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?
<arendtb@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125351782.085125.12620@g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> USE NETGEAR do not use linksys and why are you trying to set up 3
> routers one router can handle it all.
>
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 Donald wrote:
> 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?
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:24:16 GMT, Jim Donald <jim_donald@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>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.
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.
>If possible, which are the best routers to buy for this config?
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: http://www.netgear.com/products/details/FVS124G.php
Two 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.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:55:03 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:24:16 GMT, Jim Donald <jim_donald@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>You must be wealthy to afford all that connectivity.
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?
>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.
Interesting. I didn't know about this either.
>>If possible, which are the best routers to buy for this config?
>
>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.
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.
>
>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:
> http://www.netgear.com/products/details/FVS124G.php
>Two 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.
> Two 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
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.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:45:49 GMT, Jim Donald <jim_donald@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>1. 1 x ADSL on a Netgear DG834G plugged ino my telephone line
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.
>2. 1 x home cable
>3. 1 x business cable
Just cable modems? No routers?
>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'm still trying to figure out why you need all this bandwidth.
>I have 4 x AXIS IP cams to connect to the business
>cable service (cos it offers the fastest upload speed).
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.
>And I am
>rather keen to run WS-FTP Server on one of the networks.
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.
>There are
>also various other small WiFi devices that would benefit from wireless
>connectivity (IPAQs etc.).
Yeah, but an IPAQ doesn't need huge amounts of bandwidth.
>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?
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.
> 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
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.
> 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.
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.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:10:19 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:45:49 GMT, Jim Donald <jim_donald@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>1. 1 x ADSL on a Netgear DG834G plugged ino my telephone line
>
>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.
>
>>2. 1 x home cable
>>3. 1 x business cable
>
>Just cable modems? No routers?
>
>>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'm still trying to figure out why you need all this bandwidth.
>
>>I have 4 x AXIS IP cams to connect to the business
>>cable service (cos it offers the fastest upload speed).
>
>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.
>
>>And I am
>>rather keen to run WS-FTP Server on one of the networks.
>
>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.
>
>>There are
>>also various other small WiFi devices that would benefit from wireless
>>connectivity (IPAQs etc.).
>
>Yeah, but an IPAQ doesn't need huge amounts of bandwidth.
>
>>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?
>
>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.
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.
>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).
Of course I meant 'WPA' config - not 'WAP' (which is probably
something to do with mobile phones) ;-) Sorry.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:11:54 GMT, David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>> 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
>
>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?
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.
>There are plenty of UK ones that do which and obviously that
>would work much better if outgoing bandwidth is an issue.
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.
>> 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.
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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).
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.
>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.
> No. None that I know about. Of course, I can get ISDN bonded
> channels, but not DSL.
Interesting, that surprises me, some ISP's here will happily bond up to
8 DSL lines.
> 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.
Nope, nothing at all, just more effort and something else to have to
support/fix when it goes wrong. :)
3 Wireless routers in a single premises? 
Linear Mode
