Network switch or WAP?

[Lozw86]

I’ve run a cat 5e LAN cable from my router to a remote part of the house where I want better Wi-Fi. At the remote location, do I need an unmanaged network switch and then a wireless access point, or will a wireless access point work on its own? I’ve no need for the multiple ports offered by a network switch, I just want 1 WAP there. Thanks

[scottri]

You don't need a switch if you don't require the extra ports.

[megaphone]

You just need a wireless access point (AP) . You connect this to your router via the CAT5 you have installed.

When you set it up you may find it works better if you use the same WiFi name (SSID) and password as your existing router, this will allow your devices to 'roam'.

[Griffith4ever]

Your WAP or router will have its own switch built into it.

[Paul Drawmer]

megaphone said:

...When you set it up you may find it works better if you use the same WiFi name (SSID) and password as your existing router, this will allow your devices to 'roam'.

As an aside, if you have a different SSID/password; won't the devices just hand off to the best signal? I was hoping they would, as I intend to re-purpose a redundant BT Home Hub for just this purpose.

[Captain_Morgan]

Paul Drawmer said:

megaphone said:

...When you set it up you may find it works better if you use the same WiFi name (SSID) and password as your existing router, this will allow your devices to 'roam'.

As an aside, if you have a different SSID/password; won't the devices just hand off to the best signal? I was hoping they would, as I intend to re-purpose a redundant BT Home Hub for just this purpose.

Wifi roaming requires you to move between ‘cells’ on the same network hence having the same ssid & pw.

What you are suggesting will work but active sessions such as teams, wifi calls and some streaming will disconnect and need to be manually re connected as you move between ‘cells’

[Murph7355]

Griffith4ever said:

Your WAP or router will have its own switch built into it.

Depends what it is. Some do, some don't.

[Paul Drawmer]

Captain_Morgan said:

Wifi roaming requires you to move between ‘cells’ on the same network hence having the same ssid & pw.

What you are suggesting will work but active sessions such as teams, wifi calls and some streaming will disconnect and need to be manually re connected as you move between ‘cells’

Thank you Cap'n.

[Granadier]

Paul Drawmer said:

megaphone said:

...When you set it up you may find it works better if you use the same WiFi name (SSID) and password as your existing router, this will allow your devices to 'roam'.

As an aside, if you have a different SSID/password; won't the devices just hand off to the best signal? I was hoping they would, as I intend to re-purpose a redundant BT Home Hub for just this purpose.

I have something like what you're suggesting. I have a main router from the ISP, then attached by (long) ethernet cable to this is a second router at the far end of the house. I set up a separate ID and password for the 'remote' wifi. It generally works ok but from time to time phones and laptops will automatically connect to the weaker of the two signals and then have to be manually changed over.

[paulrockliffe]

Granadier said:

Paul Drawmer said:

megaphone said:

...When you set it up you may find it works better if you use the same WiFi name (SSID) and password as your existing router, this will allow your devices to 'roam'.

As an aside, if you have a different SSID/password; won't the devices just hand off to the best signal? I was hoping they would, as I intend to re-purpose a redundant BT Home Hub for just this purpose.

I have something like what you're suggesting. I have a main router from the ISP, then attached by (long) ethernet cable to this is a second router at the far end of the house. I set up a separate ID and password for the 'remote' wifi. It generally works ok but from time to time phones and laptops will automatically connect to the weaker of the two signals and then have to be manually changed over.

But they'll do that with the same SSID and Password too.

If you want proper roaming you need either sufficient distance between the APs that devices never get the choice of two APs, or you need a mesh setup where the two APs talk to each other and manage handover properly.

[Captain_Morgan]

paulrockliffe said:

Granadier said:

Paul Drawmer said:

megaphone said:

...When you set it up you may find it works better if you use the same WiFi name (SSID) and password as your existing router, this will allow your devices to 'roam'.

As an aside, if you have a different SSID/password; won't the devices just hand off to the best signal? I was hoping they would, as I intend to re-purpose a redundant BT Home Hub for just this purpose.

I have something like what you're suggesting. I have a main router from the ISP, then attached by (long) ethernet cable to this is a second router at the far end of the house. I set up a separate ID and password for the 'remote' wifi. It generally works ok but from time to time phones and laptops will automatically connect to the weaker of the two signals and then have to be manually changed over.

But they'll do that with the same SSID and Password too.

If you want proper roaming you need either sufficient distance between the APs that devices never get the choice of two APs, or you need a mesh setup where the two APs talk to each other and manage handover properly.

For clarity you want a solution that manages wifi roaming rather than a mesh system.

You could use something with wired access points and often see better wifi behaviour than mesh.

Mesh refers to access points using wifi to interconnect and expand the wifi network over a greater area, this wireless interconnect will often have implications to both speed, stability and area covered.

Nothing inherently wrong with mesh just wanted to point out that mesh and wifi roaming are separate services

[Murph7355]

Captain_Morgan said:

For clarity you want a solution that manages wifi roaming rather than a mesh system.
...

Possibly semantics, but it's the client devices that manage their own roaming. They decide whether it's time to move from one AP to another.

One of the usual problems in wifi networks is that some devices cling to an AP even though a better one exists as their trigger points are set to do this (all of which is a compromise).

Mesh doesn't have to compromise speed - you can use wired backhaul. The key thing is that all the APs in mesh work together to automatically give you smooth coverage. I'd say letting mesh do that work, even if you used wireless backhaul and took a speed hit, would likely end up better than a nadly set up non-mesh network

You can achieve similar with a bunch of non-mesh APs, set to the same SSID and password etc. But it's a ball ache setting them up as you need to be careful with locations, channels, broadcast power etc.

[Captain_Morgan]

Murph7355 said:

Possibly semantics, but it's the client devices that manage their own roaming. They decide whether it's time to move from one AP to another.

One of the usual problems in wifi networks is that some devices cling to an AP even though a better one exists as their trigger points are set to do this (all of which is a compromise).

Mesh doesn't have to compromise speed - you can use wired backhaul. The key thing is that all the APs in mesh work together to automatically give you smooth coverage. I'd say letting mesh do that work, even if you used wireless backhaul and took a speed hit, would likely end up better than a nadly set up non-mesh network

You can achieve similar with a bunch of non-mesh APs, set to the same SSID and password etc. But it's a ball ache setting them up as you need to be careful with locations, channels, broadcast power etc.

I realised that after I posted I should have mentioned that the client does most of the work but also some systems, generally the more expensive have functions / settings that assist and can be used to tune / force the handover, such as minimum rssi and fast roaming.

Once you wire nodes together then you’re running them as ap’s not a mesh, mesh by it’s nature implies the multiple interconnects and ability to route via a number of nodes to pass traffic, whiles when wired back to a single master node that option is eliminated.

I agree that for the majority a mesh system works and works well, often the challenge becomes I’m paying isp xyz for 90pMbits/s but my mesh system only gives me 200Mbits/s what’s wrong...

You also need to consider power, location and channels if running a mesh system what makes you believe that aspect goes away?

Edited by Captain_Morgan on Saturday 7th May 06:08

Edited by Captain_Morgan on Saturday 7th May 06:11

[Griffith4ever]

I would also add that good mesh systems use a dedicated backhaul channel so you don't lose performance even when using pure wireless. Nothing will match a wired backhaul but the dedicated wireless version is plenty fast enough for most users.

Also, the handover issue - you have to ask yourself how much are you going to be wandering about between base stations actively doing something?

[Captain_Morgan]

Even with a dedicated wireless backhaul the speed is dependent on the network topology.

A star config will give the best performance, if the nodes are daisy chained you will still experience speed and latency degradation.

[OutInTheShed]

For variety, a lot of adsl modem/wifi router boxes wil allow you to set up two or more network names and passwords.

I have an old router from a previous internet deal on the end of an ethernet cable, and 3 logical networks, 1 of which is on both routers.
Stuff that doesn't move around, e.g. cameras, desktop, I put on the nearest network, things that move like tablets go on the joint network.

Not sure that this is the right way to do it, but it works and it gets over some issues I had with the cameras not playing nicely at DCHP.

You can also maybe give the 5GHz and 2.4GHz bits of the network different names and passwords.

This kind of thing can be useful if you transfer a lot of data within your home and don't want that to limit internet performance.
Or if you have odd problems and want to simplify (?) things by shoving some devices onto a different RF channel.

[Murph7355]

Captain_Morgan said:

....
Once you wire nodes together then you’re running them as ap’s not a mesh, mesh by it’s nature implies the multiple interconnects and ability to route via a number of nodes to pass traffic, whiles when wired back to a single master node that option is eliminated.

...

You also need to consider power, location and channels if running a mesh system what makes you believe that aspect goes away?
...

Mesh systems can have wired nodes. It doesn't make them purely AP's. The differentiator with mesh is that the nodes work together.

I don't believe consideration of location and channels goes away with mesh. But in terms of channels you only need to worry about anything "external" to your mesh setup. Running a bunch of genuine AP's, you have to do the worrying about your internal devices as well as external.

(I have a bunch of Unifi APs....and it's been much trial and error, buying the "wrong" kit originally, a while ago, trying their ZHO offering - rubbish - and finally spending plenty of time making sure I set each AP up carefully in a surprisingly "hostile" environment. It was a ball ache and moderately expensive. The results now are great. But 99% of people would have stuck it on eBay and bought a modern mesh system for a lot less money and hassle and likely at least 80% of the benefit ).

[Murph7355]

Griffith4ever said:

.....
Also, the handover issue - you have to ask yourself how much are you going to be wandering about between base stations actively doing something?

A very good point.

Not much generally. My kids do seem to enjoy making people travel sick on video calls around the house (My main requirement was getting solid, quick and dependable wifi all around the house and into various outside areas...so have a mix of wired outlets and AP's).

[Captain_Morgan]

Murph7355 said:

Mesh systems can have wired nodes. It doesn't make them purely AP's. The differentiator with mesh is that the nodes work together.

At the risk of both labouring a point and arguing semantics I can’t agree that the definition of a mesh is that “the nodes work together”.

At its simplest, it’s that you have a number of interconnected nodes with multiple pathways between them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_netw...

Mesh has become a marketing term for the tech companies, but covers much more than just wirelessly interconnecting nodes, certainly wifi roaming for one.

So I still hold the view that buy the act of hardwiring nodes stops them from being a mesh as they then have a single route to the router irrespective of any additional functionality that might be at play.

You are right about “mesh” systems working well for some, I suspect that in 80% of cases a “mesh” system works well for folk, the thing is I read about folk having a bad time with 5+ nodes in relatively small homes, or folk with a 1G line wondering why there “mesh” only gives 10-20% of that and have a wry chuckle that I’ve managed a 3 bed detached extended with a good number of steels with a single AP. ;-)

Glad you got your unifi system to play nice in the end there is that satisfaction when you get something working well

[Sheepshanks]

Murph7355 said:

(I have a bunch of Unifi APs....and it's been much trial and error, buying the "wrong" kit originally, a while ago, trying their ZHO offering - rubbish - and finally spending plenty of time making sure I set each AP up carefully in a surprisingly "hostile" environment. It was a ball ache and moderately expensive. The results now are great. But 99% of people would have stuck it on eBay and bought a modern mesh system for a lot less money and hassle and likely at least 80% of the benefit ).

Could I ask what you needed to do, please?

We’re coming to the end of having a rear extension and I’ve had a cat 6 put in and was planning to put a Unifi AP in there, linked back to router at the very front of the house. I was hoping that would just work.