|
revmoo posted:I'm pretty torn between getting something like this: Take a look at this HP Procurve switch as well. It has a great warranty, it's fanless and it's cheaper than the Cisco to boot. The_Franz fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Nov 9, 2012 |
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
Edit- TOTALLY DISREGARD
Not an Anthem fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
Once upon a time I installed DD-WRT on my router : it hosed up my router.  DD-WRT(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
 I bought an ASUS PCE-N15 because I didn't read into if there's anything special with N cards for desktops and it doesn't loving see 5ghz.There's some poor thread on ASUS' site here: http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?board_id=11&model=PCE-N15&id=20120522064407626&page=1&SLanguage=en-us Is this an antennae problem? The card is in a desktop across my apartment with a closet in a hall in between the two. What should I put in my desktop to get 5ghz/make the most of my new ASUS n66u Not an Anthem fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
I'm thinking about getting a N66U to replace 2 routers (one is being used as a wireless bridge, and the other is being used as an actual router) - is it possible to use it as a bridge on one band (in this case it'd be 5 GHz) and as a "normal" router on the other? I'm not terribly concerned with throughput since the majority of larger file transers I do are over ethernet, but the way I have it set up now doesn't really seem to have a noticeable impact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
I put Tomato onto my ASUS RT-N16 router and am using my old Netcomm nb6plus4w in bridge mode to act as a modem only. One thing I can't figure out is how to look at my modem sync stats through Tomato. Is this possible? Using the Netcomm previously as a modem/router, there was a stats page that showed my line attenuation and sync speeds etc. but I can't see anything similar on Tomato.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
Is it possible to connect to two wireless networks at once?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Is it possible to connect to two wireless networks at once? Not from a typical wireless device. You would need something like a pfsense router and connect it to two different networks, then connect to that router.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Is it possible to connect to two wireless networks at once? Just curious; why would you want to do this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
SamDabbers posted:Just curious; why would you want to do this? If one drops or slows the down, the other keeps going, maybe? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
I'm currently running a home network off of a Linksys E1000 wireless router. I've got great reception all over the house except in the upstairs bedroom opposite on the opposite side of the house from where I've got the computer set up, ~20 meters away. What would be the cheapest way of getting coverage to this room: buying a wireless repeater or upgrading my router? If so, do you have any particular models you'd recommend?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:If one drops or slows the down, the other keeps going, maybe? This is something that a pfsense box could be built to do. Internet access would alternative between the two connections and if one failed it would keep going using the working connection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:This is something that a pfsense box could be built to do. Internet access would alternative between the two connections and if one failed it would keep going using the working connection. That reminds me, is Clear/Clearwire considered a lovely ISP? My dad got into a two-year contract with them and doesn't want to pay the termination fees. Edit: I'm trying to figure out Comcast's obtuse pricing/plans. I just want internet (good enough for Gaming + Skype + Streaming), no phone/TV, so it seems like their "Performance" plan would be best, except for the fact that it won't tell me the price-per-month after six months are up. http://wwwb.comcast.com/internet-service.html Farecoal fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:That reminds me, is Clear/Clearwire considered a lovely ISP? My dad got into a two-year contract with them and doesn't want to pay the termination fees. My friend just moved to Brooklyn and the apartment she moved into has Clearwire and she hates it. I don't know why, exactly, but there's my anecdote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Getting 20 Mbit/s looks fine for what you want to do. I can do all of those on a 16 Mbit/s connection. Though I'm in the arse end of the internet unless Kim Dotcom builds another internet connection to New Zealand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:That reminds me, is Clear/Clearwire considered a lovely ISP? My dad got into a two-year contract with them and doesn't want to pay the termination fees. If you are near a tower and there's not a lot of subscribers then it should run okay. It's not great but works well enough. If the tower got oversold then you're hosed and will have perpetually horrible service and a two year contract. They get pretty piss-poor reports on their customer service in general. If you have another option, it's probably better to go with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
CuddleChunks posted:If you are near a tower and there's not a lot of subscribers then it should run okay. It's not great but works well enough. If the tower got oversold then you're hosed and will have perpetually horrible service and a two year contract. Don't know how close I am, but I live in an urban area so  Yeah I usually get 250 kb/s with the rare jump to 500 kb/s and the much more common fall to 10 kb/s or even 0 kb/s. Pretty sure they oversold. Devian666 posted:Getting 20 Mbit/s looks fine for what you want to do. I can do all of those on a 16 Mbit/s connection. Though I'm in the arse end of the internet unless Kim Dotcom builds another internet connection to New Zealand. I should have been a bit clearer, usually its 1-2 people streaming Netflix, 1-2 browsing the internet, and 1 person playing game online and Skyping. This is generally going on at the same time. Farecoal fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:I should have been a bit clearer, usually its 1-2 people streaming Netflix, 1-2 browsing the internet, and 1 person playing game online and Skyping. This is generally going on at the same time. According to wikipedia netflix streams between 2.6 and 3.8 Mbit/s per stream, browsing is whatever is available and gaming is often around 128 kbit/s. All of that plus skype should fit within 20 mbit/s. The other consideration is upstream speed which I believe for the package you're looking at you should get 1-2 mbit/s which should be fine. Any heavy downloading or torrenting would be likely to poo poo up the upstream connection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
I'm looking at upgrading my 5 year old router to a newer model to accommodate increased network usage. Are Buffalo routers, and in particular this model worth buying, or should I stick with the Asus RT-N16 that was pointed out in the thread's intro post?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
There have been a lot of complaints about Buffalo routers recently. The N16 is a better option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for the help everybody, just one more question. How would I find out the price for the Performance plan after the first 6 months are up? Edit: Nevermind. Thanks again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:That reminds me, is Clear/Clearwire considered a lovely ISP? My dad got into a two-year contract with them and doesn't want to pay the termination fees. They are a gigantically lovely ISP. They're owned by Sprint and get treated like a redheaded stepchild because the industry here in the US is abandoning WiMAX. I'm using them right now in Sunset Park; I have 32 neighbors (You can see how many people are competing for the signal thanks to a web page built into the hotspot, right down to their MAC addresses) and my throughput rarely makes it above 1.1 Mbps down, maybe at 3-5 am I might get that. And I had to build a special homebrew parabolic antenna made out of soup cans to put my now outdated hotspot in just to get my RSSI to -70db! Without it it's -80 to 85. And I'm only 3-4 blocks from the nearest tower! They supposedly stopped selling in my neighborhood via the website, but all the grimy little local Clear affiliates, some of whom are little more than a lucite box on top of a shopping cart, don't seem to have any qualms about selling dongles and hotspots right here in the hood though. Their dealers (actual storefronts that sell ONLY Clear equipment) are fantastically friendly right up until they sell you the contract; after that it's CLEAR out, get the gently caress out of my sight! Want to upgrade your hotspot? Here's what the dealer says: Call the 1-800 number to have them tell you you get no discount and have to pay full price for a new one! Want to get your hotspot repaired? Dealer says just call the 1-800 number to handle it. Why the hell do these dealers even exist? Clear dealers are like the exact opposite of Apple Stores, they refuse to do anything other than sell you a plan, even if you get defective equipment the dealer says call the 1-800 number. Their hotspots are custom made in Korea and run some kind of open source networking; they project a WiFi network that barely makes it six feet from the window without dropping at least a bar to my MacBook. Also, try to use more than one device at a time and watch speeds for both devices go into the basement. If their standard 4G hotspot is this bad, I shudder to think of what their home WiMax modems are like. Their only advantage IMHO is that they don't do a credit check on you. They're like a ghetto Verizon in that sense. Binary Badger fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:There have been a lot of complaints about Buffalo routers recently. The N16 is a better option. Thanks for the suggestion. I used a Buffalo router from 2006-2007 and I was quite content with it. Another question - If I don't want to mess around with Tomato would the Netgear WNDR3700-100NAS be a better choice? It still fits within my budget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
I used a 3700 for quite some time and the performance was really good with decent wireless strength. The only thing that was slow was using it as a nas. It never got over 2.5 MB/s read or write. However that's not surprising as that's a bit much for most routers. I only stopped using mine because I got a time capsule for faster transfer speeds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
Kind of weird question: I've got two separate networks in the house. Two DSL modems and two Time Capsules. What I'd like is for network A to be able to see the devices on network B and vice versa. I've got an iMac with an ethernet connection to network A and a WiFi connection to network B. How can I bridge these two networks together so the local traffic flows between the networks but the DHCP and internet isn't affected?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
timb posted:Kind of weird question: Can you enter static routes in the Time Capsules? Are the IP subnets different on each network? If yes to both, stick a router (pfSense/BSD/Linux/Mikrotik/etc) with two Ethernet interfaces in between them, and put static routes in each time capsule to point the other destination network at the router. You can probably enable routing on the Mac, though you may have to do it via command line, as you don't want NAT (making Internet Connection Sharing a poor choice).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
You can do static routes on time capsules. I have a set of static routes to virtual machines on my network, including a local dns cache.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Where do you have the option for static routes on your Time Capsule? Not seeing it in Airport Utility. The iMac is setup in-between the two networks: DSL A --> Time Capsule A --> Wired Ethernet --> iMac <-- Wi-Fi <-- Time Capsule B <-- DSL B DSL A is setup as 10.0.0.* DSL B is setup as 10.0.1.* I should be able to set up the Mac for static routes, yea? It's running 10.6 Snow Leopard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
You shouldn't need to add any explicit routes to the Mac. Just give it a static IP* on each network, and enable routing:code:Not having a Time Capsule, or any Apple base station, I can't help you with how to set up routes on them. On TC-A, the destination network would be 10.0.1.0/255.255.255.0 with the gateway address being the static IP for the Ethernet interface on the iMac. Same for TC-B, except the network would be 10.0.0.0 and the gateway would be that on the WiFi interface of the iMac. * When you set the static IPs, only enter a gateway address in the interface you want to use for internet access, and leave the other one blank, so the iMac uses the correct internet connection. SamDabbers fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Okay, got the Mac part set. Also, you don't need to worry about only setting one gateway. Whichever port is at the top of the list in System Preferences gets priority for WAN traffic. According to Google AirPorts don't have a static routing option. How did you do it Devian? Config file fuckery or what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
I actually set them up under advanced options in the iOS app. If I remember I'll check when I'm at home and see where the options are buried. I'm the sort of person that will go and use least  option and will avoid config files where possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
Please do check, I just took a look at the Advanced section of the iOS app and there's nothing I can see pertaining to static routing. Are you sure you're not thinking of port forwarding?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
Actually I might be as I have some ports mapped to virtual machines. Either way I'll see if there's an easy way to do what you want. e: gut feeling is I would probably solve this with hardware. Devian666 fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
I couldn't find anything suitable for static routing last night on my time capsule. A way to do this is to connect a router to the two networks and create the static routes between the networks/subnets. An example of doing this with dd-wrt. You could do this via your computer but that means it would need to be on for the subnets to talk to each other. The least effort configuration would be by repurposing an old router if you have one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
The iMac is connected to both networks and is on 24/7. (I use it as a file, print and VM server.) Anyone have tips for how to do this under Mac OS X 10.6?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
The first link shows how to add a start up item. The second is about how to use the route command. http://blog.irrashai.com/blog/2009/03/how-to-add-static-route-in-mac-os-x/ http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2012/04/route-examples/
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
Okay, the iMac isn't acting as a gateway to the internet. So, I'll still need to add the following entries to the iMac, right? (10.0.0.2 is the iMac's interface on Network 1 side, 10.0.1.2 is the interface on Network 2 side.) route add -net 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.0.0.2 route add -net 10.0.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.0.1.2 Now, will I have to add something to each computer as well? I should know this poo poo, but it's been over 10 years and I always did it via a router.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
As far as I recall once you've done that the two subnets should be able to talk to each other. Do it and test to see if the computers can discover everything on both subnets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to do, but if the iMac can already talk on both networks you don't need to add any routes. Connected routes are automatic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
He's try to get the devices on each subnet to talk to each other. The only physical link between them is his mac.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 01:27
|
|