Lots of questions about creating my own home LAN starting with this one

Grimroper

Established Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
109
Reaction score
12
Points
27
Location
Ilkeston
Hello

In the near future I'm going to start creating my own home Ethernet LAN. Ive been trawling through these forums for a while now and have a good idea of what I want and how to do it.

However ideas mean questions but, rather than ask them all in one go, I thought I would do it one at a time. The reason for this approach is firstly to avoid any confusion on my part, secondly to make sure Ive thought it out as much as practical before I starting drilling holes and buying stuff and finally I have plenty of other things to do before I can get to this.

So having said I want to create my own Ethernet LAN my first question is about wireless!!

My wireless router sits right next to my BT master socket. I replaced the BT socket faceplate a while back with an ADSLNation filtered faceplate so I don't have any of those nasty dangly filters. It has two connections, one for the phone line and the other is a dedicated ADSL RJ11 connection that goes to my router.

I want to move the router to the loft. My searching suggests that if I did that I could get a stronger wifi signal (The higher the better) BUT at the very least it would allow me to locate it more central to the rest of the house, rather than it being at the front and broadcasting across the street.

On the assumption that the above is correct (It is something I will test out using INSSIDER) that means I will need power and a phone line connection.

Ignoring the power, my current plan is this:-

1. Run an Ethernet cable down from the loft to the front room where it will be terminated with a rj45 wallplate (I will actually run more than one but for the purpose of this assume its one)
2. Plug my RJ11 modem cable into the RJ45 wallplate.
3. In the loft I will terminate the other end of the Ethernet cable to a Patch Panel (I will use this for other things that I will no doubt ask about later)
4. Plug one end of another RJ11 modem cable into the RJ45 port on the patch panel and plug the other end into my router
5. Pat myself on the back for being a clever boy as my wireless internet connection is re-established

Can anyone tell me if this would work, or see any problems with it?

Like I say this is the first of main questions, so thanks in advance for your replies and brace yourself for more to come!

Grim
 
I was once told by the engineers installing our walkie-talkie system that...

"Putting the antenna on the roof [high up] can cause more problems than it solves: Sure you increase the size of you footprint, but you are also able to 'hear' more interference from transmitters further away."

Dunno how relevant that is for wifi given how weak the wifi EIRP are.

I think you can get RJ11 sockets for modular faceplate systems to negate the need for an RJ11-RJ45 converters or jumper cables.
 
higher the better for antennas is correct if you want to go over 7 miles, as you have to take into account the curvature of the Earth ;)

in the avg home, "higher the better" usually means, stick it on a shelf in the office, rather than on the floor :smashin:

Unless you have the RF pattern diagram of the antenna you are using, you may be worse off going higher, as you may be in a dead spot for RF - the typical pattern off a 3dBi omni antenna on a consumer router is like a donut, with the centre of the donut being the antenna when verticle - this gives better coverage out to the sides and above/below no more than 1 storey usually

so I wouldnt put the router in the loft, unless you have a seperate omni antenna and a cable and are going to ceiling mount it in the main room you want coverage in
 
All

Thanks for your comments.

T74bogie/Mickevh I hear what you are saying about the router in the loft. Out of interest Im going to try it out any to see if it makes a difference.

With it being at the front of the house now wifi coverage at the back isnt great so I have a Range Extender to fill the gap.

My searching suggests that having a range extender means Ive already halved my maximum wireless speed because of something called "Backhaul" I cant say I completely understood why that would be - can any of you help with that?

So my plan was to try and remove the Range Extender from the equation and mount the router higher and more centrally, which for me means in the loft. Im thinking that this might ultimately give me better wifi cover, perhaps not as strong a signal overall but possibly a quicker one. Have I understood that correctly?
 
You don't need rj11 to rj45 to converters. rj11 fits rj45.

Wireless extender. Throughput is halved because the originator (router) has to send the information to the extender and deal with return from the extender.

I had my router in the bottom\center of my house and put it in the loft to increase coverage but it was worse. I put the router back to it's original position and place a large steel shelf under it. This effectively creates a reflective plane upwards.

You could put in an access point into the loft. So you have two Access Points. Set both with the same essid.
 
Throughput halving occurs if your repeater Access Point uses wifi to talk to the main access point. In wifi networks only one device can transmit at any time - they all have to take it in turns, (including all the client devices - the PC's etc.) like walkie-talkies.

So main AP broadcasts a packet destined for PC, AP2 recieves it, then waits for it's turn to transmit, then AP2 broadcasts and your PC recieves it. So each packet has had to be transmitted over the airwaves twice, hence it takes twice as long, hence throughput is halved.

If your secondary AP is cabled to the main router, then you don't do this bucket brigade transmission pattern.

If you put your AP in a loft space, and it has movable antennas you might get better coverage if you position the antennas to fire downwards (like this \___/) rather than out to the side for reasons mentioned previously.
 
Last edited:
Again, thank you both for your input. Very helpful.

Both my router (Which I realise is an AP point and a switch) and range extender have movable antennas.
I think will try out my original idea, pointing the antennas as suggested, and see what happens with the range extender off.

If that doesnt make a notable difference, or introduces more problems, then it seems to me that a better solution would be to put the range extender in the loft and connect that via ehternet to my router. If Ive understood this correctly that would give me both reasonable wifi coverage AND remove the backhauling?

If that is the case would this layout work? Leave the router where it is, connect it via ethernet to the wallplate in my front room which then goes up into the loft patch panel (say port one). If I then connect the range extender to port two on the patch panel would I need to connect both ports one and two to a switch for the router and extender to be connected?

For info, the patch panel is there because another part of my plan is to route HD tv other ethernet via Baluns. This would give me options on what I route and where for those things not requiring interent access (Im seeing a patch panel a bit like an old telephone exchange, like Rosemary the telephone operator used in Hong Kong Phooey)
 
Yep, of course it is (I even said so! Stupid boy!)

So just to confirm. Irrespective of how I do it, having an ethernet cable connecting the Range Extender to the Router removes the effect of backhaul?
 
Yep, of course it is (I even said so! Stupid boy!)

So just to confirm. Irrespective of how I do it, having an ethernet cable connecting the Range Extender to the Router removes the effect of backhaul?

:)

Yes as long as you use the extender as an Access Point which should be possible.

If you haven't already bought the extender then buy an Access Point instead...

Tenda Wireless-G Access Point - Ebuyer
 
Ekk! Isnt a Range Extender the same as an Access Point? (Forgive my lack of understanding!!)

My router is a Belkin F5D7633 and my Range Extender is a Belkin F5D7130. Having dug out the instructions I can see that I can configure it as either a:-

Range Extender
Access Point
Wireless Bridge

I followed the instructions to set it up as a Range Extender. Interestingly the instructions are exactly the same for setting it up as a wireless bridge so I have no idea what the difference is?

Luckily it seems that to set it up as an Access Point is quite simple, I just need to connect it to the router via Ethernet.
 
OK, now Ive a better grasp of access points can someone confirm my understanding of Patch Panels?

I think they are unpowered bits of kit that have no computerised intelligence, unlike a router or a switch.

Instead they are a simple way of connecting one cable to another with the ability to quickly alter what a cable is connected to, much like old fashioned telephone switchboards.

Is that correct?
 
Pretty much.

RJ45 UTP patch panels are basically a row of sockets in a single piece of plastic. You terminate the fixed cable runs onto the back of them (usually using an IDC "punch down" AKA Krone tool - no soldering required,) and the front side are the RJ45 sockets. They are unpowered and there's no electronics in them whatsoever.

Most comercial patch panels are designed to be mounted in standard 19 inch racks so the backs of them are completely open. Usually 24 sockets each. If you don't have a rack, you may be able to find some that are packaged as a "box." (hasten to add I've never looked, 'cos all my kit is in racks.)

If you've only got a few cable runs, it might be a bit OTT, especially is you don't have a rack. You can obtain 3 & 4 socket faceplates and backboxes.
 
Last edited:
When I finally get round to asking my questions about the wired part of my network then Im pretty sure Im going to have enough cables to warrant a small rack, hence the assumption that a patch panel is the way to go.

Until then I have another wireless question.

Would it be wrong to assume that if I upgraded my current router which is 54"G" version to a "N" that I would see any increase in wi-fi speed even though the rest of my kit remained on G?

Im thinking that as N provides a stronger signal in the first place my G stuff would benefit cos theres a more signal to make use of.

This feels kind of wrong and is highly unlikey I will do it, Im interested in knowing if anyone has any experience or thoughts on this?
 
An N router won't make any difference at all unless you also have N clients. When talking to a G client, N routers fall back to G mode.

By law, N routers aren't allowed to send any stronger signals than G.

Even if they could, wifi is a two way street - in order to work the client-to-router signals need to be just as strong as the router-to-client signals.

If you stand one side of a noisy bar and a mate stands the other, if you scream above the noise of the general din so your mate can hear, you cannot have any kind of conversation if he replies at normal volume and you can't hear him. Wifi is just the same.
 
Last edited:
mickevh, thats a brilliantly described answer, much appreciated, thank you.

This weekend I will be moving my router and range extender to various locations in the house to see what effect that has on my wirless coverage. Ive done a simple survey of wi-fi signal strength using inSSIDer in key rooms so I know what the current postitions give me.

Ideally Id like to lose the range extender completely but if it turns out I cant position the router somewhere else without effecting wi-fi coverage too much then I will use it but configure it as an Access Point instead.


The configurations under test will be:-
  • Just have the router mounted centrally in the loft
  • Have the router in the front room and the range extender in the rear of the loft (So they are at opposite ends of the house)
  • Have both at opposite ends in the loft
I dont know if anyone is interested but I will publish what I found out here.

Grim
 
Thought of another wireless connection. What should I do re the configuration of the router and range extender?

They are currently set to the same SSID and on the same Channel. Is that the accepted wisdom or should they be on a different channel/SSID? Or is it a case of what ever works best for me?
 
If they are cabled together, set each on a different channel from the set 1,6,11.

WPA2/CCMP is the best security on offer at present.

Thence you have a couple of options:

If you want to explicitly choose which AP you connect to, give them different SSID names.

If you want to be able to seamlessly "roam" from one AP to another, then set the same SSID name & passphrase on both.

Whether/when to "roam" from one AP to the other is a decision made by the client devices, not the AP's. Some clients will doggedly hang on to whatever AP they attach to first until they absolutely have to roam. Some clients will constantly hunt for the "best" AP and roam if they think they can get a better deal. Some clients will even refuse to roam at all. Some clients have a setting called "roaming aggressiveness" or something similar (in the NIC settings) which allows you a degree of control over how they behave.

The roaming process can take a second or two, so there's a tradoff between roaming agressively versus less agressive roaming.

Let's imagine you're sat halfway between the two AP's watching a streamed video. If you have you clients configured to roam agressively, they may be constantly changing from one AP to another and you'd get a momentary drop out in the video each time.

Converesly, if you want to run around the house surfing without having to disconnect/reconnect by hand each time you move out of range of an AP and into the other, then more agressive roaming might be preferably.

As the saying goes, the choice is yours.

BTW, make sure all DHCP server except the one in your "main" (internet connected) router are turned off. Chances are this is probably the case already, but it's worth checking.
 
Last edited:
So Saturday saw me spending a few hours moving both my router and range extender into the loft to see how it affected my coverage. (The router is currently in the front room at one at of the house, the range extender is in my conservatory right at the other)

Turns out I am sad enough to measure the length of my house and work out the best place to position both wireless points in an attempt to balance out the coverage.

I also connected the router and range extender together via Ethernet (according to Belkins instructions this makes it work as a Access Point rather than a range extender). Both have the same SSID but are on different channels. I used InSSIDer to work out the average strength of both wireless signals in different rooms before and after the move. This is what I found:-
  • The strength of both wireless signals in all rooms around the house was pretty much equal, presumably because of the better positioning of the kit. Before, that was not the case, one signal would be much stronger depending on where you were.
  • The average wireless strength had improved in 5 of the 7 rooms I checked. The front room and the conservatory were lower than previously but only very slightly. I'm not worried about this as these are two of the rooms I plan to run a wired connection to.
  • My loft has more cr*p in it that I remembered!!
Sadly I wasn't able to connect to the internet (didn't have a long enough wire to hand) otherwise I would have left it all up there for a while to see how it behaves, but it looks like this will be the arrangement I go (after I've tidied the loft!!)
 
Last edited:
Luckily I don't have a loft, so all my junk has to remain in plain view where it's easier to keep an eye on.

I am fully subscribed to "big pile theory" - if you keep everything in a big pile, you know it's got to be there somewhere, (whatever "it" is.)
 
I am fully subscribed to "big pile theory" - if you keep everything in a big pile, you know it's got to be there somewhere, (whatever "it" is.)

It does look like my "open the loft hatch, throw it up and shut the hatch before it comes back down on top of me" approach may have some draw backs after all!!
 
Now Ive deciced what my wireless network will look like, Ive started thinking about the wired part. I can see me having 2 ethernet points in each of my 3 bedrooms. Most likely 4 in the living room, 6 in the conservatory and 2 in the dinning room. So I will have 18 ethernet cables making their merry way up into my loft.

Some of these will be directly patched to each other via my patch panel (2 in the front room going to 2 in the conservatory) so I can pass HD TV via Baluns at some point in the future.

So I see myself terminating all the cables into a 24 port patch panel with some of those cables then connected to a switch and on to the internet via my router.

As I have to tidy up the loft before I do this, I dont want to start filling it up with new stuff without it being tidy so I think a small rack of some description would be quite nice and get rack mounted patch panels and switches.

I have a very handy, very sturdy, deep shelf to put all this on so think some kind of small wall mount unit sat on top of this shelf would do the job but am open to suggestions? I cant see myself putting much more than a switch and the patch panel in it but it would be nice to have some expansion for the future.

My digging around leaves me with some terminology that I dont understand. When they talk about 1U, 2U etc I guessing that refers to how many bits of kit it can hold? Does that mean that things like patch panels take up 1U each or does it depend on the size of them?
 
My digging around leaves me with some terminology that I dont understand. When they talk about 1U, 2U etc I guessing that refers to how many bits of kit it can hold? Does that mean that things like patch panels take up 1U each or does it depend on the size of them?
Correct, a "U" is basically a row in a rack. So a 10U rack has 10 rows for kit. The height of the components that can fit in racks are described in U's.

So a server could be 2U and the for cabling connections could be 1U.

off the top of my head, a "U" is about 2 inch.....

oops, its 1.75, lol..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_unit
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom