Extending WiFi

[Bushwack44]

I have an 1,800 sq ft condo that is approximately 22W x 85L. My modem is in the center of the condo (the den). I'd like to have internet access available throughout the condo. Questions is, can I piggyback one WiFi extender to another extender, which would be closest to the modem? Or is there another solution available (that wont break the bank)? How do hospitals or large offices provide wifi web access - is it one extender piggybacked to another, piggy-backed to another until one of them is closest to the modem?
.
.
.
Follow up 6/1/20: Read Post #39 for my solution.

[XDJYo]

You can set it up with a mesh architecture.

[3006]

Buy a decent router and be done mine will easily go 400 feet.

[3006]

I have one of these and have cameras that are over 400 feet away on the back barn. Also works great for steaming.

https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-AC1750-Smart-WiFi-Router/dp/B079JD7F7G

[rttully]

Most office buildings use a wired backbone in the ceiling with multiple access points spread around. Subnets, names and roaming get involved in that setup and they use commercial grade hardware built to do those things.

All of the vendors of home based equipment sell "Mesh" systems and you should be able to cover your place with two or three nodes, but from what I have seen, don't expect each node to have great range, but they do share a Wifi subnet name and handle roaming somewhat adequately.

I would suggest that you look at some of those and learn a bit about how they work.

If you buy a Mesh setup, make sure that you can return it if it just won't work right for you. I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon, sold and shipped by Amazon because that gives me a few weeks to test someething and then return it at no cost to me with a Prime membership.

Most people can get a free trial membership for Amazon Prime, or you ca buy thing at Best Buy too, just make sure you know their return policy and time frame for that specific item.

[Fizz]

Most office buildings use a wired backbone in the ceiling with multiple access points spread around. Subnets, names and roaming get involved in that setup and they use commercial grade hardware built to do those things.

All of the vendors of home based equipment sell "Mesh" systems and you should be able to cover your place with two or three nodes, but from what I have seen, don't expect each node to have great range, but they do share a Wifi subnet name and handle roaming somewhat adequately.

I would suggest that you look at some of those and learn a bit about how they work.

If you buy a Mesh setup, make sure that you can return it if it just won't work right for you. I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon, sold and shipped by Amazon because that gives me a few weeks to test someething and then return it at no cost to me with a Prime membership.

Most people can get a free trial membership for Amazon Prime, or you ca buy thing at Best Buy too, just make sure you know their return policy and time frame for that specific item.

This isn't accurate.

You do not need multiple "subnets" to have multiple access points. It's possible to have all wireless devices on on all access points on the same BROADCAST DOMAIN (which almost always means the same subnet, but this is not a technical requirement).

SSIDs (NAME) can be the same among all the APs, and is in fact required for proper roaming. One ESSID can have multiple BSSIDs (APs), no problem.

No need for VLANs, separate broadcast domains, etc. When dealing with large scale wireless deployments like on a campus, you typically want separate broadcast domains simply so that you don't waste transmission time with broadcasts that 99% of the devices on the network don't care about, which also causes ACKs for everything received resulting a broadcast storm. You won't get into this until you're looking into hundreds of clients.

You don't need enterprise level equipment to have multiple access points. You can simply have a core AP, and others connected to the same broadcast domain. It sounds to me like your experience in the past has been attempting to use multiple gateway/AP combo units to deliver multiple transmitters, and NOT actual "access points" which don't typically have routing, firewall, or NAT features - they're simply a device that converts Wi-Fi into ethernet. In this circumstance (and provided the WAN interface isn't configurable to be a switch port), you're correct... you'd need different subnets on the LAN side of each additional "AP" since a router won't allow for a WAN link and LAN link to have the same, directly connected networks. This is just a MASSIVE headache, and I would never support a client having this kind of infrastructure UNTIL I got approval to rip that mess out.

In the Wi-Fi standard, the CLIENT decides when it roams. There are some techniques on the AP/Controller side that can steer clients to a specific band, or access point, but typically this just means the AP will deauth the client, and force it to rescan/reevaluate the best BSSID to connect to. Alternatively, the AP will not allow a client to associate with it, until the client chooses to associate with a preferred AP. However, under MOST circumstances, the client device decides IF and WHEN it roams, so your roaming capabilities are largely contingent upon proper overlap. Some client devices are simply more 'sticky' than other when it comes to roaming (they'll tend to stay on originally associated BSSID, even when a stronger signal, less error/retry BSSID is in range). The disassociation/reassociation process is disruptive, and the ARP tables for the entire network need to be updated once the clients moves in order to send/receive traffic. This is generally quick, but constant roaming, or being overly sensitive/desire to roam, can cause more issues than sticking to a marginal connection, so many vendors tend to program them to be very reluctant to roam.

Personally, I HATE mesh systems. It's using wireless to solve wifi problems, and contributing to the problem; it attempts to solve wifi range problems by contributing to spectrum saturation... which might cause you interference problems where you only had range issues.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Buy your own cabel modem. It should pay for itself in about did months. Get one that is just a modem. Then buy a separate router/wifi. Put the router/wifi centrally located. Get one with good external antennas. We are going to see a new wifi standard soon so we might see a drop in price in the older standard (2/5ghz ac). I wouldn't get wifi6 (new standard) unless you are going to upgrade all your clients as well.

If it's just a condo a good base station centrally located with decent external antennas should be enough. Being a condo you might be getting interference from others. Try switching your channels, some of the better models will hop to less congestion.

You shouldn't need multiple base stations, a mesh or anything like that for the average condo.

[Bushwack44]

Buy a decent router and be done mine will easily go 400 feet.

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

I have a newer Linksys cable modem and router. My tablet can connect a room away from where the modem is but no further (same with my phone). I have three rooms from where the modem is that I'd like to connect from. I assume more then one extender would be needed (based on what others who use an extender say), which is my I asked if I can piggyback extenders.

Moving the modem is not an option. If I can't piggyback extenders, can someone recommend which products to consider?

[Fizz]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

I have a newer Linksys cable modem and router. My tablet can connect a room away from where the modem is but no further (same with my phone). I have three rooms from where the modem is that I'd like to connect from. I assume more then one extender would be needed (based on what others who use an extender say), which is my I asked if I can piggyback extenders.

Moving the modem is not an option. If I can't piggyback extenders, can someone recommend which products to consider?

Give us the model number for your router.

Overall transmission energies are regulated by the FCC - there are no devices that are more 'powerful' than others. What manufacturers CAN change is how efficient those are via antennas, etc.

Also, remember that every single client device is ALSO a transmitter. In order to get data from the network/internet, you need to request it. That requires the client device to transmit wirelessly to the router/access point. Wi-Fi is bidirectional. It is possible to have an issue in one direction and not the other.

Typically, mobile devices don't have the best antennas simply because of their form factor. So they can have a problem 'hearing' the access point.

Also, everything interferes with 2.4ghz wifi. Some cordless phones, AV transmitters, baby monitors, etc. can all destroy Wi-Fi. 5ghz is less susceptible to these issues, but also as issues with attenuation (losses strength over distance/obstacles more readily than 2.4ghz).

Ideally, you would get away with ONE access point/router. You may need to pick a better channel. If the "den" has metal cabinets, or you have it tucked away in an entertainment center, etc. those can all cause attenuation.

If you evaluate the router/AP, its location, interference, and obstacles, and STILL don't get acceptable service, THEN you consider adding additional access points. Ideally, these would be cabled with ethernet cable back to your main router. However, you can avoid running cable with what are known as Ethernet over Powerline adapters (check them out on amazon). You can have an AP on the remote end of the EoP adapter to extend your range.

[crufflers]

I have one of these and have cameras that are over 400 feet away on the back barn. Also works great for steaming.
https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-AC175.../dp/B079JD7F7G

...and to exend a router like that... you can run one or more of these and they work great. 1800 SQ FT? Probably one extender or just a decent router alone.

https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-PCMag-Editors-Choice-Extender/dp/B010S6SG3S/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=RE450&qid=1590688728&sr=8-1

[Bushwack44]

...and to exend a router like that... you can run one or more of these and they work great. 1800 SQ FT? Probably one extender or just a decent router alone.

https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-PCMag...0688728&sr=8-1

How is this device any different then two of these (assuming I can piggyback them in different rooms - https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-Exten...tronics&sr=1-4). I ask not based on cost, transfer speed or estimated distance that it can pick up from the router. I've been lead to believe that all extenders are basically the same when it comes to range (which is why I initially asked about piggy-backing extenders). Thanks.

[crufflers]

I'd say the RE450 for $50 or $60 is a best buy... dual band.

The other is single band.

Depending on your router... like I said that RE450 is great with the TP LINK router someone else posted. I have the same one and I have multiple RE450's in two sites.

If you are buying a new router, check out the TP-LINK ONE MESH routers and Extenders... I think the new AC 1750 supports it too actually.

THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME when it comes to range. It really depends on the antenna's IMHO. I've used extenders that are worthless.

[crufflers]

This one would prolly work.

https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-AC1200-Gigabit-Smart-Router/dp/B07N1L5HX1/ref=dp_ob_title_ce

[HecklerNKoch]

This isn't accurate.



You do not need multiple "subnets" to have multiple access points. It's possible to have all wireless devices on on all access points on the same BROADCAST DOMAIN (which almost always means the same subnet, but this is not a technical requirement).



SSIDs (NAME) can be the same among all the APs, and is in fact required for proper roaming. One ESSID can have multiple BSSIDs (APs), no problem.



No need for VLANs, separate broadcast domains, etc. When dealing with large scale wireless deployments like on a campus, you typically want separate broadcast domains simply so that you don't waste transmission time with broadcasts that 99% of the devices on the network don't care about, which also causes ACKs for everything received resulting a broadcast storm. You won't get into this until you're looking into hundreds of clients.



You don't need enterprise level equipment to have multiple access points. You can simply have a core AP, and others connected to the same broadcast domain. It sounds to me like your experience in the past has been attempting to use multiple gateway/AP combo units to deliver multiple transmitters, and NOT actual "access points" which don't typically have routing, firewall, or NAT features - they're simply a device that converts Wi-Fi into ethernet. In this circumstance (and provided the WAN interface isn't configurable to be a switch port), you're correct... you'd need different subnets on the LAN side of each additional "AP" since a router won't allow for a WAN link and LAN link to have the same, directly connected networks. This is just a MASSIVE headache, and I would never support a client having this kind of infrastructure UNTIL I got approval to rip that mess out.



In the Wi-Fi standard, the CLIENT decides when it roams. There are some techniques on the AP/Controller side that can steer clients to a specific band, or access point, but typically this just means the AP will deauth the client, and force it to rescan/reevaluate the best BSSID to connect to. Alternatively, the AP will not allow a client to associate with it, until the client chooses to associate with a preferred AP. However, under MOST circumstances, the client device decides IF and WHEN it roams, so your roaming capabilities are largely contingent upon proper overlap. Some client devices are simply more 'sticky' than other when it comes to roaming (they'll tend to stay on originally associated BSSID, even when a stronger signal, less error/retry BSSID is in range). The disassociation/reassociation process is disruptive, and the ARP tables for the entire network need to be updated once the clients moves in order to send/receive traffic. This is generally quick, but constant roaming, or being overly sensitive/desire to roam, can cause more issues than sticking to a marginal connection, so many vendors tend to program them to be very reluctant to roam.



Personally, I HATE mesh systems. It's using wireless to solve wifi problems, and contributing to the problem; it attempts to solve wifi range problems by contributing to spectrum saturation... which might cause you interference problems where you only had range issues.

This isn't accurate.



You do not need multiple "subnets" to have multiple access points. It's possible to have all wireless devices on on all access points on the same BROADCAST DOMAIN (which almost always means the same subnet, but this is not a technical requirement).



SSIDs (NAME) can be the same among all the APs, and is in fact required for proper roaming. One ESSID can have multiple BSSIDs (APs), no problem.



No need for VLANs, separate broadcast domains, etc. When dealing with large scale wireless deployments like on a campus, you typically want separate broadcast domains simply so that you don't waste transmission time with broadcasts that 99% of the devices on the network don't care about, which also causes ACKs for everything received resulting a broadcast storm. You won't get into this until you're looking into hundreds of clients.



You don't need enterprise level equipment to have multiple access points. You can simply have a core AP, and others connected to the same broadcast domain. It sounds to me like your experience in the past has been attempting to use multiple gateway/AP combo units to deliver multiple transmitters, and NOT actual "access points" which don't typically have routing, firewall, or NAT features - they're simply a device that converts Wi-Fi into ethernet. In this circumstance (and provided the WAN interface isn't configurable to be a switch port), you're correct... you'd need different subnets on the LAN side of each additional "AP" since a router won't allow for a WAN link and LAN link to have the same, directly connected networks. This is just a MASSIVE headache, and I would never support a client having this kind of infrastructure UNTIL I got approval to rip that mess out.



In the Wi-Fi standard, the CLIENT decides when it roams. There are some techniques on the AP/Controller side that can steer clients to a specific band, or access point, but typically this just means the AP will deauth the client, and force it to rescan/reevaluate the best BSSID to connect to. Alternatively, the AP will not allow a client to associate with it, until the client chooses to associate with a preferred AP. However, under MOST circumstances, the client device decides IF and WHEN it roams, so your roaming capabilities are largely contingent upon proper overlap. Some client devices are simply more 'sticky' than other when it comes to roaming (they'll tend to stay on originally associated BSSID, even when a stronger signal, less error/retry BSSID is in range). The disassociation/reassociation process is disruptive, and the ARP tables for the entire network need to be updated once the clients moves in order to send/receive traffic. This is generally quick, but constant roaming, or being overly sensitive/desire to roam, can cause more issues than sticking to a marginal connection, so many vendors tend to program them to be very reluctant to roam.



Personally, I HATE mesh systems. It's using wireless to solve wifi problems, and contributing to the problem; it attempts to solve wifi range problems by contributing to spectrum saturation... which might cause you interference problems where you only had range issues.

You nailed it.

It's pathetic and pompous. I see guys asking basic help questions here and there are always a few people that dive right in with info that isn't provided to be helpful in any way.

So the guy that needs WiFi to reach his bathroom really doesn't have to get his CCNP after all?

Holy crap there's so much garbage opinion below your comment in this particular thread.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[Bushwack44]

I appreciate the time everyone is taking with their response, but much what has been shared is way, way over my head. I'm looking for plug-n-play with minimal programming required.

I have a Netgear CG3000DV288 cable modem/router AND a Netgear N600 dual band router. My d/l speed using fast.com averages 212 Mbps using my desktop computer (FWIW, using my Amazon Fire HD tablet, speed drops to 38Mbps and using my LG v20 cell phone, I average 26Mbps).

To clarify, I'd like (one or more WiFi extenders) that I can place 20-30 ft away from the cable modem in either direction (using the two Netgear items just mentioned) for internet access. The length of my condo is about 80-85 ft and the modem is in the middle. I assume if I place an extender 20 ft away in both directions, I should have internet access from all corners of my condo. If I need two strategically place two extenders in either direction, I go back to my original question (can they piggy-back off each other?). Achieving 50Mbps would be more speed then I need from the extenders.

I appreciate any/all input. Please keep it simple for this feeble mind.