ports to a wired booster (wireless) or extender(wireless) to accomplish what I'm looking for?
I'm not sure if I can run a cable ( already terminated ) from the router to the new computer upstairs, but I am sure I can run one downstairs ( where the router is )towards the weak end of the house.

rescue85
In Memory of Guinness 03-30-07
Premium Member
join:2002-06-12
Eatontown, NJ

rescue85

Premium Member

said by patmac:

Thanks for all the great input.
I just checked the router, there are two open ports.
Can I run a CAT5 out of one of those ports to a wired booster or extender to accomplish what I'm looking for?

Yes, providing the wireless extender has an RJ-45 inbound connection... in fact, I sort of run in this condition. We have a large house, the Verizon DSL comes in to a DSL modem/router, but because I am on the opposite side of the house, I don't get any reliable connection to the modem. To solve this, I ran a CAT5 from the DSL modem/router connected to one of the 4 ports on it, to a new Belkin AC dual band wireless router on my side of the house... The only difference here is that I am on a separate LAN then those who connect directly to the DSL modem/router. This does cause minor issues with connecting directly to those devices but nothing some simple configuration can't handle. Other then that, it's great, plus the added benefit is that my LAN is far more secure as I basically now have 2 firmware firewall protecting me.
rescue85

rescue85 to billaustin

Premium Member

to billaustin
said by billaustin:

The problem with most of the wireless extenders available is they only have one radio. That radio has to communicate with the router and wireless clients and relay the data between them. This reduces throughput by at least half, and sometimes more. An extender with two radios, one to make the connection to the router and one to communicate with the wireless clients, will usually work quite well.

If that's true then how can something like this »www.bestbuy.com/site/dua ··· wireless extender&cp=1&lp=7 claim the through put it does which matches the capabilities of N to begin with?

Fraoch
join:2003-08-01
Cambridge, ON
SmartRG SR808ac
TP-Link EAP225
Grandstream HT502

Fraoch

Member

said by rescue85:

said by billaustin:

The problem with most of the wireless extenders available is they only have one radio. That radio has to communicate with the router and wireless clients and relay the data between them. This reduces throughput by at least half, and sometimes more. An extender with two radios, one to make the connection to the router and one to communicate with the wireless clients, will usually work quite well.

If that's true then how can something like this »www.bestbuy.com/site/dua ··· wireless extender&cp=1&lp=7 claim the through put it does which matches the capabilities of N to begin with?

Marketing, marketing, marketing. Wireless technology manufacturers are notorious for deceptive marketing. It's touted as 300 Mbps wireless n because that's the radio it's equipped with. In fact, if it's dual-band as they claim, it would be N150 on 2.4 GHz and N150 on 5 GHz. Connected devices might claim "connected at 150 Mbps" but you won't get anywhere near that after overhead, and if they stupidly use the same radio to receive and transmit, you'll be lucky to pass 10-20 Mbit even though you have full strength.

If they were smart and used the 5 GHz radio to link back to the main router and the 2.4 GHz radio to connect to other clients they might have a shot at decent throughput. Looking at the reviews it doesn't look like they do that though, since both radios are available to clients.

rescue85
In Memory of Guinness 03-30-07
Premium Member
join:2002-06-12
Eatontown, NJ

1 edit

rescue85

Premium Member

said by Fraoch:

If they were smart and used the 5 GHz radio to link back to the main router and the 2.4 GHz radio to connect to other clients they might have a shot at decent throughput. Looking at the reviews it doesn't look like they do that though, since both radios are available to clients.

Actually to do this makes perfect sense if you 'can' hard wire the extender in. I never thought about using the 5GHz dedicated just for the tie back... Sometimes the best solutions as the easiest to go with. Though you have given me some great ideas for using the 5GHz band.. However the only problem with that proposal is that the 5GHZ band usually has a much smaller range, would it possibly make sense to do it the other way? Use the 2.4GHz band to tie back and the 5GHz for your connections providing everything is close enough?
patmac
join:2007-01-10

patmac

Member

OK, I hope you guys won't hate me for this, but I just realized I do have a CAT5 cable running up to one of the bedrooms upstairs ( nearest the router downstairs ). Sorry about that. I have it cabled to a CAT5 outlet in that bedroom, and need the extra coverage in the next bedroom over.
I apologize for that.
So, what's best to connect in the "connected" bedroom to extend coverage to the rest of the house?
Yes! I'm embarrassed!!!

Fraoch
join:2003-08-01
Cambridge, ON
SmartRG SR808ac
TP-Link EAP225
Grandstream HT502

Fraoch to rescue85

Member

to rescue85
said by rescue85:

Actually to do this makes perfect sense if you can't hard wire the extender in. I never thought about using the 5GHz dedicated just for the tie back... Sometimes the best solutions as the easiest to go with. Though you have given me some great ideas for using the 5GHz band.. However the only problem with that proposal is that the %GHZ band usually has a much smaller range, would it possibly make sense to do it the other way? Use the 2.4GHz band to tie back and the 5GHz for your connections providing everything is close enough?

Yes, sure you could do that if you have 5 GHz clients.

The problem is, the wireless extender's firmware has to explicitly support such a "backhaul"-type strategy. If not, it's so far-reaching and requires such extensive modifications to how the device operates that it's doubtful if third-party firmware would be able to go this far.

I believe I read that some of the more advanced Open-Mesh devices work this way.

rescue85
In Memory of Guinness 03-30-07
Premium Member
join:2002-06-12
Eatontown, NJ

1 edit

rescue85 to patmac

Premium Member

to patmac
said by patmac:

OK, I hope you guys won't hate me for this, but I just realized I do have a CAT5 cable running up to one of the bedrooms upstairs ( nearest the router downstairs ). Sorry about that. I have it cabled to a CAT5 outlet in that bedroom, and need the extra coverage in the next bedroom over.
I apologize for that.
So, what's best to connect in the "connected" bedroom to extend coverage to the rest of the house?
Yes! I'm embarrassed!!!

DOH!!!!!! Honestly the "best" solution is the one that you feel works best for your situation for the right cost.. I mean honestly, I don't see why you just don't use an extender/booster. I mean in all honesty, how much of that bandwidth are you really going to use? Are you streaming HD videos all the time or running a server? If your just doing normal everyday surfing / occasional streaming / gaming, I honestly do not think you will miss the reduced bandwidth. I suppose I could be wrong, but I am pretty confident you would be fine.

PS - Insure that the WIFI extender DOES have an inbound ethernet port, otherwise, you won't be able to have the fixed wire connection..

billaustin
they call me Mr. Bill
MVM
join:2001-10-13
North Las Vegas, NV

billaustin to patmac

MVM

to patmac
said by patmac:

OK, I hope you guys won't hate me for this, but I just realized I do have a CAT5 cable running up to one of the bedrooms upstairs ( nearest the router downstairs ). Sorry about that. I have it cabled to a CAT5 outlet in that bedroom, and need the extra coverage in the next bedroom over.
I apologize for that.
So, what's best to connect in the "connected" bedroom to extend coverage to the rest of the house?
Yes! I'm embarrassed!!!

Just get another wireless access point and put it in the upstairs bedroom. Use the cable to connect it to the router downstairs. Set the SSID and security the same, but pick a different channel (use 1, 6, or 11). You can also use a wireless router configured to operate as an access point. Sometimes it's less expensive than a separate access point.
patmac
join:2007-01-10

patmac

Member

OK, thanks.
I'll look into wireless routers, any suggestions?

billaustin
they call me Mr. Bill
MVM
join:2001-10-13
North Las Vegas, NV

billaustin

MVM

I like Netgear, others swear by Asus. I would definitely get a simultaneous dual-band unit, preferably with gigabit ports. Decide your budget, and then look at what's available in your price range. You may find a good unit, but you might also have to spend a little more for something you're happy with.
patmac
join:2007-01-10

patmac

Member

My original Netgear WNDR3400 has nothing "gigabit" about it, so does it do any good to have my second access point with a higher throughput ceiling? Just looking at the cost difference.....Thanks

billaustin
they call me Mr. Bill
MVM
join:2001-10-13
North Las Vegas, NV

billaustin

MVM

Gigabit ports are not necessary, but nice to have. I prefer gigabit connections between the core devices (routers, AP's, switches) where possible. It will save the cost of a future upgrade if you decide to go gigabit on your network.
patmac
join:2007-01-10

patmac

Member

Hopefully this is close to my last question.....

When I see "Wi-Fi Switch" when shopping for wireless routers, what does that mean?

Thanks again.

rescue85
In Memory of Guinness 03-30-07
Premium Member
join:2002-06-12
Eatontown, NJ

rescue85 to billaustin

Premium Member

to billaustin
I have a Belkin AC750.. AC is the latest in WIFI bands and Belkin has one of the best firmares on the market today. Again this is all personal choice. We can all tell you what we feel is the best but ultimately you have to decide what features you want and go with the one that has the best reviews for what you want.

A wifi switch is basically just a WIFI hub, no router capabilities. You have a router and don't necessarily need another router as this will cause you to create a new network. This means that your current router gives you an IP range, usually 192.168.x.x. If you add a second router to your network, your going to need to create a whole new network range to avoid IP conflicts, such as 10.x.x.x. This is why your best bet is to use either an extender or a wifi switch which will act an an extender. I don't think you can use a second router on the same network without giving it an new network. I suppose you might be able to get away with just creating a new subnet, but either way, I think you would be adding more points for confusion since you are a novice network admin. I would avoid that kind of confusion otherwise you are going to give yourself a headache trying to figure out proper net work address translations and port forwarding which would normally be done for you by the routers firmware, but adding multiple networks and subnets will though more caveats for confusion.