getting wifi to the dead zones of a big house (2nd DSL Modem and router combo?)
peter
I know this is the most common query out here, but I've not quite
found the solution in my reading various posts. So, at the risk of
repetitive, I'll put my problem out there.
We live in an old four-story house with brick and plaster walls. the
DSL modem and wirelessRouter #1 are in the Rear end of the 2nd floor.
Wifi reception all along the front side of the house (floors 1-4 is
low at best, usually Zero.)
I am trying to figure out how to best extend the range to reach these
corners.
1. I can't really move the modem and Router#1.
2. Nor can I run ethernet to a point where I could set up a second
access point (if I am reading correctly, a second wireless AP MUST to
wired to the first router. if that is NOT correct, could someone
explain how to set up a standalone, unwired AP?)
3. I have several wifi routers and DSL modems.
4. there are telephone jacks all over the house.
So, Question (beyond the "how, given the wiring constraints, best to
set up another AP?"):
- can I plug a second DSL modem into one of the other telephone jacks
and attach another router to that modem and have a working second AP
that way??
many thanks
Peter
John Navas
wrote in
<748588df-174a-4350...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>We live in an old four-story house with brick and plaster walls. the
>DSL modem and wirelessRouter #1 are in the Rear end of the 2nd floor.
>Wifi reception all along the front side of the house (floors 1-4 is
>low at best, usually Zero.)
Not surprising -- plaster is bad for Wi-Fi because it's applied over a
wire mesh that blocks Wi-Fi.
>I am trying to figure out how to best extend the range to reach these
>corners.
>1. I can't really move the modem and Router#1.
>2. Nor can I run ethernet to a point where I could set up a second
>access point (if I am reading correctly, a second wireless AP MUST to
>wired to the first router. if that is NOT correct, could someone
>explain how to set up a standalone, unwired AP?)
You can set up a WDS wireless repeater, but at best it cuts speed in
half, can be a security issue, and can be problematic.
Better is a true wireless extender, wireless Ethernet client bridge back
to back with a wireless access point on a different non-overlapping
channel, but that's considerably more expensive.
>3. I have several wifi routers and DSL modems.
>4. there are telephone jacks all over the house.
>So, Question (beyond the "how, given the wiring constraints, best to
>set up another AP?"):
>- can I plug a second DSL modem into one of the other telephone jacks
>and attach another router to that modem and have a working second AP
>that way??
In a word, no -- only one DSL modem can be on a given DSL service.
Your best bet is probably powerline networking to a remote wireless
access point and/or directly to remote wired client computers. See
recent posts here where I listed a couple of the more affordable
powerline networking kits.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Stephen
>Hello.
>
>I know this is the most common query out here, but I've not quite
>found the solution in my reading various posts. So, at the risk of
>repetitive, I'll put my problem out there.
>
>We live in an old four-story house with brick and plaster walls. the
>DSL modem and wirelessRouter #1 are in the Rear end of the 2nd floor.
>Wifi reception all along the front side of the house (floors 1-4 is
>low at best, usually Zero.)
>
>I am trying to figure out how to best extend the range to reach these
>corners.
>
>1. I can't really move the modem and Router#1.
>2. Nor can I run ethernet to a point where I could set up a second
>access point (if I am reading correctly, a second wireless AP MUST to
>wired to the first router. if that is NOT correct, could someone
>explain how to set up a standalone, unwired AP?)
>3. I have several wifi routers and DSL modems.
>4. there are telephone jacks all over the house.
>
>So, Question (beyond the "how, given the wiring constraints, best to
>set up another AP?"):
try adding powerline APs?
this is the netgear UK flavour - pick one that works with your local
mains system.
http://www.netgear.co.uk/extra/wallplugged_range_extender_wgxb102.php
note this one is a kit with 1 unit to connect to your router and 1
remote AP - it sounds like you may want multiple APs.
>- can I plug a second DSL modem into one of the other telephone jacks
>and attach another router to that modem and have a working second AP
>that way??
>
>many thanks
>
>Peter
--
Regards
stephe...@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
Bill Kearney
> access point
Why not? Wire is cheap and the labor to do it isn't much more. You end up
with a reliable setup, not a hodge-podge of junk ready to die at the
slightest hiccough of the powerlines, or wifi interferences.
It's one thing when there's a long stretch of solid concrete between
locations, but for a typical residence wired really isn't all that difficult
to manage.
John Navas
<wkear...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<gaKdnRma-_868vPU...@speakeasy.net>:
Pulling proper Ethernet is usually a lot more expense and hassle than
powerline networking, which works quite well.
Peter Pan
Don't think you can have multiple DSL modems on the same account... we could
have had two cable modems, however not on the same account (we would have
had to pay double)
Rather than pay for a second account, we simply used a 2nd ap (different
ssid,DHCP server left on, powerline networking, 1st wap/router has one pn
device plugged into the router part and second into the router part (not the
wan) of the second wap/router... have full network and internet access on
the second - no idea why thats working snce the gurus here said it won't,
but i've been using it that way for about 2 years :)
as an aside, just ordered these, supposed to work like powerline but over
coax, and there's already coax throuought the house, got coax or power,
besides phone lines all over?....
http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/Coax.aspx
John Navas
<PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in
<IOKdnTvlH7j8FvPU...@earthlink.com>:
>Rather than pay for a second account, we simply used a 2nd ap (different
>ssid,DHCP server left on, powerline networking, 1st wap/router has one pn
>device plugged into the router part and second into the router part (not the
>wan) of the second wap/router... have full network and internet access on
>the second - no idea why thats working snce the gurus here said it won't,
>...
Nonsense.
do...@91.usenet.us.com
> We live in an old four-story house with brick and plaster walls. the
> DSL modem and wirelessRouter #1 are in the Rear end of the 2nd floor.
> Wifi reception all along the front side of the house (floors 1-4 is
> low at best, usually Zero.)
If you have some signal, a simple reflector might give you enough boost.
http://www.freeantennas.com EZ-12, printed on photo paper for thick stock,
with aluminum foil glued to the sail, provides a substantial boost in
signal. http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/EZ12-windsurfer.jpg
Make the tabs longer than the template drawing for easier assembly.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
Peter Pan
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:03:22 -0500, "Peter Pan"
> <PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in
> <IOKdnTvlH7j8FvPU...@earthlink.com>:
>
>> Rather than pay for a second account, we simply used a 2nd ap
>> (different ssid,DHCP server left on, powerline networking, 1st
>> wap/router has one pn device plugged into the router part and second
>> into the router part (not the wan) of the second wap/router... have
>> full network and internet access on the second - no idea why thats
>> working snce the gurus here said it won't, ...
>
> Nonsense.
see what I mean, i'm using it now, and posting from/via it... I suppose if
you can't read this he's right, but if you can, he's wrong..... :)
ps56k
>>Rather than pay for a second account, we simply used a 2nd ap (different
>>ssid,DHCP server left on, powerline networking, 1st wap/router has one pn
>>device plugged into the router part and second into the router part (not
>>the
>>wan) of the second wap/router... have full network and internet access on
>>the second - no idea why thats working snce the gurus here said it won't,
>>...
I just drew this out on paper...
When you are connected to the 1st WAP,
what's your IP address & Gateway address ?
When connected to the 2nd WAP,
what's your IP and GW ?
bod43
wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:03:22 -0500, "Peter Pan"
> > <IOKdnTvlH7j8FvPUnZ2dnUVZ_vudn...@earthlink.com>:
>
> >> Rather than pay for a second account, we simply used a 2nd ap
> >> (different ssid,DHCP server left on, powerline networking, 1st
> >> wap/router has one pn device plugged into the router part and second
> >> into the router part (not the wan) of the second wap/router... have
> >> full network and internet access on the second - no idea why thats
> >> working snce the gurus here said it won't, ...
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> see what I mean, i'm using it now, and posting from/via it... I suppose if
> you can't read this he's right, but if you can, he's wrong..... :)
I am sure that what was meant is that it is nonsense
that a "guru" said it would not work.
That is standard networking. As you can see
missunderstandings are easy in this medium:)
Just take care not to overlap your dhcp ranges
if you have 2 dhcp servers.
Peter Pan
no gateway used, starting ip address for #1 1.1 #2 1.10 dhcp range for #1
start at 1.100 for 40, and #2 start at 1.200 for 40 (probably could have
left it 50, but didn't want to mess with the range starting relative to zero
or 1, so i just made it 40)
i'm just guessing here, don't know how/why, just know it works, so dont care
why, but i suspect the router has 4 .'s and the wan is .0 and things that
want the internet just look for x.x.x.0, so maybe the gateway of the second
wap is defaulting to a .0... like I said, it works, thats my theory, don't
know if it's correct or just worked by blind luck, but using the router lan
port on the second ap (instead of the wan, which i tried and that didn't
work), seems to fit the theory and work...
ps56k
"Peter Pan" <PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in message
news:w7SdnRKEXvsLSPPU...@earthlink.com...
> ps56k wrote:
>>>> Rather than pay for a second account, we simply used a 2nd ap
>>>> (different ssid,DHCP server left on, powerline networking, 1st
>>>> wap/router has one pn device plugged into the router part and
>>>> second into the router part (not the
>>>> wan) of the second wap/router... have full network and internet
>>>> access on the second - no idea why thats working snce the gurus
>>>> here said it won't, ...
>>
>> I just drew this out on paper...
>>
>> When you are connected to the 1st WAP,
>> what's your IP address & Gateway address ?
>>
>> When connected to the 2nd WAP,
>> what's your IP and GW ?
>
> no gateway used, starting ip address for #1 1.1 #2 1.10 dhcp range for #1
> start at 1.100 for 40, and #2 start at 1.200 for 40 (probably could have
> left it 50, but didn't want to mess with the range starting relative to
> zero or 1, so i just made it 40)
>
on your laptop - display your network adapter settings...
ie - for XP -> Start -> Run -> CMD -> ipconfig
>ipconfig
Windows IP Configuration
Ethernet adapter Wireless Network Connection:
Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.151
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.2
DanS
news:pttsm49v4ct5ps1ar...@4ax.com:
> Pulling proper Ethernet is usually a lot more expense and hassle than
> powerline networking, which works quite well.
More expense ? Not when doing it yourself.
seaweedsl
1) think harder about why you assume that you can't run ethernet cable
to other rooms.
a) is there no attic that you can take the cable up into to cross
the house?
b) are you intimidated by the idea of drilling a hole through a
wall?
c) installing connectors on the ends of Cat 5e cable seems too
hard?
If one of the above, consider hiring a cable or network guy to run the
cables from your existing router to distant rooms and then put APs on
the cables.
2) Use powerline networking adapters and then put your AP on the ends
where they are needed.
Cheers,
Steve
dgates
I was in a situation similar to yours a couple weeks ago, and I did
solution #2. I spent about $125 on the two devices I needed, but
learned later that I could have spent only about $70.
If you want to read more than you'd ever want to know on what I did,
and also all the input I got from a couple of the resident experts in
this newsgroup, you can read here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/browse_thread/thread/2d50b27d38bae6d1?hl=en
If you want to save yourself some reading, you could skip the early
part of the thread, where I'm contemplating repeaters, then boosters,
then ethernet cabling, and finally settle on powerline adapters.
Maybe start reading around message 20 or 25 (out of the 49 in the
thread). Maybe start here instead:
Bill Kearney
"DanS" <t.h.i.s....@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
news:Xns9B947DBD35FE0th...@85.214.105.209...
>> Pulling proper Ethernet is usually a lot more expense and hassle than
>> powerline networking, which works quite well.
>
> More expense ? Not when doing it yourself.
Ineed, apparently Navas does nothing himself, except to offer bad advice to
others.
dgates
<wkear...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"DanS" <t.h.i.s....@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
>news:Xns9B947DBD35FE0th...@85.214.105.209...
>
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:pttsm49v4ct5ps1ar...@4ax.com:
>
>>> Pulling proper Ethernet is usually a lot more expense and hassle than
>>> powerline networking, which works quite well.
>>
>> More expense ? Not when doing it yourself.
>
>Ineed, apparently Navas does nothing himself, except to offer bad
>advice to others.
Wow, that seems like a pretty ad hominem attack to offer in the middle
of a thread that's basically just a few people giving advice to a guy
who wants wifi.
Here's my experience:
Spending $70 (or even $120) on two little plastic boxes that plug into
electrical sockets (one next to the router and one next to the access
point) was a very simple procedure that I did by myself in very little
time.
I think I'm a bit like "Joe Sixpack" here, in that I don't know how
else I would get proper ethernet cabling across the house without
paying a professional a lot more than $70 to come do it.
So, for me, there is absolutely no doubt that "pulling proper Ethernet
is... a lot more expense and hassle than powerline networking."
Especially, when posted as a reply to a guy whose initial question
included the lines:
"Nor can I run ethernet to a point where I could set up a second
access point" and "how, given the wiring constraints, best to set up
another AP?"
One might make the case that, in the long run, the original poster
might be glad he somehow found a way to run Ethernet cables, but that
still doesn't mean that Navas's original sentence is wrong.
Bill Kearney
> Wow, that seems like a pretty ad hominem attack
The shoe fits, he deserves it... and more.
DanS
Honestly though, only half is bad....1/4 of the time is spent trying to
understand the question, and the other 1/4 is spent posting and reposting
the same WPA is Not secure, or WEP, or whatever.
Bill Kearney
> understand the question, and the other 1/4 is spent posting and reposting
> the same WPA is Not secure, or WEP, or whatever.
Feh, not worth the hassle of trying to discover which. It's like the old
horse shit and ice cream argument. No matter how much ice cream you add
it'll never be palatable. But add even the tiniest bit of horse shit, same
thing. Navas is the horse shit.
Not Me
...or the orifice that exudes it.
John Navas
in <ekl1n4p0vb0pbmlkl...@4ax.com>:
>One might make the case that, in the long run, the original poster
>might be glad he somehow found a way to run Ethernet cables, but that
>still doesn't mean that Navas's original sentence is wrong.
Of course not. Thanks. Bill is just acting like a jerk (as usual).
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
John Navas
wrote in
<a4d92f29-dbcd-4917...@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com>:
Yep.
Bill Kearney
"Not Me" <Not...@Home.Base> wrote in message
news:AZmdnRDO5v-oge_U...@speakeasy.net...
Nah, that would be insulting.... to the horse!
dgates
I'll extricate myself from this thread after this post, but I just
wanted to post one more time since, when I needed help, John Navas
typed thousands of words, answering all of my questions over the
course of about a week, until I finally had my house networked the way
I needed.
Anyone rereading this thread will see that:
John Navas offered a concrete solution that will cost less than $100.
A few other users also offered suggestions.
Two users, "Bill Kearney" and "Not Me," chimed in, using an
(admittedly clever) insult about horse shit and ice cream to insult
the guy who offered the concrete advice. They offered no advice
themselves.
The original poster seems to be long gone, probably run for the hills.
Or maybe he just bought the $70 powerline device, got it working in an
hour, and forgot to come back and say thanks.
msg
<snip>
> I'll extricate myself from this thread after this post, but I just
> wanted to post one more time since, when I needed help, John Navas
> typed thousands of words, answering all of my questions over the
> course of about a week, until I finally had my house networked the way
> I needed.
Any chance that John or any other helpful soul has access to any Cisco
product with exposure to the 'Net who could help test a GRE tunnel
problem between Cisco and OpenBSD?
We need someone who can sniff packets on his end to see if there
are any anomalies with GRE encapsulation or fragmentation or anything
else that prevents Cisco routers from de-encapsulating GRE packets
from OpenBSD (no problem on this end, we see traffic on the tunnel
just fine).
Michael
Bill Kearney
Sure we did. Don't use powerline devices. They're overpriced crap.
seaweedsl
Much as I try to stay on topic, I have to chime in and agree on this.
I'm sure there's some history that the rest of us don't know about,
but if I could block posters in google groups, it would be the ones
who constantly disrupt threads to make ugly comments and carry on
personal vendettas, not John Navas who simply repeatedly posts a
thread about wireless security that is presumably for newcomers,
though i suppose it's seen as horn-blowing.
I can ignore that repeating thread, but this constant sniping within
the real help threads is noisy and making me want to switch to a
newsreader and start blocking Bill and other one or two others.
Bill has been helpful at times, but this sniping is annoying and
mostly out of form for this group.
seaweedsl
First time I used them, they worked like a charm. That house now has
three Netgear 103s and I'm their hero for getting internet working
throughout their house while over for Thanksgiving. Took about 2
hours after going to the store.
Since then, I bought a couple used/NOS ones for around $30 on Amazon
and Ebay and I've found they (Netgear 102 and 103) work in some
places and don't in others.
I understand that there are several Powerline standards which perform
differently and then some products/manufactures are going to be more
reliable than others, so it's hard to generalize, perhaps best to
investigate a particular standard and model.
I don't agree that they are crap. They are networking devices/systems
- like wireless - that facilitate networking- sometimes, in some
situations, and are problematic or useless in others.
Unlike wireless, they are typically very easy to setup - when they
work.
Steve
LR
>> Don't use powerline devices. They're overpriced crap.
>
> First time I used them, they worked like a charm. That house now has
> three Netgear 103s and I'm their hero for getting internet working
> throughout their house while over for Thanksgiving. Took about 2
> hours after going to the store.
As I said in a previous post "I was one of those who had XE103's which
overheated". This was an EU problem due to the 220v supply but ever
since then I don't like to recommend them to people who are going to
leave them switched on 24/7, mine took about 6 months to fail.
<http://www.netgear.co.uk/common/pdfs/XE103_Press_Release.pdf>
>
> Since then, I bought a couple used/NOS ones for around $30 on Amazon
> and Ebay and I've found they (Netgear 102 and 103) work in some
> places and don't in others.
>
> I understand that there are several Powerline standards which perform
> differently and then some products/manufactures are going to be more
> reliable than others, so it's hard to generalize, perhaps best to
> investigate a particular standard and model.
When IEEE 1901 is finally agreed and they also become interoperable they
will become more widely used.
>
> I don't agree that they are crap. They are networking devices/systems
> - like wireless - that facilitate networking- sometimes, in some
> situations, and are problematic or useless in others.
I agree they have their place and people do need to investigate their
suitability for whatever problem they are trying to overcome. I have yet
to be convinced over the distance they are supposed to work due to noise
generated on the lines and "attenuation" or noise generated going
through consumer units, the latter may just have been one off as I only
tried to get them working at one location where the signal had to go
through 2 consumer units, separated by 30 metres, to a garage and the
performance was unreliable. If you have any household items which
generate noise they can affect the signal e.g. electric drills and in my
case I had problems with 4 DECT chargers connected at the same time.
Some of the Homeplug units are not notch-filtered to prevent
interference with amateur radio so you again need to do your homework.
seaweedsl
>"I was one of those who had XE103's which
> overheated". This was an EU problem due to the 220v supply but ever
> since then I don't like to recommend them to people who are going to
> leave them switched on 24/7, mine took about 6 months to fail.
> <http://www.netgear.co.uk/common/pdfs/XE103_Press_Release.pdf>
>
>
Apart from whatever 220V issues the XE102s have, the wireless version
- The WGX102- is said to have overheating problems on 110v circuits
also.
I never recommend them for that reason, and only use mine occasionally
to extend networks when visiting friends and family. Personally,
I'm on the lookout for another brand that is better designed.
So, to back-pedal a bit, perhaps Bill's comment IS accurate when it
comes to these wireless versions (and others?)
Again, do the research (I critically study Amazon and Newegg reviews)
before choosing a model- but don't dismiss them out of hand.
Powerline networking is a solution for some people.
I'm interested in peoples experiences with the other brands. Anyone
used Belkin, Linksys, Trendnet, Zyxel?
steve
LR
<http://www.intellon.com/support/customers.php>
If you wish to browse through some of their white papers etc.
<http://www.intellon.com/support/documentation.php>
Peter Pan
> On Jan 18, 5:32 am, LR <l...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> "I was one of those who had XE103's which
>> overheated". This was an EU problem due to the 220v supply but ever
>> since then I don't like to recommend them to people who are going to
>> leave them switched on 24/7, mine took about 6 months to fail.
>> <http://www.netgear.co.uk/common/pdfs/XE103_Press_Release.pdf>
>>
>>
>
>
> Apart from whatever 220V issues the XE102s have, the wireless version
> - The WGX102- is said to have overheating problems on 110v circuits
> also.
>
> steve
did you forget to carry the one? (op was talking about 103's, you about
102's.... that's one off :)
Bill Kearney
"seaweedsl" <seawee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85a191bc-f9de-450f...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I'm sure there's some history that the rest of us don't know about
Yes. Welcome to usenet. Spare us your false piety.
seaweedsl
wrote:
>
> did you forget to carry the one? (op was talking about 103's, you about
> 102's.... that's one off :)
Good point. 103 is one system, 102 other, IIRC.
LR
>
> Again, do the research (I critically study Amazon and Newegg reviews)
> before choosing a model- but don't dismiss them out of hand.
I was having a read at dslrepots today and came across this:-
<http://www.thedailybackground.com/2009/01/16/exclusive-belkins-development-rep-is-hiring-people-to-write-fake-positive-amazon-reviews/>
Belkins response
<http://www.thedailybackground.com/2009/01/18/belkins-president-responds-to-the-daily-background-report-about-faked-product-reviews/>
<http://www.belkin.com/pressroom/letter.html>
seaweedsl
>
> You will find that a lot of the brands use the same Intellon chipsets.
> <http://www.intellon.com/support/customers.php>
> If you wish to browse through some of their white papers etc.
> <http://www.intellon.com/support/documentation.php>
Great info, thanks. The link showing clients for Intellon seems to
indicate that most brands are using the same chips and therefore will
perform similarly, but this can be misleading. For example, Netgear
XE103 uses Homeplug 1.0 Turbo, but their HDX101 uses the competing
DS-2 system which appears to have higher "clean-line" numbers, but
lower performance in the field than the HomePlug AV.
And then one can see that there is a huge difference between HomePlug
1.0, 1.0 Turbo and HomePlug AV. So it's still important to check each
series for each brand. Cutting to the bottom line, though, it
appears that HomePlug AV is the most robust. Linksys and Zyxel are
using this, Netgear and Buffalo is not.
By the way, here's an incredible value for HomePlug AV:
http://www.amazon.com/NBG-318S-Powerline-HomePlug-802-11g-Wireless/dp/B000VY72PQ
Just buy two of these suckers and forget the dedicated/specialized
devices.
I wonder if this is where routers are headed - Wireless/Powerline/
Router/Firewall/switch all rolled into one for $29
_____________________________________
Back to following up on your links,
The performance testing white paper by Intellon is interesting-
http://www.intellon.com/products/performance.php
Excerpts:
Devices that serve as noise impairments have greatest impact when they
are located close to the receiving PLC device.
When a device is suspected to be a serious noise impairment, simply
unplug it to see if the throughput improves. If
improvement is realized, move the offending device to another location
or plug it into an EMI suppressing power strip.
Noise cohabitation is a fact of life for PLC networks, but that does
not mean that PLC networking is not practical or viable.
What it does mean is that the best PLC technology must be identified
and carefully selected. Not all PLC technologies
are created equal and neither should all PLC technologies be judged by
the poor performance of some.
And then this:
1.5. The Coax Medium
Intellon’s HomePlug AV standard-based RD6000-ETH Ethernet Powerline
Adapter Reference Design offers hybrid media
capability for networking over powerline and coax. The coax medium is
referred to as a “clean line”, meaning there is very
little noise to serve as communication impairments. While the
performance of Intellon’s reference design is superior to
other PLC technologies over the more-noisy powerline medium, its
performance is improved still more over the quiet coax
medium. Where conveniently available, the coax medium may offer an
increase in throughput. A point to note here is
that the throughput rate (UDP) on a clean line is limited by the 100-
Mbps Ethernet interface rather than the HomePlug AV
technology.
So does this mean we can adapt these devices to use existing coax
installations as well?
Some more interesting links:
http://www.homeplug.org/about/faqs/
http://www.edn.com/blog/400000040/post/1520014152.html
seaweedsl
> On 18/01/2009 14:20, seaweedsl wrote:
>
>
>
> > Again, do the research (I critically study Amazon and Newegg reviews)
> > before choosing a model- but don't dismiss them out of hand.
>
> I was having a read at dslrepots today and came across this:-
> Belkins response
> <http://www.thedailybackground.com/2009/01/18/belkins-president-respon...>
> <http://www.belkin.com/pressroom/letter.html>
Wow. I had certainly seen this kind of thing on software reviews
(download.com) but now will take a more critical eye to the product
reviews also.
Of course most of us have seen Belkin's performance first hand. I
ignore their products by default.
LR
>
> The performance testing white paper by Intellon is interesting-
>
> http://www.intellon.com/products/performance.php
>
> Excerpts:
>
> Devices that serve as noise impairments have greatest impact when they
> are located close to the receiving PLC device.
> When a device is suspected to be a serious noise impairment, simply
> unplug it to see if the throughput improves. If
> improvement is realized, move the offending device to another location
> or plug it into an EMI suppressing power strip.
My problem here is the extra cost to the installation when having to
provide EMI suppression. I was used to business solutions for this and
products were expensive so did not consider this viable at the time. I
don't know what kind of prices are involved for home use in the US.
>
> Noise cohabitation is a fact of life for PLC networks, but that does
> not mean that PLC networking is not practical or viable.
> What it does mean is that the best PLC technology must be identified
> and carefully selected. Not all PLC technologies
> are created equal and neither should all PLC technologies be judged by
> the poor performance of some.
>
>
> And then this:
>
>
> 1.5. The Coax Medium
> Intellon’s HomePlug AV standard-based RD6000-ETH Ethernet Powerline
> Adapter Reference Design offers hybrid media
> capability for networking over powerline and coax. The coax medium is
> referred to as a “clean line”, meaning there is very
> little noise to serve as communication impairments. While the
> performance of Intellon’s reference design is superior to
> other PLC technologies over the more-noisy powerline medium, its
> performance is improved still more over the quiet coax
> medium. Where conveniently available, the coax medium may offer an
> increase in throughput. A point to note here is
> that the throughput rate (UDP) on a clean line is limited by the 100-
> Mbps Ethernet interface rather than the HomePlug AV
> technology.
>
>
> So does this mean we can adapt these devices to use existing coax
> installations as well?
H3C were supposed to be trialling the int6300 for EOC, Ethernet over
Coax, in 2008 but on quick check of their website I couldn't find any
reference to any of this.
Peter Pan
>>
>>
>> So does this mean we can adapt these devices to use existing coax
>> installations as well?
> H3C were supposed to be trialling the int6300 for EOC, Ethernet over
> Coax, in 2008 but on quick check of their website I couldn't find any
> reference to any of this.
have no clue what those acronyms mean, but netgear sells (ethernet over
coax) now (was pre-order, but some units are already shipping).
http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/Coax.aspx
have no clue why you would need trials, seems sort of silly, when there are
already consumer products out there.... is this a trial of some
newer/better/more expensive version of whats out there?
dlink has one too http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30452/52/
search for MOCA Coax-Ethernet Adapter you will get lots of hits...
LR
> LR wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So does this mean we can adapt these devices to use existing coax
>>> installations as well?
>> H3C were supposed to be trialling the int6300 for EOC, Ethernet over
>> Coax, in 2008 but on quick check of their website I couldn't find any
>> reference to any of this.
>
> have no clue what those acronyms mean, but netgear sells (ethernet over
> coax) now (was pre-order, but some units are already shipping).
>
> http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/Coax.aspx
> have no clue why you would need trials, seems sort of silly, when there are
> already consumer products out there.... is this a trial of some
> newer/better/more expensive version of whats out there?
H3C selected Intellon’s advanced INT6300 solution for these important
applications based on extensive lab and field tests. H3C’s field tests
demonstrated that Intellon’s EoC solution can reliably distribute data
over more than 500 meters of coax with multiple splitters along the way
without requiring the cable operator to change the existing cabling
within the MDU. The trials — involving thousands of residents to date —
are ongoing as H3C moves forward with plans to deliver this new service
to Chinese apartment dwellers in 2008.
<http://www.intellon.com/company/press/pressrelease.php?ReleaseID=170>
Peter Pan
> "Peter Pan" <PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in message
> news:w7SdnRKEXvsLSPPU...@earthlink.com...
>> ps56k wrote:
>>>>> Rather than pay for a second account, we simply used a 2nd ap
>>>>> (different ssid,DHCP server left on, powerline networking, 1st
>>>>> wap/router has one pn device plugged into the router part and
>>>>> second into the router part (not the
>>>>> wan) of the second wap/router... have full network and internet
>>>>> access on the second - no idea why thats working snce the gurus
>>>>> here said it won't, ...
>>>
>>>
>>> When you are connected to the 1st WAP,
>>> what's your IP address & Gateway address ?
>>>
>>> When connected to the 2nd WAP,
>>> what's your IP and GW ?
>>
>> no gateway used, starting ip address for #1 1.1 #2 1.10 dhcp range
>> for #1 start at 1.100 for 40, and #2 start at 1.200 for 40 (probably
>> could have left it 50, but didn't want to mess with the range
>> starting relative to zero or 1, so i just made it 40)
>>
> when connected to each WAP,
> on your laptop - display your network adapter settings...
> ie - for XP -> Start -> Run -> CMD -> ipconfig
>
>> ipconfig
>
> Windows IP Configuration
> Ethernet adapter Wireless Network Connection:
>
> Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
> IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.151
> Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
> Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.2
the default gateway address is 192.168.1.1 on 4 different laptops, 3 on
wireless, and one wired/powerline.....