|
On a simultaneous dual-band AP/router, both bands will operate independently of each other. You can set the same SSID on each and there are probably some vendor-specific implementations that can use both bands at the same time for the same data, but just assume it's simply one device hosting two networks. As for backwards compatibility, I have never seen an 802.11n 2.4GHz device that couldn't operate in b/g/n mode for compatibility with all 2.4GHz WiFi variants. There are a few 5GHz devices I've seen though that are n-only and do not support a/n mode, but I'm not entirely sure why. That said, you do lose performance when older devices are using a newer network. I don't recall the details though, so I can't say how bad it should be. To answer your question though, almost any simultaneous dual-band device should support b/g/n, g/n, or n-only on 2.4 and a/n or n-only on 5GHz. edit: Oh yea, the reason I came to this thread. My 802.11a AP decided to release the magic smoke a few weeks back, so I'm looking for a replacement. It seems a simultaneous dual-band device would be best, allowing me to cut back on my network devices (I have two 2.4GHz devices on at all times for G and N, plus a third that gets turned on when I need B with WEP for my Nintendo DS), but almost everything worth looking at has an internal antenna. As a radio geek, this will not do, I want proper replaceable external antennas. Are there any good devices that aren't gimped with non-replaceable antennas? I will not be using it for anything other than an AP, my router is a standalone pfSense box, so software and features are irrelevant as long as it's stable and performs well (though Open/DD/Tomato compatibility would be nice). Every 5GHz capable device in the OP is internal-only as far as I can tell. wolrah fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Nov 11, 2011 |
#
¿
Nov 11, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
If anyone is running the latest OpenWRT build (10.03.1) can you please install snmpd and see how fast the counters are updating? On my RouterStation Pro it's for some stupid reason only updating the counters every 15 seconds, so my real-time SNMP monitoring displays no longer give me an accurate set of bandwidth numbers but instead a series of spikes every 15 seconds that far exceed the capacity of my line. The OpenWRT forum has so far been completely useless on this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Nask26 posted:We picked up a new microwave last weekend and I just figured out that this thing is destroying my wireless network when its on. Does this sound normal? I'm running a single band n/g network. If we microwave something for over 4 or 5 minutes my laptop will disconnect from the network. I've never had this problem before. thanks If you have your AP set to "Auto" channel selection, the increased interference from using the microwave can cause it to decide to change channels, which will cause your wireless to disconnect. Or it could just be a noisy microwave and/or lovely wireless devices. The microwave at my parents' house used to be able to stomp all over my Netgear 802.11b AP back in '04, but I've never had any problems with a variety of WRT54G/GS/GLs or the similar WHR-G54s, nor the Netgear WNDR-series device that's currently handling my 802.11n.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Wheelchair Stunts posted:If someone owns their own cable modem, is there a way to modify/replace the firmware my ISP uploads to it with one that with both give me a connection and give me access to native features of the modem like SNMP? Maybe. Some modems are hacked to poo poo, most others are untouched. Mind you that most of these "debug" firmwares are intended for use in uncapping or spoofing a cable connection, so look in to the legalities in your jurisdiction, but as long as you're not using them to do things you shouldn't it's generally fine. It sounds like your modem is owned by you but sold by the cable company and has their tweaked firmware on it. First I'd see if there's any public info on the plain OEM firmware and if you can do anything with that, otherwise you'll probably have to start poking around darker areas of the internet to pursue it further. I know the Moto SB5100 was popular in that scene during the DOCSIS 2 days, maybe there's something comparable in the DOCSIS 3 world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Any thoughts on the Netgear "unmanaged plus" switches such as the GS105/108/116E as a way to add VLAN capability to my home network cheaply? I'm currently using plain gigabit desktop switches across the board and I'd like to add VLAN capability so I can better simulate some customer environments and to support a wired "guest network" that can't access my printer, DVR, etc. when I host LAN parties. I rent so the amount of wiring required to properly home-run everything and just get a single large central switch is impractical, making trunked VLANs the next best option. I'm also open to suggestions of other switch lines if there's a better choice for my needs. Absolute requirements Gigabit 802.1q VLANs Port statistics (errors, traffic) Features I'd pay a bit extra for SNMP port stats Useful CLI Features I'd like, but don't expect to find in my price range 802.1x LACP I know the Netgears only hit the first of these three sections, using a proprietary app for configuration and control, but they're a lot cheaper than any other VLAN-aware switches I've found in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:I have 2 GS108T's and I didn't know there was a proprietary app, I've always used the web interface. Configuration is a little buggy and slow but vlans and syslogging work fine, and the speeds are pretty good. The web ui has port statistics but I've not tried SNMP. LACP and 802.1x are supported but I haven't tried them either. Didn't realize the next level up was so close, yeah I see no reason to bother with the GS108E when the T is only a few bucks more. Pudgygiant posted:Anything that supports DD-WRT will do all of these, assuming you have another dedicated device you can send rflow to that can also potentially act as a server for 802.1x. You can even set up virtual SSIDs on those VLANs. DD-WRT is for routers, I'm asking about switches. I know some routers contain basic managed switches, but anything larger than five ports is rare. A Tomato-powered Netgear is actually one of my roommates' desktop switch right now so he probably won't bother to get anything new.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Ruby got Railed posted:Comcast recently replaced my old as poo poo modem with their current Arris model. Previously I had a Sonicwall tz215 hooked up, but the new Arris is not in bridged mode. In order to hook up the sonicwall again(primarily for VPN to my office) do i want to call comcast and havethem switch me to transparent bridged mode, or would I be able to put the sonicwall on the DMZ port and work that way? Bridge it. NAT is evil enough, double NAT is not something you should consider a valid choice but rather something to only tolerate if there is no other option.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Rexxed posted:No, just make sure they're on different channels so they don't slow each other down too much with interference. And make sure there's only one NAT when you're done. If one of the wireless routers in question is attached to the modem, that one should be the only one doing NAT or DHCP (if that's not on a standalone server). Any that aren't should be attached with a LAN port after having had DHCP disabled and their IP address set to something that won't conflict. The WAN or Internet port should be ignored, unless your device has a specific "bridge mode" that is intended for using it to do exactly this (some old Belkins had a physical switch). Etrips posted:Would I want to it to "N mode only" and use the 20mhz channel? N mode only means it won't fail down to B or G. This means a fringe device might have no connection rather than a barely usable B link, but it also means that device can't slow down everyone else on the network as it struggles to stay online. Yes you want 20 MHz. There are only three usable non-overlapping 20 MHz channels in 2.4GHz WiFi: 1, 6, and 11. If there are no other signals you have barely enough space for three APs to not interfere with each other. In 40 MHz mode the first one would take 2/3 of the spectrum, the second would overlap in the middle, and the third would have nowhere to go that didn't completely overlap one of the two.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
WAMPA_STOMPA posted:realtalk should i just get an ethernet cable? the wifi is ok, but i'm literally like 5 feet from the box so running a cable would not be a big issue. Whether it will solve your intermittent problems is impossible to know, Comcast is Comcast so it's not hard to believe your internet connection itself is sucking it up when performance goes down. That said, WiFi is best used for convenience (laptop on couch) or where there's absolutely no wired option. When you can wire you always should. There is never a disadvantage to wiring a desktop and the only disadvantage to wiring places laptops tend to sit is an extra cable to disconnect when you take it elsewhere. Since it's literally a matter of plugging in a patch cable you definitely should do it. kode54 posted:It has NAT-PMP, Apple's own thing. Not supported by as many things, though. I wonder how it compares to UPnP in the area of being a glaring security hole in any network... There's two sides to UPnP security issues. The first was that a lot of early UPnP implementations were terrible. Many listened on the WAN side by default, allowing anyone to open ports in to your network from the outside. There were also plenty of buffer overflows on both the client and device ends that could lead to code execution. This has been largely solved. NAT-PMP could have the same problems, but I'm not aware of any making a large splash like UPnP issues did. The second is that by design it is giving anything on your LAN access to open up any holes it wants in your firewall. Technically a lot of implementations allow you to limit what devices are allowed to use it and I think since it's HTTP-based there's room for authentication, but practically no one does the former and I've never even heard of the latter. NAT-PMP also has this "problem by design". Both trade convenience for security. If it's enabled anything malicious on your network can more easily open up incoming access. Whether you're actually concerned by this is your decision.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Yeah, don't do this. Don't get suckered into buying higher amplification transmitters without also having a client device with an equally ridiculous transmitter for the return trip. If you're just trying to get more range out of your laptop or phablet, you're not going to get any extra range out of the UAP-LR, and if anything you'll just clash with your neighbors' spectrum. You can't blast "through" somebody else's network. You can only try to drown them out, and all that does is decrease your maximum throughput because now you have a higher noise floor competing with somebody else's shared spectrum. Can confirm this first hand. I made the mistake of trying to cover a building with six of these. They reach out just fine and can usually pull in the signal from one device, but get a few users on one with a distant tablet and watch as the whole world comes crashing down. internet jerk posted:Anyone using one of these? Running one at home and have one out at a customer site. What would you like to know? The one at home handles a lot of VPNs and runs Snort on my 100/10 connection with no problem. edit: I guess to be clear I'm not running the pfSense branded one, but I'm running pfSense on the same underlying hardware (PC Engines APU1C) so it's literally the same other than the logo on the case. wolrah fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
internet jerk posted:Nothing specific, just what your experience has been. Work bought me one for my apartment. To play with. Yep. I like it. The only times I've ever maxed out the CPU have been when I put the reload_config script in to a death loop by having a really complicated failover scheme involving three real IPv4 connections and two tunneled IPv6s. It doesn't seem to handle that well if one of the real WANs is unreliable like my DSL is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Methanar posted:I've got some serious delay and packet loss going on within my own lan. That is really bad for a LAN of any kind. Never should two devices within the same building be more than a few milliseconds apart. I don't see any packet loss though. Anyways, to me high latency on a LAN says one of three things: 1. Something is overloading the network itself. As doing so continuously without knowing is pretty much impossible in a small LAN context, this would generally be either a loop in the network or something going wrong and spewing garbage. 2. Something is overloading the gateway. Either an overzealous torrent user or something similar. 3. Bad hardware. Fortunately in a small network there's an easy answer to all of these. Unplug things one at a time until it gets better. The thing unplugged then is the problem or will lead to the problem. Zeitgueist posted:Is there really anything that takes advantage of that kind of pipe at all? Time Warner offers 300mbs in my area and I can't imagine what would use that. Steam maybe? It has no trouble filling my 100mbit. Also having that kind of upload capacity would be really nice for the security conscious. You could VPN home whenever on an untrusted network and see no significant loss in performance for all but the most latency-sensitive applications. wolrah fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
phosdex posted:to get really nitpicky, consumer unmanaged switches are mostly the same. If you want to push lots of data across them you have to dig really hard to find throughput numbers. Low end switches may have gigabit compatible ports, but the throughput may not be. I don't think this is really an issue anymore. I remember back in '06 having to look for specific models when buying switches retail to get a non-blocking unit, but that's eight years ago. Now the cheap TP-Link switches I buy for home can handle all ports being maxed and technically support VLANs with a little hardware modification. Hed posted:If cost was not of any concern, would you rather have an ASA5500 series or one of those micro x86 units running pfSense? I'm a FiOS customer, primarily interested in upgrading the hardware to make for easier port forwarding / triggering configuration and the ability to VPN back into my network. I'm excited about the Cisco VPN setup (although OpenVPN is fine) but while the BSD box seems more versatile it also seems like I might be janitoring it without a good reason to. I could make VMs behind the device to do any jobs that needed doing as well. pfSense, no question. No real effort to operate and a PC Engines APU1C provides plenty of power to run the thing. Protip: Skip the SD card, use a mSATA SSD. It's only a few bucks more and a LOT faster. Plus you then get access to any plugins that require "normal" disk access instead of the ROM-like operation of the embedded build. Much faster than a 5505 too. If you were referring to the larger ASAs, well scale up the hardware equally. IIRC ASAs are also x86 boxes internally, I know you can run pfSense on a Watchguard, I wonder if anyone's booted it on an ASA? Jimmy Carter posted:Ruckus just launched a line of APs called Xclaim that's pretty much this, and trying to be AirPort for SoHo (management only through an iOS/Android app, not having high-end but extraneous features, etc.) That being said, product is still really new. A bug they just fixed a few days ago: That character list sure looks like they weren't sanitizing their inputs and there's an injection bug there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
The Third Man posted:Anyone run pfsense on the PCEngines APU.1C? I'm looking for a good project and I would like to install it as a home router/firewall/vpn. I have it at home on a 100/10 connection and I'm also supporting them commercially at a dozen customer sites with heavy VoIP usage. Great hardware. edit: Use a mSATA drive. gently caress SD cards. It's a few tens of dollars difference and it's a massive performance difference. The SD cards work, but holy crap are they slow in comparison. Installing packages on my SD model, even with a Samsung Evo series SD card, is slower than my first pfSense box that ran a Pentium II. The mSATA boxes are just instant. wolrah fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Do any of those el-cheapo managed switches from the OP support DHCP snooping or 802.1x? It doesn't look like it, but I just skimmed the Amazon specs and datasheets so I might have missed something. I want to dink around with those things on my home LAN. If not, what's the cheapest I can get in to those features on a gigabit switch? 8-16 ports is fine, fanless with external power bricks preferred.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
What's everyone with stupid fast home fiber doing hardware-wise these days? I've been using pfSense for years on a Netgate SG2440 which is fine for up to gigabit speeds, but now I've moved to a neighborhood which has AT&T's 2/2 and 5/5 service available. I got the 2/2 for now and probably won't upgrade any time soon, but for the sake of futureproofing I'd really like to build something that could at least handle a full 5/5 if I ever do choose to make the jump. Unfortunately that knocks out all of the cheap quad 2.5G Atom boxes that are everywhere on the internet. I have a strong preference for x86 hardware just due to the number of choices on the software side, but I'm open to anything if it makes sense. Is there any appliance-style hardware in this range worth looking at, or should I just pick up a few NICs and find some compact PC hardware to stick it in? Or maybe just stick it in my server and virtualize the whole thing?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I let AT&T's router do NAT, then use a Mikrotik router/switch (CRS326-24G-2S+IN) to give me more ports. If I had the option to ditch AT&T's router entirely I would do that and probably just let the Mikrotik box do NAT as well, but since it's required to authenticate the connection and will be drawing power anyway I might as well make it work. There's a Discord about it: https://discord.gg/EVbeZY5vq7 Here's the main details on the AT&T bypass. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13gucfDOf8X9ptkj5BOg12V0xcqqDZDnvROJpW5CIpJ4/edit?pli=1#heading=h.l4gd8awu81qf It requires a specific device from AT&T, a specific ONT, and support for some unusual VLAN configurations on the WAN port to make it work but people have them linked up to all the major open source router platforms plus Unifi successfully. That's actually one of the reasons I got the 2/2 to start instead of just going with 1/1 and using the equipment I have for now, lower tiers of service might not get the right device from AT&T. e.pilot posted:You could get quad port 10gbe card and shove that in a SFF whatever that has a pcie slot I have a pair of ConnectX3 dual port 40G cards around so slapping a pair of QSFP>SFP converters in one to use it as a 10G device is definitely on the table, though I would prefer something that can support multigig modes just in case the bypass stops working some day and I'm stuck falling back to having the ISP box in front. Intel X710-T4L looks perfect for my wants but isn't cheap.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
Back in college I built my first pfSense box out of an old PC to do exactly that. We had a 10/1 cable connection of our own and six 10BaseT resnet connections, so types of traffic that weren't throttled on resnet we set to route out those connections where games, P2P, and such would go out the cable. We set up those rules manually based on the ports they ran on and sometimes also which computer was doing it, so it was definitely not easy or automatic. Any router that supports multiple WAN connections should be able to do something like this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2023 23:12
|
|
|
unknown posted:IIRC, for unifi, they only channel scan on startup since they don't have a secondary radio. (or if you hit the scan button, but that shuts down normal usage for a minute). Maybe their higher end gear has the bonus radio for scanning though. The top end of the AC line UAP-AC-SHD and the big directional stadium model UWB-XG both have dedicated "security radios" that seem to basically be just a constantly scanning monitor for rogue APs and interference. The UAP-XG has two 5GHz radios so it should be able to run a 5GHz scan without interrupting both channels, but if it will still interrupt any clients that were using whatever radio gets tasked to scan. AFAIK at least some of the mesh models have a dedicated radio for uplink, but obviously in a normal deployment that'll be in use any time the device is active. I don't know whether the mesh uplink radio can be used for scanning in cases where the AP has a wired uplink. edit: It looks like current UAP Mesh products DO NOT have a dedicated uplink radio. Maybe I was thinking of the older UAP-Outdoor line, or maybe I'm just remembering wrong. M_Gargantua posted:Every unifi AP has had at least a 2x2 if not a 3x3 on every band for years now, sine the 2nd gen. The enterprise ones have 4x4s wolrah fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Apr 27, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:Is there any reason not to make my home network 10.0.0.0/8? As noted if you need to either VPN to other private networks networks or VPN to your home from other networks there is a greater chance for collisions that cause problems if you use any of the common ones but which one(s) you pick beyond that are up to you. e.pilot posted:So I changed it to 10.6.9.0/24 because I am a child.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
BonHair posted:I think this is the right place to ask for help with WiFi repeaters: I'm not a very technical guy, so I mostly just want to make sure I'm not buying something that is crap. I have a house where the fiber internet comes in from the street in the basement of the east side. Then I have a wireless router hooked up to it. But I'm getting bad enough signal that teams meetings get interrupted on the first floor in the west room and coverage is really bad in the garden to the west. It's not a huge garden, like 500m² and I'm okay with not reaching the very end of it. If you have an area that can't be covered reliably by a single access point the correct answer is an integrated multi-access point system. The best ones all use a wired link from the "network core" to the remote access points, but since it sounds like that wouldn't be an option the next best answer is a "mesh" system where the remote access points have a dedicated radio to uplink to the central one. You're still sharing that central AP's bandwidth but the remote relay can at least be uplinking and downlinking at the same time so for most normal non-gaming internet use it's as good as a single access point at the same distance would be. Antenna fuckery at the AP isn't usually going to get you much because the harder part of WiFi is the client devices. They usually don't even have external antennas and if they're mobile they're going to be pointing all sorts of directions, so while you might be able to get them to "hear" the AP better that's only half the battle for two-way communication.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
BonHair posted:The mesh option sounds most tempting, anything in particular I should look for? In general if it's sold as "tri-band" or "triple radio" and does NOT have WiFi 6E (6GHz) that means the third is a dedicated uplink on the 5GHz band. WiFi 6E capable devices presumably you'd want "quad band". quote:And can I use the existing router or do I go all in on some new setup? Some quick Googling seems to indicate that the Netgear Orbi setup Cyks suggests has the dedicated uplink radios (and also offers a 6E model with four radios if you want to spend) as well as supporting AP mode so that seems like it's worth investigating further.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 14:46
|
|
|
Every media converter with PoE source capabilities I've ever seen is expensive enough that you may as well just get the switch and have the extra ports unless you have a good reason to not want to have them available. Personally for a garage I'd probably step up just slightly to the TL-SG1210MPE that adds a very basic web UI for management, or if you're willing to play with the Omada controller system there's the TL-SG2210P. Basic management features are nice to have on a PoE switch if only for being able to remotely bounce a port to reboot whatever the attached thing is.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
El Jebus posted:Ok, so, I just pulled the trigger on 2 gig frontier fiber. I currently have a ERX. I know they are good up to about a gig, but is there something similar out there that can handle more? Frontier is sending me their amazon Eeyore or whatever, but I'd like to not have their equipment permanently. Also, I would have just gone with 1 gig but it was actually cheaper to go with the 2. Is that a marketing ploy to get me to use the stupid amazon thing? I can't imagine actually using the whole bandwidth anyways... Next step after this is figuring out switching, I currently have all gigabit gear aside from a pair of 40G NICs directly connected between my server and desktop. As far as I've found 40G and 2.5G/5G aren't possible to have on the same switch outside of big gear that costs more than my car so I'm debating between putting new copper interfaces in both (and if so whether to go multigig or full fat 10G) or just tossing QSFP->SFP+ adapters in the 40G cards and using them in 10G mode. Twerk from Home posted:You only get the benefits of 6 or 7 if all of the active clients have Wifi 6 or 7, which is unlikely in home environments. Internet of Things bullshit lasts a long time and people aren't going to go replace their smart lightbulb once a new wifi standard comes out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Wait, are they going to try and create a 200 AP mesh network? lol.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
I don't think I've noticed a meaningful difference in my day to day usage since somewhere in the 50-100mbit/sec range. Everything above that has been faster downloads and that's it. That said, when you go to watch a new movie and it turns out your totally legit DRM-free movie store had hardcoded Dutch subtitles for whatever stupid reason it's really nice to have gigabit+ speeds to fix that problem in the time it takes to make some popcorn. Or when you're hosting a LAN without a LANCache server set up and no one has the game installed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:The only viable ISP in my area is RCN/Astound. I already have them and it's not great. I just called them today and they finally have 1.2gbps in my area, which comes with 50mbps upload. I have the tech coming tomorrow to get it working. But 50mbps is not nearly as much as I would like. 1gb symmetric FIOS would be ideal but it just doesn't exist in my town. I am trying to support quite a few 12mbps plex transcodes. I was unsure if maybe I could buy a second account with the ISP and have two lines installed and somehow bridge them into one network. But that's way beyond me. Being capped at 50mbps sucks rear end. I am just looking to any and all options. At extremely short distances, with line of sight to the transmitter, the mmWave variety of 5G can move some big numbers. Think the microcells they install in major venues, dense urban environments, etc. The low-band version of 5G on the other hand is just 4G LTE with a few efficiency tweaks and performs almost the same as a high end LTE link. MarcusSA posted:If its 50ft why not just run a Cat 6 cable between them? I bet there are already wires you could zip tie one to. Beef Of Ages posted:Yeah, I dunno why you would need to bring fibre into this unless you want to for the novelty of it. Cat6 runs between everything would be cheaper and easier to set up, giving each cabin a wired network that could have a switch and/or AP attached. Also takes distance and interference entirely out of the equation while being entirely waterproof without having to deal with the goo, and it's future-proof. If there's line of sight directional wireless is also a viable option. More expensive hardware at each end and not as future-proof as fiber, but no trenching required.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
FreeBSD's WiFi support has never been great and that remains the case. AFAIK even supporting 802.11ac at all is still largely a work in progress. Don't hold your breath. If you want a FreeBSD based router your best bet is to pair it with some standalone wireless access points that are likely running Linux.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
The main issue with not having a true bridge mode is when the reason you want to bypass the ISP-provided nonsense is a lovely little NAT table like AT&T loves to configure on their garbage. DMZ mode still has you stuck behind a stupidly tiny state table.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:What is the user adverse consequence of a tiny state table? Is it just lack of addresses to assign? The lovely AT&T devices have an absolutely miniscule state table, around 8000 slots, which can not be adjusted. For comparison a random Netgate SG-1000 I have access to, an absolute garbage-tier device that barely manages to run pfSense, has its table set to 49,000 by default and it's easy to turn it up if you aren't using up RAM with other things. Once you run out the firewall can't keep track of any further connections and weird things happen, depending on the platform you either lose the ability to open new connections until old ones either time out or are closed or it FIFOs and starts dropping the oldest ones. It doesn't matter that much to someone doing normal web browsing things with a few computers, but a popular torrent can get the number up fast. Back when people used to say torrents "crashed their network" this was usually what had actually happened, a shitbox router ran out of firewall state tracking space. The more devices you have on your home network making connections around the internet the more likely it is to be a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 22:22
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:The other one was finding online game servers for CounterStrike or something. You would hit find server and it would reach out to like 500+ servers at once and overload the NAT table. quote:All I can say is AT&T is very intentional on what features it enables on the hardware it uses, and how everything is configured. They do all of it on purpose. edit: crap, meant to edit my last post rather than doublepost...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Y'all seem to be the right folks to ask - how feasible is it to somehow get my wifi network to somehow extend to the beach a block and a half a way somehow so I can WFH from the beach every day. That's the catch with any kind of long-range WiFi, it's a two way link where both directions are equally important. If you have a friendly neighbor that's beach adjacent it would be technically possible to use a point to point bridge to shoot a signal to their roof and then link that over to an outdoor AP with a sector antenna aimed in the right direction, but making it reliable and troubleshooting when it goes wrong are going to require an understanding of WiFi that it doesn't sound like you have. Unless you have some absurd data needs for your WFH or service is poo poo there I'd just use cellular. I've done a few "working vacations" where I set up on the beach with a battery bank in my backpack and just tether my laptop through my cell phone and it works great.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
fletcher posted:Wasn't there some poo poo you can do with a pringles can?? Like 20 years ago it was all the rage At that point you still have the problem of two way communication. Your phone doesn't have an external antenna port. Your laptop probably doesn't either (though it's a lot easier to add one than on a phone). It's easy to make them hear your access point, it's a lot harder to make your access point hear them. Three Olives posted:https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BPSGJN7T/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 If you really wanted to try a long range WiFi thing rigging a directional antenna to one of the radios in this and then using it in relay mode off a battery bank would probably be the easiest solution, then the laptop/phone/whatever just needs to talk to the travel AP and it then deals with the long range link.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
Taima posted:Can you instruct a Windows 11 pc to use two networking connections at once, and for different things? My home is networked with Wifi 6E, including my main desktop PC. If these different programs are connecting to different hosts you can play games with static routes where you tell the computer specifically "to reach this other LAN host use this connection" or "to reach this other internet host use this gateway over this connection" which is a pain to manage at scale but can be usable if your needs fit that model. If you really want to control it on a program by program basis that's going to be harder.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
It is also annoyingly common for apartment owners to have an exclusivity agreement with an ISP. IIRC there was some noise made about banning such agreements a few years ago but I don't believe it went anywhere because 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:I thought that passed but that might be just FCC rules and not laws, but either way it's kind of toothless because it's difficult to prove that the landlord stating "I just don't want more things run in the building right now, your internet has to be something compatible with what's already here" is part of a deal with a particular ISP tl;dr: Exclusivity agreements are not allowed but landlords are not required to allow new providers to install services. So if your building has POTS lines and cable TV there can't be any agreements where either provider is prevented from offering internet service but there's no obligation to let the new fiber service in.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
That Works posted:Any particular guidance or best practices for setting up VLANs with managed vs unmanaged switches? Long answer: What an unmanaged switch does with tagged frames varies. A lot of dumber switches will just pass it through and as long as the connected devices are configured appropriately it'll still generally work. Occasionally you might find an older switch that doesn't support jumbo frames and will have a problem with the extra four bytes for the VLAN header, but I haven't seen that happen since gigabit became standard. At the opposite end, a higher end unmanaged switch might actually have basic VLAN support in the chip but loading a fixed config from ROM rather than having a controller of some variety attached to offer a management interface. In that case it might actually drop all tagged traffic and only pass untagged, or it might pass everything, or anywhere in between.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
UniFi "Wireless Uplink" is effectively repeater mode so your absolute best case scenario is half bandwidth and double latency per hop away from the wired base. This also means that your wirelessly uplinked units have to be on the same channel as the one they're connecting to so any stations that can hear both will see any traffic on the other AP as interference. It's fine for a low utilization extension or temporary deployment, but if any of the wirelessly linked APs are expected to have significant actual use either wire them or get a proper mesh system with dedicated radios for uplink.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
UAP-AC-LR is an "AC1350" device with 3x3 MIMO on 2.4GHz and 2x2 on 5GHz (and yes that does seem backwards to me too but that's from the official specs) for a theoretical peak of 450mbit/sec on 2.4G and 867 on 5G. Those numbers assume 40 MHz channel width on 2.4 GHz which you almost never want to use, 80 MHz channel with on 5 GHz which you can't use if you have any devices older than 802.11ac. In the real world where 2.4GHz channels are 20 MHz wide that theoretical peak goes down to ~217mbit/sec and when you factor for 3x3 MIMO being rare it drops even further to 144mbit/sec with 2x2 or even 72 for clients without MIMO support. Likewise on the 5 GHz side dropping to standard 40 MHz channel widths brings the theoretical peak down to 400mbit/sec with 2x2 MIMO and 200 without. I'd be willing to bet that whatever device(s) you're testing with is/are connecting in this mode with 2x2 MIMO on a 40 MHz channel, but because WiFi is wireless on a shared spectrum with lots of potential interference the theoretical peak numbers have only the vaguest association with reality. In lab conditions when running with a wire in place of an antenna it might get close, but in the real world getting over half the theoretical link rate to a single client usually means you're doing pretty well. FWIW I have a UAP-AC-Pro sitting about 20 feet from me right now with line of sight, wired over a gigabit LAN to a 2 gigabit fiber connection. It has the same 2.4 GHz radio and upgrades the 5 GHz radio to support 3x3. My desktop gets 950ish megabits per second in both directions over a wired connection, my laptop (last Intel Macbook Air before M1) gets 250ish over the WiFi while showing a 400mbit/sec 2x2 link rate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Depending on what you're doing over the connection you may be interested in how and where each of those ISPs are connected to the parts of the internet that you care most about. If for example you have a a lot of systems you need to connect to hosted in datacenter X or cloud provider zone Y then one or the other ISP might be better connected to that and offer better performance and/or reliability to that specific route. If you're just looking at it as a general purpose internet connection then I'd consider the both providers' business class fiber services to be more or less equal if the offering is apples to apples.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2023 20:43
|
|