Kitz Forum
Computers & Hardware => Networking => Topic started by: Weaver on September 22, 2019, 10:02:49 AM
-
I’m intending to extend wireless LAN coverage from the house into the garden to Janet’s summerhouse, a wooden hut with a metal roof and a big glass east-facing window. It’s probably about 30 m away from the house to the south east and the nearest rooms at the southeast corner are the main tv lounge/snug and upstairs former office, which is now Janet’s dressing room/woman-cave (as in man-cave). The metal roof of the summerhouse might be a big problem. I’m wondering about how best to implement this.
Tthinking of putting a WAP in the office window upstairs but that will be looking down on the metal roof, which could be a disaster. Yes, I can soon test this. Another alternative would be to have a WAP downstairs at the nearest corner, in the bay window below. This would be looking through a hedge and through the wooden thin walls of the summerhouse. Also there would be the extreme nuisance of getting the ethernet cable downstairs through the ceiling. Any thoughts?
Should I use precious 2.4GHz space for this? I’m already using 40MHz worth - channels 1 and 6 which only leaves me one third free, unless I go for a four-channel layout 1/5/9/13. What about propagation, 2.4 GHz carries better no?
Some years back, I used to run a 5GHz link to a hut which was to the north of the house and that was rather a lot further away than this, but that was clear line of sight from window to window, using non-directional TP-Link WAPs. It’s surprising how well even 5GHz carries; can get a long way even without a directional antenna especially if you have clear line of sight.
Alternatively with a lot of hassle I suppose I could run ethernet out to the summer house which would of course give superb performance. But how to get ethernet out of the house ? Any advice ? Is that even feasible ?
Iirc some years back I was asking about running ethernet and how to get it out of the house to a large shed. That project has now been dropped due to changes in use and increasing illness.
-
running ethernet would certainly be the best solution.
does the house have any air bricks? those are often a good source of access. or existing entry points to telephone/satellite etc that can be expanded slightly to fit an ethernet cable.
an alternate solution, if you had access to do so, would be a WIFI point-to-point link (something like https://www.broadbandbuyer.com/store/wifi-links/wifi-point-to-point-links/?t=451)
-
I use something like this
https://www.broadbandbuyer.com/products/25248-solwise-ant-ant24-5onpg/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkdnk6qLl5AIVDPlRCh3bugviEAQYDCABEgIVb_D_BwE
Mounted on pole 3 mt above the one of the gable end walls.
Good coverage all over my large garden (and beyond).
-
Personally I’d avoid any WiFi solution in the interests of energy efficiency. I’ve never really thought about the resilience of cheap Cat 5 laid outdoors. But even if special shielded cables were needed, they don’t look all that expensive, compared to the up-front equipment costs and ongoing energy costs of WiFi.
I’m probably beginning to sound like a ‘climate change’ campaigner. Don’t worry, I’m not. I think for example the school children recently masquerading as climate science experts should be appropriately punished for their misguided truancy. And I think the teachers, parents and media who misguide them for political gain should perhaps be investigated for a form of child exploitation.
But on a purely scientific basis imho, wasted energy, where it can be avoided, is generally a bad thing. :)
-
I have to have wireless LAN because the hosts are wireless only - iPads and iPhones.
That’s a good point about Wi-Fi link instead of a wireless one. I used to do such before - had a line of sight link between two 5GHz WAPs and then another WAP in another building. I forgot about that, but indeed I could do so, I’d just have to get two more WAPs. Saves a lot of hassle.
I used TP-Link 5GHz WAPs for point-to-point links before and they were great. Totally solid.
@7LM I shall go off and buy some renewable energy then to supply this. I could do with some solar panels and some wind generation, if I had the cash to spare. The existing wireless LAN equipment in the house is zero usage anyway most of the time, since I need heating in the house, and it reduces my heating bill. It’s so cold and windy up here, being so exposed, that we need heating nine months of the year. Had fires lit last month.
I have lots of long cat7a double shielded cable already I stock in fact. I was intending to run it inside poly pipe for protection.
@chenks There is ingress for satellite, through a solid poured concrete wall, but it’s into the wrong floor. The walls are immensely thick stone or else poured concrete. The stone varies between four and six feet thick, so thick that a chimney and inglenook fireplace is set in in the Gabor end walls without a protruding chimney breast, just in the full thickness of the wall. The poured concrete bay windows are the thinnest point.
Actually, I’m just thinking: the phone lines get into the upstairs office a perfect entry point, using the flashing by the edge of the roof. I think the roofline there would be the way. It has suddenly come to me.
-
Happy to agree that you have thought through the energy implications, Weaver. My reasoning was based, to some extent, on the assumption that a summer house would not benefit from surplus heat. But I accept that part of the equation would be marginal.
For what it’s worth, I have been keeping an eye on my own bills over the past 5-10 years, during the transition to led light bulbs. As you and I might expect, but many may not understand, my gas central heating consumption has risen by about the same amount as my electricity consumption has dropped. ???
In my defence, that won’t stop me looking for genuine opportunities to reduce energy usage. :)
-
I have had been placing coax cables and things in garden hose pipe for years. I have so far not had any problems with the cables underground over the years.
I would not suggest to anyone to use this method for mains cable...........
-
Genius!
-
I'd be veering to something like an Ubiquiti outdoor Access Point personally.
I did use two identical routers running OpenWRT for years, until everyone jumped on WiFi and now the interference is too much for a stable link, then I switched to a proper PtP link with Ubiquiti gear.
-
Weaver is in a nice position from what I remember him saying. His next door neighbours in the next field, the sheep, don't use WiFi as far I know......
-
A new house is going up nearer to me, built by my neighbour. So there’s more danger of wifi interference in both directions. The massive stone gable end (something like six foot thick double stone wall) is facing toward the new house, to the south, but still some distance away. No windows in that face of our house but there are two windows in the small western extension to the house which face south so they will be an RF leak.
-
Well Weaver, living my road there is a lot of WiFi 2.4Ghz congestion, but selecting the lower speed WiFi option allows me to find a channel that nobody here tends to use. I am not going to specify that channel here, but it does not take too much working out............. But obviously 5Ghz WiFi is normally the way to go, But of course you have your stone walls. But a 2.4 to 5Ghz repeater put in a window in the required direction, if possible, may be an option. Working split frequencies also tends not to cut the the speed through it, I have found.
-
I used to use a pair of TP-Link 5GHz non-directional WAPs as a bridge from the house to an outside building; working out of the landing window, it was line of sight over I don’t know 100m maybe a bit less but anyway the far end of the bridge was a WAP set up in ‘client mode’ so it just bridged everything onto its wired ethernet side. This TP-Link WAP, in a window too, looking at the house, was connected wirefully to yet another WAP in the centre of the outside building. This third WAP, which was a ZyXEL NWA-3560, gave central full coverage in 2.4 + 5GHz. So three WAPs. The building-to-building bridge would have been much better with directional antennae but it worked fine even with low signal levels.
-
Weaver is in a nice position from what I remember him saying. His next door neighbours in the next field, the sheep, don't use WiFi as far I know......
Its not just interference though, that is just what made it somewhat unusable, combined with the trees in the way. The fact of the matter was, the signal having to pass through wall/glass dramatically decreased the signal to begin with, using an external antenna only helped due to being more directional, as you lose a LOT of the signal in the coaxial cable. An external unit avoids both these pitfalls.
Wifi doesn't actually go through glass very well, not to mention you don't want electrical appliances in direct sunlight unless they are designed for it.
That said, using OpenWRT and an external Yagi antenna, I did push my WiFi to 140m into the nearby park, but that was with perfect line-of-sight. ;)
-
I confess that I was amazed at the RF losses through glass. During winter time a few years ago I bought a Sky satellite receiver and dish that was on offer. I got it home in the dark, so I decided to try it out in my home. All connected up and aimed out through the closed window. I could JUST about get a signal. The next day in the freezing cold in the garden, I set it up. This resulted in perfect reception. Obviously satellite signals in this country are in the 10Ghz range not 5Ghz. But it surprised me the loss though glass. I think I read that glass contains lead.
Incidentally, my own WiFi signal I have found is usable 150 yards down the road, at the 2.4Ghz frequency. This is in a normal street. I don't know what the actual thoughput was though, as I was only making VOIP call on the mobile/VOIP phone I had at the time. If I look at the wireless networks that I can see on my computer, there are 12 full or nearly full strength WiFi networks here. So Weaver's worry about WiFi congestion from his new neighbour are hopefully groundless.
-
Like DSL, a WiFi SSID existing is not a good measure of crosstalk, as you have no idea how much its actually being utilised.
As 5Ghz uptake has increased, my 2.4Ghz performance has started to increase again. Once WiFi 6 becomes popular it should get even better, as even if that might move people back onto 2.4Ghz, they will hopefully be on TDMA so FINALLY the different networks have to give each other a fair time slot, no more crosstalk (in theory).
I've been using WiFi since 802.11b, long before anyone else on the street had it. Even WITH tons of crosstalk, WiFi 5 works better than 802.11b ever did. Though I'm finding 802.11g still works quite well, I broadcast one off pfSense for my IoT devices that only need Internet access not LAN .
-
Withe 802.11n you can have an ordered CTS/RTS type system where stations ask for permission to speak, so no collisions. This is optional and is the way to go if you have a hidden station problem because of the locations of your stations. More overhead, but after subtracting the overhead you get 100% efficiency as opposed to about 60% max if with collisions and heavy load, iirc.
That’s vaguely like token ring and TDMA in that all are organised, in one way or another.
-
Having read the following posts Weaver, I assume that your worry about the new neighbour was to do with broadband crosstalk not WiFi. If so I can see why you, in your situation, would be concerned. Just hope that when they order broadband they don't copy your idea of using multiple lines.............
I must say I thought it very odd that you, happily living in middle of nowhere, would be worrying about WiFi network congestion!
-
No I was worried about Wi-Fi - this will be the new exception to the ‘middle of nowhere’ as it will only be 100m or so away. I’m hopeless at measuring distances.
As for DSL crosstalk, the whole village - more than a dozen dwellings - lies in that cable bundle and more new houses are getting built all the time. The crosstalk in the bundle is what it is. The downstream noise levels seem to be excellent and in fact have improved a lot recently, as discussed in recent threads. Getting downstream sync 3.1Mbps now which is superb imho.
-
OK fine on the broadband, I can only hope that my comments about my experience were of help tp you. But as admitted before I am not I.T. trained. Lines and customer external networks were my thing. I know that external aerials were mentioned in one of the replies which obviously would then be a good way to go. But of course that involves getting through your stone walls. I mentioned to you ages ago about a man in Scotland having broadband issues who came up with a WiFi solution. The article was called `Diary of a Broadband Not Spot- Final Chapter'. Sorry can't cut a paste the link into my reply...........
-
I suppose another thing is, once you start thinking about putting things outside, is there no potential for a directional antenna to a cell tower to try and improve the broadband in general?
-
The other point is, if Weaver could not manage a high gain aerial on his house, he might be able to put one up on his out building perhaps?? Even doing that would mean any gain that was provided by the aerial would obviously apply to both directions of transmission. Unlike most of us, the RX part of his router is not being flattened by 12 high strength WiFi signals, plus out of band signals from elsewhere.
At one point we had thoughts of moving to Cornwall. Then I had a medical problem whilst on holiday. I was directed to go to the A and E at a hospital in Truro. Only I can drive, and my wife was stuck in the car with the dog for 4 hours whilst I waited in the hospital. That rather put us off the idea of getting away from it all. Mind you, with the hospitals now only carrying out certain treatments, and the shutting A and E at certain hospitals, it has become as bad now where we live.
-
Well Weaver going right back and re-reading your original post, I would think the easiest means of WiFi is a separate 2.4Ghz channel to the shed from the upstairs window. Think there are quite a few external aerials that can be plugged into a suitable equipped router at the shed end. If a separate router is used at the house end to deal with the different channel required, any problems due to the distance, and error correction would not affect the remaining WiFi set up. Also you have not got giga fast broadband, so unless you are sending files between computers, I can't see the need for fast WiFi. Therefore you have the full 13 channels to play with. So finding a free channel when your neighbour moves in, should still not be too much of a problem I would have thought. If the distance to the shed is too great, as I suggested in my last post, a high gain aerial at the shed would sort the problem. As I previously said, the resulting WiFi congestion that you would be suffering can't be worse than exists at my home. Also, I if my understanding of WiFi is correct, the actual traffic passing over your WiFi would quite low anyway, as there are only the two humans in your home normally, so any channels would barely be actually sending much when in idle mode, so interference between channels would not be a problem...........?
-
They say its 13 channels, but its basically three. That's why its such a PITA.
You make a good point though, even a heavily contended 2.4Ghz should be well above the broadband speed.
-
I'd suggest using a point to point link with something like the Mikrotik "Wireless Wire" or other short range solution that's outside the 2.4 and 5GHz ranges altogether. Then connect to a separate AP in the building. We did something similar not long ago for a church to get coverage into the nearby church hall.
-
I'd suggest using a point to point link with something like the Mikrotik "Wireless Wire" or other short range solution that's outside the 2.4 and 5GHz ranges altogether. Then connect to a separate AP in the building. We did something similar not long ago for a church to get coverage into the nearby church hall.
Oh now THAT'S an interesting device.
-
Yes I stand corrected, The situation is even worse than I thought. The additional speed is obtained by taking even more channels up. And by the seem of it, channel 13 has more bandwith available to it than rest. Frankly having found that out, I don't know how it actually works in a town. In Weaver's situation then, as you said a least one highly directional aerials at the shed end, or even better, one at each end.
Reference the MIKROTIC equipment does that require a licensed to use it, and also since the frequencies are outside the normal WiFi frequencies, both ends of the link require frequency compatible equipment. That means Weaver would require to find away to connect a cable through his stone walls.
-
I used a pair of TP-Link 5 GHz WAPs before, to form a line-of-site wireless link, with one end set up in ‘client’ mode, set to behave like a station not like an AP.
-
Yes I stand corrected, The situation is even worse than I thought. The additional speed is obtained by taking even more channels up. And by the seem of it, channel 13 has more bandwith available to it than rest. Frankly having found that out, I don't know how it actually works in a town. In Weaver's situation then, as you said a least one highly directional aerials at the shed end, or even better, one at each end.
Reference the MIKROTIC equipment does that require a licensed to use it, and also since the frequencies are outside the normal WiFi frequencies, both ends of the link require frequency compatible equipment. That means Weaver would require to find away to connect a cable through his stone walls.
The Mikrotic comes as a pre-paired kit, it makes it far more interesting as no messing about choosing channels, security, etc. Its literally plug and pray [you got it lined up correctly].
-
One thing comes to mind, I would have a bad hidden station problem, so would want to force RTS/CTS or whatever it’s called
-
I notice nobody has come back to you on your last comment. I have dealt with V24/V28 interfaces in the past, which do have the RTS,CTS,CD etc connections, but does ethernet have the equivalent protocols that provide this facility. Assuming it does, what would you be wanting to do with it if it exists. Were you thinking of using it to turn off or on, your garden link to the outhouse remotely?
-
That isn’t ethernet it’s 802.11 which has CTS/RTS protocol messages as an option; yes it is familiar from the days of RS232, but now these are Wi-Fi-specific. Ethernet flow control is something else. And this is not flow control like in RS232, it’s more like ‘permission to talk’ like token ring so there is no chaos of collisions any more for packets greater than a certain length, for those longer packets you wait until it’s ‘your turn’. It is to address the hidden station problem, where a station might be 2 radii away, a whole diameter, so it can hear the AP but not the station in the far side so that collisions get out of control and switching to a time-managed system is the way of sanity. It can be omitted for very short packets, where the risk of collisions is less because of the short length, and the relative cost of the CTS/RTS overhead would be really high compared with the small amount of payload data being delivered. My kit has a configurable packet length threshold for the point where it is to apply this technique selectively.
-
One thing comes to mind, I would have a bad hidden station problem, so would want to force RTS/CTS or whatever it’s called
I'm confused, why would you have a hidden station problem?
-
I could have one if I have a station in the garden, an omni AP in the office window and a distant station inside the hiuse in the opposite side to the garden, such as in the kitchen. Then the device in the garden would have little chance of hearing the station indoors on the far side of the inside of the house, so a classic hidden station problem. You lose a little performance because of the protocol overhead but it’s more predictable than having a lot of undetected collisions, so the worst case is less bad. And you can tune it on good APs to set the triggering minimum PDU length length threshold for it to kick in only for the longer PDUs, which present a bigger collision risk and a greater cost of corruption due to much larger amount of lost data from that big payload when one PDU is corrupted by a collision and we then also have a longer period of having to wait while the garbled PDU keeps on going past. I have tried 256 bytes, instead of - whatever - 2347 bytes max [?] (what is it?) not sure where the optimum lies.
-
Well you'd put them on different channels.
Plus as has already been pointed out, if this is only for the Internet, I doubt you'd even notice a problem as the WiFi speed should be vastly faster than your broadband is.
This is obviously also another benefit of having a directional outdoor WiFi antenna, less signal will actually make it indoors and you've a better chance of 5Ghz working so can avoid clashing channels more easily anyway.
-
In any case a directional antenna is almost a must, the only option that makes sense. I don’t have any such kit though; it would mean some research, recommendations.
The system is not only for internet access; occasionally there is inter-station traffic, when Janet sends me a picture directly across the WLAN for example and I’m thinking about getting the Raspberry Pi going as a little file server. I currently get 300 Mbps across the 802.11n WLAN. If I ever get the Cisco WAPs going, which I can do now I’ve been offered help with them, then I can get much much higher speeds in 5GHz than the limits of this depth of MIMO and 802.21n’s limits will allow, using 802.11ac wave 2’s capabilities instead.
I need to look into the Mikrotik kit mentioned earlier, was it? I’ve always been a but if a fan, not that I know too much about it, I’ve just read a few snippets of the bumph.
-
Alex has said it all. I had a quick look at the Mikrotec site the other day, and if I read it correctly, the 5Ghz channel used was way outside even the extended WiFi range. Therefore a computer would not even accidentally lock onto the channel used by the dish. Probably a mast mounted dish would be easier to fix, than drilling your stone walls. It need not be too high up, only enough to be clear of people or stray sheep blocking the xmission path. As far as your interstation traffic is concerned, fine having greater than 300 Mbs or more WiFi, it is nice to have, but do you really need it? One photo would take 6 times as long at say 50Mbs. That would mean your photo would take maybe 1 minute instead of 10 seconds. Would this time scale really matter to you? You were previously worried about WiFi congestion from your neighbour. By selecting a lower speed, the number of carriers your router is transmitting to carry your data is half the number a wider channel would be transmitting. So for the same transmit power, your signals are twice as strong ( +3db ). Also, if the routers DSP is carried out correctly, your received bandwidth would also be half as much as the wide bandwidth signal. Half the bandwidth means half the received noise ( 3db down ), meaning your WiFi signals appear 6db higher above the noise level than would otherwise have been. If your new neighbour goes wideband, you may still move your channels away from him, and also your signal in your home should be well above any potential interference. I hope my post makes sense, and also accurate logic............
-
The Wireless Wire uses 60Ghz, there's practically zero chance of crosstalk at such a high frequency but it would need perfect line of sight.
The only question is, exactly how far can it reach as they mention the rather ambiguous 200m or more.
-
60GHz - excellent. Wonder if it will go through glass?
-
Weaver, If 10Ghz from a satellite to a high gain dish behind a window does not work, I would have thought that 6x that frequency would be unlikely. Obviously the signal from down your garden would be higher strength, but I would not think it would work. But you could try it. Anyway, I would have thought a dish aerial in your home might be inconvenient. It was for this reason, in an earlier post, I suggested a link using the lower 2.4Ghz frequency which might be more reliable way to go, due to the lower path loss and also lower attenuation through the glass.
I think BT was also looking at a short range 60Ghz distribution system in the past.
-
I think part of the reason it can perform so well is it basically will pass through nothing, so its not going to cause crosstalk with anyone nearby but need absolutely clean line of sight.
-
I love the Wireless Wire kit, but cannot mount an external antenna easily: gale force winds every few months rip such things off and that corner of the house is the most exposed unless I could put up some form of physical wind-shield to the right hand side of the antenna, plus there’s the problem of how to get outside which isn’t unsolvable because the DSL comes in through the upstairs roofline in that corner- the southeastern corner of the office, directly facing the summerhouse. It’s a bit too high up although not the end of the world; could run the cable down the outside concrete wall. The killer problem is wind, it wouldn’t last five minutes. So I’ve always thought about something behind glass as I did before with the 5GHz TP-Links.
-
The Wireless Wire uses 60Ghz, there's practically zero chance of crosstalk at such a high frequency but it would need perfect line of sight.
The only question is, exactly how far can it reach as they mention the rather ambiguous 200m or more.
I've read reports of 5Km using the 5ghz dishes
-
And zero chance of it working behind glass over 50m or so? Might be able to avoid being behind glass at the one end. Our satellite installer could run some sort of cable outside to an antenna and my good neighbour might be able to shield it on the right = south and west. The house itself is a shield to the west, would need shielding from the south and the line of sight from the house to the summerhouse is a little to the south of east, or to the east of southeast. Haven’t used a compass. At the summerhouse, the antenna would be facing northwest on the north wall, so 100% sheltered by the summerhouse itself. The summerhouse is basically a shed with lots of glass. Its doors face east and there is glass on the east north and south sides with no windows on the west ‘back’ side where it is exposed to the elements. It is slightly lower than the house.
-
And zero chance of it working behind glass over 50m or so? Might be able to avoid being behind glass at the one end. Our satellite installer could run some sort of cable outside to an antenna and my good neighbour might be able to shield it on the right = south and west. The house itself is a shield to the west, would need shielding from the south and the line of sight from the house to the summerhouse is a little to the south of east, or to the east of southeast. Haven’t used a compass. At the summerhouse, the antenna would be facing northwest on the north wall, so 100% sheltered by the summerhouse itself. The summerhouse is basically a shed with lots of glass. Its doors face east and there is glass on the east north and south sides with no windows on the west ‘back’ side where it is exposed to the elements. It is slightly lower than the house.
https://mikrotik.com/product/wap_60g_ap
Ap for the wall, outside
https://mikrotik.com/product/wap_60g
CPE end can be used indoors, good for 200 metres, what kind of glass?
The link will even work through most windows, depending on their material
https://mikrotik.com/product/wireless_wire
-
What kind of glass? - in the house, not sure, old fashioned (ie rubbish) double glazing; summerhouse is actually perspex not glass my wife reminds me, but it’s easy to make the summerhouse end outside.
-
What kind of glass? - in the house, not sure, old fashioned (ie rubbish) double glazing; summerhouse is actually perspex not glass my wife reminds me, but it’s easy to make the summerhouse end outside.
Should work fine then, there's a few reports of it working indoors behind glass, plastic.
I was worried they were tinted windows.
-
Definitely not tinted windows.
-
I've read reports of 5Km using the 5ghz dishes
Problem is ALL the outdoor bands of 5Ghz require DFS so there can be disruption.
Its a little confusing actually as my Ubiquiti LiteBeam lets me use channels 36-48 which are supposedly indoor-only. I avoid them anyway as they are the most commonly used channels (older 5Ghz WiFi equipment didn't support DFS) so more likely to be congested.
-
I love the Wireless Wire kit, but cannot mount an external antenna easily: gale force winds every few months rip such things off
I'd be surprised if you couldn't mount something that small, around 8" high and 3" wide. With proper fixing it would take hundreds of miles per hour winds to shift, by which time gutters, downpipes, ridge tiles and chimney pots would all be long gone. What's the structure of the house at that point, what would you be fixing into?
-
Definitely not tinted windows.
currently watching this Wireless Wire video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4lZJrX5p10
-
Would be fixing into either four-foot thick stone or poured concrete, mind-boggglingly hard. Which it is depends on the precise spot chosen. Had 132 mph gales in 2005 in the Western Isles, 120+ mph at the Skye Bridge, but that’s on the sheltered side of the island and at low level. I’m on the Atlantic-facing side and 400 ft up, so about the most exposed site there is, so would definitely get worse winds that the western isles report which would be from a spot down at sea level. The most exposed spot in Skye, for my money, is Cille Mhoire up at the north western end of the Trondairnis peninsula (Anglicised pronunciation spelling "Trotternish").
-
Fixings into stone would be better. Not really a problem drilling even into granite with a proper masonry drill. How are your gutters fixed?
-
I saw a video a while back myself on people using the wireless wire through windows and apparently it worked well for them. Not sure if one of them didn't mount outdoors which seems risky as they aren't waterproof.