• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

How do I set up a large, seamless wifi network?

I mean I am already using ubiquiti with multiple access points but how did you know about my cooking content habits?
 
- I can connect any wired device to that eth port and it'll appear to the primary router as an ethernet device, instantly.
That is how bridge mode works, as I use it. Most USA residential internet providers do not require any credentials be entered into modem. Authentication is done at the hardware level.
 
Take your router
Buy a small switch
Buy 2+ access points
Connect access points to switch
this is what I have always read as well
 
Yall are wild.

If you walk into a bestbuy or a target or a walmart or w/e and a router says the word "Mesh" on it. In 99% of cases this is a device with the ability to pair with other devices to create wireless backhaul.

Dont do this. You just made an expensive repeater network and your latency increased like 900%

If you want to do this right:

Take your router
Buy a small switch
Buy 2+ access points
Connect access points to switch
Configure them using whatever terrible phone app they are using now

Congrats, you now have proper wifi that supports wifi ROAMING (IEEE 802.11r/k/v) it looks a lot like "mesh" on paper without the catastrophe.

No seperate networks
No seperate SSIDs
Wired backhaul to switch

You just walk from one room to another and seamlessly continue watching tiktok videos about recipes you will never actually try.


What equipment would I recommend?

Ubiquti
Aruba

simple, easy, works with your router.

mesh systems became a way for bad routers to sell more because of bad features.

Mesh seems cool because it’s the biggest thing they print on the box but all you have really managed is taken your shit Wi-Fi and made it more complex shit Wi-Fi.

Just don’t.

That makes more sense. But what if I want the switches to communicate wirelessly? What happens then? Is it just slower, or does it impose serious connectivity issues?
 
Describe wirelessly...
 
That makes more sense. But what if I want the switches to communicate wirelessly? What happens then? Is it just slower, or does it impose serious connectivity issues?
If you want full bandwidth it sounds like you are describing a point to point network bridge. Otherwise if you just want extend coverage you can do that with any pair of APs and a switches but that segment of the network would be sharing bandwidth with other wireless clients.

Pretty sure what I said above isn't going to be the case in most situations; most modern APs will be able to work as a bridge but when they are in bridge mode they won't accept connections with clients.
 
Last edited:
That makes more sense. But what if I want the switches to communicate wirelessly? What happens then? Is it just slower, or does it impose serious connectivity issues?

You put a switch with an AP in a barn
You put a switch with an AP in the house

you connect a PtP wireless backhaul to one switch
You connect a PtP wireless backhaul to the other switch

now point the dishes at each other

Your devices do not connect to this PtP system the frequencies are out of range and very powerful. They are used to connect two distant objects.

only the site that connects to the router via hardline gets full speed.

that’s physics
 
Maybe you have been to this site.

Go ahead geek the fuck out

Yeah its pretty cool The uni app for that is basically just a tiny version of it! If I were doing PtP I would pick ubiquti. its friendly to normal users even though the idea seems daunting.
 
dk what you mean by sideways but I can access any device connected to my network from any of my access points. Like I mentioned, this is how most businesses and campuses and other places that need a huge wireless network are setup. It’s not like mesh was around in the aughts.
ubiquiti etc arent average consumer harwdare, nor is DD-WRT.
When you install DD-WRT, those devices still give you an IP address - they run their own DHCP servers.


If you're running things through a WAN port, all the firewall rules of the router are active and block the two sides from direct communication. Running DD-WRT definitely opens up a lot more possibilities there, but also usually harms performance a lot (all the ones i tested had severely worse local file speed transfers on DD-WRT since they couldnt get the hardware acceleration features working on the chipsets. Fine for internet, terrible for local transfers)

…I can access all devices connected to my switch through any access point though? I think you’re forcing a distinction that doesn’t exist (although certainly can be configured into existence if one so chooses).
The default blocks them out. I've been clear that you need to change settings to make them accesible, which you either did yourself, or things like installing DD-WRT did it for you.
Again, that only works with specific hardware.

The only way this works the way you're claiming is that they dont have a DHCP server, which also means they cant be plugged into and setup or configured - they'd need to have a master device on the network to copy those settings from (which is how some unifi/ubiquiti/enterprise devices work, wired mesh effectively) - which requires compatible matching hardware. Not what the OP already owns.


In this setup, the un-numbered device would be the bridged modem of whatever type that is.
1675930310944.png

Then we have primary router 1, router/AP 2 and 3 with some clients each. Wavy line for wifi, but honestly thats irrelevant.
Traffic cant go sideways here - clients on router 3 are aware of router 3 as their destination for all traffic and it is only aware of it's WAN going router 1 - it cant go sideways to router 2 via any means.

In a normal setup with routers/APs, each of these would be running an ethernet cable to their WAN ports, and then runs their own DHCP server sending out their own IP ranges, in their own subnets completely seperate to the other routers.
Traffic can go up, it can never go down. It can go sideways in a LAN environment if all devices are on the same IP range and subnet, but thats not how routers and AP's work by default.

You can share a USB printer on router 1 and every single device can see it - but a wifi printer on router 3, only router 3's clients will have access to it.
If it was a wifi or wired device on router 1, the firewall rules of each router/AP and their DNS and subnet settings would all individually block access to that network.

Think of it like port forwarding, unless you've done port forwards for every single router on the network, they aint going anywhere

Go check your network setup, see the IP addresses your routers/AP's are on, and what ranges the clients are on. You'll either be going upstream with what you're doing, or you've got it configured so the DHCP servers are disabled and they're all on the one network. DD-WRT may have automted some of this if you ran it and used some of the setup wizards on those later routers, but consumer routers dont offer those options.

Hell my google router you cant disable or alter its DHCP settings, AT ALL. It automatically grabs the IP from it's WAN port adds +1 (192.168.1.) becomes 192.168.2.1) to it, and then refuses to work if it cant directly connect to googles DNS servers with zero hops in between.
 
ubiquiti etc arent average consumer harwdare, nor is DD-WRT.
When you install DD-WRT, those devices still give you an IP address - they run their own DHCP servers.
This keeps getting said and is a misconception. Unifi hardware is extremely easy to manage; it can scale to fairly large business installations but they make gear that is pretty much exclusively mean to go in home networks (Dream Machine).
If you're running things through a WAN port, all the firewall rules of the router are active and block the two sides from direct communication.
A network should only have one (acitve) WAN port and thats on the gateway.
 
A network should only have one (acitve) WAN port and thats on the gateway.
LOL my setup because I don't throwaway or recycle working routers when I replace them.
1675965681701.png
 
Last edited:
So, in my case, I was hoping my ISP could set me up with my nice gateway that I used previously, an Arris SBG8300. It had nice gigabit LAN, strong wifi, and all the options I needed. Sadly it wasn't compatible with them for whatever reason (nor any other gateway, only plain modems). So I picked up an old ASUS RT-N66R on eBay. I know for a fact it's a solid unit, as I used one for years before I left it behind somewhere. Not sure how good the reach on the wifi is, but it's got to be better than this $30 Linksys unit I have now.
 
So, in my case, I was hoping my ISP could set me up with my nice gateway that I used previously, an Arris SBG8300. It had nice gigabit LAN, strong wifi, and all the options I needed. Sadly it wasn't compatible with them for whatever reason (nor any other gateway, only plain modems). So I picked up an old ASUS RT-N66R on eBay. I know for a fact it's a solid unit, as I used one for years before I left it behind somewhere. Not sure how good the reach on the wifi is, but it's got to be better than this $30 Linksys unit I have now.
I still have a ASUS RT-N66R and it's always been a solid performer for me (not sure about the wireless portion though). I don't think it's getting any more firmware update last time I checked a few months ago which is sad. It will do nearly a 1Gb through the WAN side though which is one reason a keep it around in my Frankenstein network setup I previously posted here.
 
Looking back at the diagram, it seems like you are able to run a cable up to the 2nd floor? You might be able to turn the old linksys into an AP.

Are you gunna run a cord up there?

Edit, nvrmnd, it's only 100Mb
 
Last edited:
Looking back at the diagram, it seems like you are able to run a cable up to the 2nd floor? You might be able to turn the old linksys into an AP.

Are you gunna run a cord up there?

Edit, nvrmnd, it's only 100Mb
That might be ok for wireless streaming if the load isn't too high.
 
ubiquiti etc arent average consumer harwdare, nor is DD-WRT.
I’d debate that for a number of reasons, particularly as routers are often shipping with their own custom versions of dd/open-wrt oob, and given how affordable ubiquiti stuff is and the cute interface they provide that anyone could use.
When you install DD-WRT, those devices still give you an IP address - they run their own DHCP servers.
You just turn off the dhcp server, assign an ip, and point to the router as a gateway. Tada, now you have an access point.
If you're running things through a WAN port, all the firewall rules of the router are active and block the two sides from direct communication.
Why would you run anything from a wan port besides a modem?
Running DD-WRT definitely opens up a lot more possibilities there, but also usually harms performance a lot (all the ones i tested had severely worse local file speed transfers on DD-WRT since they couldnt get the hardware acceleration features working on the chipsets. Fine for internet, terrible for local transfers)
I think you were doing it wrong… I found better performance across linksys and ASUS devices, but this was more than a decade ago
The default blocks them out. I've been clear that you need to change settings to make them accesible, which you either did yourself, or things like installing DD-WRT did it for you.
I don’t even understand what you’re saying anymore. Access points don’t have wan ports and have very limited configuration options. You plug them in, tell them where the gateway is and the SSID/pw you’re using and blam, you have extended your WiFi. Like @Solaris17 mentioned this is usually done through some app.
Again, that only works with specific hardware.
An access point is an access point. I can plug in one from any manufacturer to my ubiqiiti router, much as I mixed and matched brands when I was using *wrt and tomato (which also work with one another). Back then, a lot of ASUS devices (and some linksys) didn’t need special firmware, either.
The only way this works the way you're claiming is that they dont have a DHCP server, which also means they cant be plugged into and setup or configured - they'd need to have a master device on the network to copy those settings from (which is how some unifi/ubiquiti/enterprise devices work, wired mesh effectively) - which requires compatible matching hardware. Not what the OP already owns.
That’s not even how ubiquiti stuff works. You have to configure either through your computer or an app. The same is true of the other configurations I mentioned.
In this setup, the un-numbered device would be the bridged modem of whatever type that is.
View attachment 283019
You mean the gateway/router?
Then we have primary router 1, router/AP 2 and 3 with some clients each. Wavy line for wifi, but honestly thats irrelevant.
If unnumbered device is a bridge than this doesn’t make any sense… 1, 2, and 3 should be connected to it with dhcp servers disabled.
Traffic cant go sideways here - clients on router 3 are aware of router 3 as their destination for all traffic and it is only aware of it's WAN going router 1 - it cant go sideways to router 2 via any means.
Yes they can’t communicate and none of them should be “routers” and no “wan” ports should be in use. Should be:
Unnamed: router
1,2,3 connected to router
1,2,3 disable dhcp and configure SSID
1,2,3 share subnet with unnamed and ip’s are all transparent (because we didn’t enable bridge mode)
Wow a network with “sideways” access

If you setup your previously mentioned network like this while jumping through hoops with subnets and nat traversal and so on then of course your lan speeds were bad
In a normal setup with routers/APs, each of these would be running an ethernet cable to their WAN ports, and then runs their own DHCP server sending out their own IP ranges, in their own subnets completely seperate to the other routers.
No no no
Traffic can go up, it can never go down. It can go sideways in a LAN environment if all devices are on the same IP range and subnet, but thats not how routers and AP's work by default.
Nooooo
Hell my google router you cant disable or alter its DHCP settings, AT ALL. It automatically grabs the IP from it's WAN port adds +1 (192.168.1.) becomes 192.168.2.1) to it, and then refuses to work if it cant directly connect to googles DNS servers with zero hops in between.
You do know wan and lan are different things, right?
Yes, your google provided “router” (it’s probably an modem router switch access point combo) is probably junk with features turned off making you have to jump through insane hoops to create a simple network, like all isp provided routers. Just yikes
 
And yet, you see my point here with 6 seperate networks
Indeed although my setup is by design and my central router supports additional configuration so I can access the NAS from any of the other PC's on the other routers. My wireless has enough coverage so I have simply two for segmenting more trusted vs less trusted devices. I read some smallnetbuilder article many years ago about building I think it was called "a poor mans vlan" so that is how I set it up since I tend to retain old hardware until I'm forced to get rid of it.

Why would you run anything from a wan port besides a modem?
If you intentionally want to create a segmented network for security, isolation, level of trust. Of course there are probably better ways to do it than my example but it was pretty cheap to setup over the years as I replaced my primary router every few years.
Yes they can’t communicate and none of them should be “routers” and no “wan” ports should be in use. Should be:
Unnamed: router
1,2,3 connected to router
1,2,3 disable dhcp and configure SSID
1,2,3 share subnet with unnamed and ip’s are all transparent (because we didn’t enable bridge mode)
Wow a network with “sideways” access
If you setup your previously mentioned network like this while jumping through hoops with subnets and nat traversal and so on then of course your lan speeds were bad
Not sure if any of these comments were directed per my example but yes I have sideways access from LAN A to B, C, and D but probably not every home router has the configuration options needed to enable that without explicit port forwarding. Also my speeds are pretty good actually despite all the hoopla.
 
Last edited:
If you intentionally want to create a segmented network for security, isolation, level of trust. Of course there are probably better ways to do it than my example but it was pretty cheap to setup over the years as I replaced my primary router every few years.

Not sure if any of these comments were directed per my example but yes I have sideways access from LAN A to B, C, and D but probably not every home router has the configuration options needed to enable that without explicit port forwarding. Also my speeds are pretty good actually despite all the hoopla.
I was talking about mussels example, which is explicitly avoiding segmented networks, but whatever works for you! Personally a little over the top for me but not sure what you’re trying to build
 
I was talking about mussels example, which is explicitly avoiding segmented networks, but whatever works for you! Personally a little over the top for me but not sure what you’re trying to build
I thought maybe the quote failed to embed, but I see now following the reply chain. And yes probably totally over the top but I have trust issues with some PC's on my network. Perhaps getting hit with almost 10 thousand hits to my router weekly from two cities in a particular Country is making me a little paranoid. :kookoo:
 
T
If unnumbered device is a bridge than this doesn’t make any sense… 1, 2, and 3 should be connected to it with dhcp servers disabled.
This is exactly what i've been saying from the start - except that users own image shows that he did NOT do that, and it's not the default setup for the devices.
This convo got really cluttered about confusion with device names and what they do, just because some places setup AP's without DHCP enabled doesnt mean it's how they arrive out of the box.


Bridged modem (or modem-router combo) -> all other router devices with DHCP disabled, LAN to LAN
Those secondary router(s) just need to have everything configured with a static IP outside the primary routers DHCP range so you can still login to them and adjust wifi settings if need be

And repeating that again while this gets them on the same network, it's not mesh - the wifi routers/AP's can not directly communicate or pass clients to each other, and no wifi backhaul is available.
It's certainly the cheapest method available if you already have a spare router and eth cabling close enough for its wifi to reach the destination.

I love mesh devices with Eth out, because you can run non-wifi devices happily off them. My smart TV gets about 15Mb off its wifi AC for some stupid reason, but can do 800Mb over eth - about 600Mb/s over the wifi backhaul
 
Last edited:
This is exactly what i've been saying from the start - except that users own image shows that he did NOT do that, and it's not the default setup for the devices.
This convo got really cluttered about confusion with device names and what they do,
Maybe this is so — I just took your example I’m the abstract since I don’t know whose example you’re referring to.
just because some places setup AP's without DHCP enabled doesnt mean it's how they arrive out of the box.
This is simply untrue. AP’s don’t have routers in them.
Bridged modem (or modem-router combo) -> all other router devices with DHCP disabled, LAN to LAN
Those secondary router(s) just need to have everything configured with a static IP outside the primary routers DHCP range so you can still login to them and adjust wifi settings if need be
Not in my experience
And repeating that again while this gets them on the same network, it's not mesh - the wifi routers/AP's can not directly communicate or pass clients to each other, and no wifi backhaul is available.
If you set it up like above, yes, but like I said — maybe you’re doing it wrong? I know the example setup I give works, whether you’re using dedicated AP’s or modified firmware on some router/AP/switch combo. I’d appreciate if you could demonstrate how it’s incorrect, but for some reason you choose not to and just tell me it is. Even dd-wrt’s documentation says as much. I think you’re just making things needlessly complex based on experiences with bad software, but I apologize if that’s an assumption.

It’s frustrating that I’ve been setting things up this way for two decades without the problems you claim and you continue to tell me that my setup is not working as intended, or that all of the universities and business campuses setup by certified networking professionals that use this setup are broken. I don’t know how to demonstrate any further.
I love mesh devices with Eth out, because you can run non-wifi devices happily off them. My smart TV gets about 15Mb off its wifi AC for some stupid reason, but can do 800Mb over eth - about 600Mb/s over the wifi backhaul
That’s awesome, I am glad it’s working out for you.
 
Back
Top