awkward network situation...wireless is a must!

[adam1701]

Picture shows floor layout of a house that I need to network wirelessly.



At point A is where my current wireless router is... its signal reaches to room B but doesnt reach the rest of my house. I want to put a device in room B which will enable me to have wireless throughout the rest of my house.

The device in A is a BT Home hub of some sort... would it be best replacing this with a different model? I really doubt any wireless router will manage from A to the entire of the house so its going to have to be 2 seperate routers.

Do I need to make a wireless bridge between the two routers?

I was thinking of getting one (or two) of these :
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/46057 <-- netgear wireless access point (range extender etc)

what is the difference between an access point and a router? seem to have very similar functions to me!

There is no possibility to put a cable from A to B.

Wireless wont be used for streaming HD or anything crazy, so 54mbps will be more than sufficient.

[Will404]

why not get a wireless n connection, or mimo, as these both have longer ranges, and would probably cover the whole house from A

[Funkstar]

Check to see if the Home Hub is 802.11g or 802.11n. If it's the former either replace it with a regular N class router, or ask BT if they can give you a new one.

[adam1701]

I've had a bad experience with BT routers in the past, are they any better now? wireless and general stability.

The walls in the main house are pretty thick, that's why I'm thinking that I need a seperate wireless router to completely reboost the signal (or whatever.

[scaryjim]

Hmmm, interesting.

Option 1: 2 compatible WAPs in bridging mode. You'll need to buy 2 WAPs from the same manufacturer, connect one (with an ethernet cable) to the Home Hub and put one in room B. You can then connect (wired intially) to the WAPs and set them up to operate as a bridge, but you can also make either both, or just one, act as an Access Point for the rest of the computers. The exact specifics of setting this up vary between WAPs, and since you'd be buying 2 WAPs it wouldn't be cheap.

Option 2: ICS from Room B. Buy 1 WAP and a small ethernet switch. Have an always on machine in Room B that connects to the home hub wirelessly, and to the ethernet switch wired. Attach the new WAP to the ethernet switch as well, then enable Internet Connection Sharing on the PC to share the wireless connection. The downside of this is that you'll need to leave a PC on 24/7 to route the traffic!

Option 3: find a way to run wires from A to some other place nearer the house, then site the home hub or a second WAP there. I know you said you can't run wires from A to B, but can you get wires near enough to the rest of the house to site a Home Hub / Router / WAP somewhere where it can cover more of the house? It's probably going to be the easiest option...

Option 4: Replace the Home Hub with something that can reach the rest of the house. Issues: the router you replace it with might not do the job any better!

Option 5: high gain antenna. if possible, you could replace the antenna on the Home Hub with something with a much higher gain in an attempt to penetrate through to the rest of the house. Don't know much about that though

Option 6: Get BT to move the incoming phone line to a more sensible place!

Option 7: Pay my extortionate consultancy rates and I'll come and do a site survey for you

As an aside: WAP vs Router. A router is a piece of equipment that connects 2 separate networks - generally an external one (like your ADSL link) and an internal one. It handles / mediates all communications between those networks, and often performs roles like DHCP and DNS server. A WAP connects wireless and wired devices, but allows them to operate as the same network, rather than separate ones. A wireless router (unless it's one you can plug a 3G dongle into) is actually a router *and* a WAP, that just happen to be stuck in the same box (at least, that the easiest way to think about it ).

[peterb]

If you really can't run cable, home plugs might be the solution - you would only need two to get the network from the router to its final destination, then use a hub to feed whatever machines you need. More reliable and simpler to implement.

[adam1701]

thanks for replies! Interesting reading tossing up the options I have.

Would it be an idea to put a homeplug in room A (with BT router connected directly to it) and a home plug in room B ... and connect an wireless access point to it..?

[peterb]

Well you could, but why? Better to use a hub at homeplug B and run wires from it if possible.

[Bugbait]

What peterb said. I've found homeplug connections to be far more stable and reliable than WiFi, especially in low signal strength or high interference areas. I used N WiFi for my HTPC at a stage and then replaced it with a 200M homeplug, 100% uptime since and no interruptions in streaming (newish copper in the house though).

[adam1701]

with the powerline network, is it possible to plug into any 2 sockets in the house? and a network will work?

PeterB - i've already explained that there is no possibility of running a cable.

[peterb]

Yes, provided the two sockets are on the same phase, which in a domestic situation will be the case.

I wasn't sure if the cable limitation was between floors (usually the difficult bit) or included rooms on the same floor (I can't see your diagram). But yes, you could use a wireless access point, but (depending on what you are doing) the performance is likely to be poorer than a cable connection. If you can staple wires to a skirting board or hide them under carpet, the results will be better.

[Funkstar]

Yes, provided the two sockets are on the same phase, which in a domestic situation will be the case.

Powerline ethernet definitely works better when both sockets are on the same ring main. If it is split in two, and involves crossing the fuse box/breaker then it may still work, but bandwidth will be reduced.

Do not put them on extension leads or multi way socket bars, they need to be plugged directly into the wall socket.

[mycarsavw]

Do not put them on extension leads or multi way socket bars, they need to be plugged directly into the wall socket.

Whilst I agree you shouldn't do this, if there's no alternative, you can and they will work.

I have two Linksys Powerline (A/V) kit from a beta test I did last year. The main one is plugged directly into the wall socket next to my router and the slave (if that's what they're called?) is plugged into a 4-gang bar serving a 360 and an 1st gen xbox running XBMC.

I lose, at most, 10% of the transfer speeds compared to having them both plugged directly into wall sockets but there's no other way I can do it without adding more wall sockets

[Funkstar]

I lose, at most, 10% of the transfer speeds compared to having them both plugged directly into wall sockets but there's no other way I can do it without adding more wall sockets

thats not bad actually. I've heard of units that have dramatic drops in performance if they are not plugged directly into the wall.

Of course, technology does improve over time...

[Anders]

I found that surge protected multi-ways caused the most significant drop in bandwidth and reliability on powerline devices.

We get terrible bandwidth on our powerline devices. I guess it's down to wires and fusebox. Does anyone know if the newer versions offering higher bandwidth might improve the situation, i.e. are they less (or I suspect more!) susceptible to crapola wire?

[gss03]

What about ditching the homehub for a decent bit of hardware that has enough wireless range to cover locations A and B?