possibly need to replace my dir 655 and add AP's..

Hi all,
I have a dlink dir 655 (about 2 yrs old) that has wired connection issues on occasion when streaming netflix and its wifi range in my house is poor (1-2 rooms). I was thinking of using the opportunity of replacing it with a new router (disabling its wifi) and getting another one routers to act as an AP for the wifi. I will also add a small switch after the the router to improve traffic.

I've also noticed that a single directv download or bittorrent will completely clog up the internet for every other device.

I have the following devices;
6 in my living room; TV, AVR, Bluray (netflix), appleTV, sonos, directv (all wired)
office has a desktop, printer (wired via 5 port switch)
elsewhere has 2 ipads, 2 phones and 2 laptops, all a/b/g/n
no landline and one microwave that disables the wifi when being used.

There's only myself and my wife so the most demanding use case would generally be streaming netflix while the other is on youtube (other than the directv/bittorrent mentioned above)

We'll be doing a full house remodel in about 6-9 months, in which I will add a 24 port switch, and will probably be buy new laptops with AC and so might do a AC upgrade on the router as well. So at this point I'm just looking for decent stopgap router and router/AP.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

I'm not clear - are you looking at getting rid of the 655 altogether and buying two routers, using one as an AP?

I think I might entertain both options, however from reading, it seems the consensus might be to not mix router brands, but I may be wrong on this.

also, any suggestion on a switch or brand name for a switch would be appreciated also
thanks

It depends but i strongly suggest to avoid dlink because they dont do as well in both firmware and hardware. For dumb switches you can go with tp-link or netgear, semi managed you can go with zyxel, linksys, asus and the like whereas for fully managed you can go with the semi managed brands, mikrotik CRS, Ubiquiti or even cisco.

If you go with dumb switches you will benefit from power saving features. For semi or fully managed switches make sure to go with a brand that has reliable hardware and stable firmware. You only need a semi/managed switch if you plan to use stuff like security features, VLANs, port bonding, ACLs, layer 2 QoS and such.

You might want to add ethernet cables if you are renovating.

Adding a switch wont stop devices fighting over bandwidth, you need a router with QoS for that.

Mixing brands isn't a real big deal. I use a Linksys as my main router with Netgear switches. I also have Zyxel and Netgear routers that I use in AP and client bridge mode from time to time. They all interoperate fine.

At the bare minimum, I would recommend buying 1 new router and making it your main router. Setup the D-Link as an AP and use it to expand coverage. If you have the cash, you might consider adding a new AP and ditching the 655 but I don't think that's absolutely necessary.

Thanks,
yes.. regarding ethernet cables, I'll make several drops per room, 4-8, I suppose depending on the room, (vs 2 drops and utilize multiple small switches)

I think maybe what I'll do is make one purchase first, either replace the 655 with a better router and re-purpose it as an AP, or just buy a cheap router/AP for now and disable the 655's wifi.

from the router charts, the 655 only has a throughput of 257Mbps, which is quite a bit lower than almost all other routers, which have 700+Mbps throughput. So from that it seems it would be best to replace it as the router, and use it as the AP, as per the suggestion by htismaqe above,

would this be the consensus?

Any recommendations for a decent budget for under $150

Don't mix up 802.11 bit rate with throughput. The latter means net yield at the IP or TCP layer, by convention. That's normally 60% or so of the WiFi bit rate - where lots of those bits are non-user-data bits.

I use and recommend ASUS $50-75 Routers that have an explicit AP mode. Many do not have that.

I don't spend on 11AC and fancy stuff with speeds way beyond the 56Kbps of throughput I get from my ISP. Fast stuff is done on wired desktops/NAS, not handhelds on wifi.

So after a lot of reading of the charts/ranking reviews I actually understand now what most of the terminology is. I should have done that first. Can I take this opportunity to rephrase what I'm looking for and ask for suggestions on the type of router rather than a router model itself.

Given that all my current mobile devices are n, we have no baby monitors, just 1 microwave, at most 1 or 2 soon to be purchased laptops with ac, and that I hard-wire my TV and Bluray players, should I be looking for an ac1200 / 1600 / 1900 if trying to keep the cost towards $100. If I see an ac 1750, 2350 or 2400 for the same price should I entertain these.

I also read Tim Higgins' article on how ac routers give a nice boost over n routers for n devices. In a year, maybe we'll have replaced our phones / ipads for models with ac. Granted I could get a ac2400 if I wanted to spend approx $150, for a bit of future proofing.

My house is only 1500 square feet, on 2 floors. We live completely upstairs, with just the garage (directly under the living room) and guest bedroom downstairs.
I currently have my D link 655 in the garage, supported just under the basement ceiling joists, but I'm going to move its replacement into living room to get better wifi strength, where the wifi signal will need to travel through 1 wall to bedroom 1, or the length of the house to bedroom 2. So I think range is at most approx 45 feet, (two furthest corners upstairs). If the guest bedroom has range issues I can get a AP down their or a ethernet cable. The 655 is fine in the living room (when its working) but can't reach the 2 bedrooms very well. It also needs to be reset every other month or so.

I've attached a basic layout of the upstairs of the house with dimensions and proposed router location, which is basically moving it from the underside of the living room floor to the living room itself) as the garage is under the living room.

So I main questions are then;

If prices were all equal (as deals occur), am I looking for an ac1200, 1600 or 1900 if trying to keep the cost towards $100?
Am I going to see the benefit of an 1900 over a 1200?
Do I forget about ac 1750, 2350 as they've be superseded by ac 2400?
And would I see much of a benefit with an ac2400 router?

Thanks
Derek

AC2350 and AC2400 are the same specs, marketing just likes the higher number.

An AC1900 model is what is recommended right now, but that will be far north of $100 (RT-AC68U).

For the budget and your future need of AC capabilities, the RT-AC56U is the one worth considering. Stable and a great deal for the performance it offers (considering it is only a two stream, two antennae setup).

In a few years when MU-MIMO routers w/8 antennae and 10GBe connections are available for consumer routers, it will be time to upgrade again. But in the meantime, the RT-AC56U will give you 95% of the performance with most two stream clients that the much more expensive RT-AC68U will for about half the cost (but, buy it when it goes on sale).

Thanks for the response, that really helps to eliminate the different class options
One other question,
I've been reading that its a good idea to separate the routing duties from the wireless duties by having one router with its wifi disabled to act as a router and another for only wifi duties.

And so was wondering what's the thinking or decisions that one could work through when deciding if this is beneficial in one's own house. And is there a difference between buying a router such as the ac56u or ac66u for the routing duties (with another for wifi duties) vs a "wired only" router and a ac56u or ac66u for example for wifi duties.

thanks

While discrete components are always better, in most home use cases, I think it is simply wasting money. Especially with any router with 4 GBe LAN ports or more.

The questions to ask if separating them are important to you:

If the router / switch goes down, do I still need to be able to connect to my various network devices? Such as; a NAS, shared computers, 1 or more printers or scanners and any other wired network devices that are indispensable to you.

Do keep in mind for the above that if the router does go down, there is no internet access (usually). This may change the need of having your internal LAN operational.

Another question to ask is, do I have more wired devices than can be comfortably handled by a single / main, four port switch?

On each LAN port on any router, you can add an 8 / 16 / 24 /48 port switch. By intelligently grouping your devices on certain switches and main router ports, you can build a very complex yet efficient layout that complements and enhances the way you use your network. And all powered by the single router that if optimally placed in a central location, can handle your wireless duties effectively too.

Not all switches need to be identical models or have the same number of ports. Just remember that you can have up to 253 devices in total though, including any wireless clients too.

If the grouping of wired clients cannot be optimally configured within the 4 port limitation of most routers, then a separate router, main switch (with more than 4 ports) and at least one AP should be considered. But in this case, you will have effectively tripled the cost of your network.

Hope this gives you more info.

wow, lots good v. good point there. L&LD , you seem to be on my wavelength...

yes I have a server, whs2011, (probably will replace with a "NAS" as whs2011 is dead!) that I'd like to be able to access if the router/switch combo goes down.
Which would require dedicated switch connected to the router, with all my devices connected to teh switch? YES? I was already open to this plan.

In regard to the total number of wired devices, I can most likely get away with a single 24 port switch, or a few 8 port switches. However, I like someones comment about the adv. of a single larger switch, being that if hidden in a garage/basement, you don't have to deal with plugging in the smaller switches at various locations. ie..that a single larger switch is a bit neater than multiple switches, and I think I can make runs easy enough from each room down to the garage. Especially as I'll be remodeling next year and drywall will be open everywhere.

I understand that if the router and switch placement with respect to getting wifi coverage becomes difficult, that one way around this would be to use a separate/dedicated router (and if needed a switch) and access point setup, but is this the only reason for separating routing and wifi duties?

Thanks
derek

Think of it like this, if the consumer wireless router dies completely, everything LAN related stops working. Including internet, wireless and wired local LAN access.

If the router part of the device stops working, only the internet stuff is affected.

If the switch part of the device stops working, only the wireless devices and internet will keep working, but wired devices will be 'dark'.

In the 15 plus years I have been using and supporting small business LAN network routers (wired and wireless), not many have died without warning. And I can't think of a single one that completely shut down all three aspects (internet access, WiFi and all the onboard switched ports too).

This posts may help you understand what you actually need further too.

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/still-confused-about-switches.20955/#post-152238

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/still-confused-about-switches.20955/#post-152343


When considering a single 24 Port or multiple 8 Port switches, I think you may (possibly) be limiting yourself and your network.

To any of my customers, I currently recommend they run minimum of 2 separate runs of Cat5e cable or higher to each location a LAN connection is desired. And at least 4 separate runs to the locations that an AP will operate along with other devices.

The multiple runs may seem extraneous (a switch in each room would work just a well in simple or non-critical situations), but what it offers is the ability to put an AP anywhere on a property as needed. Connect a printer / scanner and a NAS in each location. And allow another device to connect via a wired connection (or, put another switch for even more devices).

With 4 runs or more, a single wireless router could be placed optimally and still run the whole network. Even if the ISP is terminated in the garage or basement.

With that level of flexibility, the possibilities of physically wiring the devices in an optimal fashion are enhanced greatly (see the links for the ways to think about grouping devices optimally).

The reliability of consumer wireless routers are more than sufficient for home (and home / small business) use. Combined with logically placed and grouped devices and switches along with the internal ports provided, there is enough flexibility to handle a fairly large and complex network for very little cost.

For backup? Consider an inexpensive ($10) 4-8 port GB switch. Just in case the router self destructs one day. Have it handy near your router and simply transfer 4 LAN cables between them and plug it into the AC if you have router issues. The local LAN will continue to work while you troubleshoot or replace the failed router.

But even that is too much. The $10 switch can be bought if it is needed, just as easily as a new router can (for most people) in less than an hour or two on business days. Having one or both as on hand backups means your time is much more valuable than mine.

I really do think separating the devices is overkill. And in the end, it doesn't ensure any more reliability or performance, imo.

L&LD said:

I really do think separating the devices is overkill. And in the end, it doesn't ensure any more reliability or performance, imo.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it would be incorrect to assume this in all cases -- it really depends on the devices in play and the goals set out for the network -- even in a SOHO environment. An elementary example: if you're deploying an all-in-one router whose wireless range/throughput is weak and no solution can be found through relocation or firmware tweaking, then performance and reliability would both increase by wiring in a additional AP(s) on the LAN. That's quite easy to conceptualize, I would hope. In that spirit, any change made to lessen or mitigate bottlenecks and/or single points of failure will then quite obviously contribute to better performance, and consequently reliability through load sharing/distribution. But like I said, whether or not that is worth it in a SOHO deployment really depends on the topology, throughput and performance requirements set out by the home/business owner.

Of course, not in all cases. But it sure seems close to that in my experience.

Trip said:

Unfortunately it would be incorrect to assume this in all cases -- it really depends on the devices in play and the goals set out for the network -- even in a SOHO environment. An elementary example: if you're deploying an all-in-one router whose wireless range/throughput is weak and no solution can be found through relocation or firmware tweaking, then performance and reliability would both increase by wiring in a additional AP(s) on the LAN. That's quite easy to conceptualize, I would hope. In that spirit, any change made to lessen or mitigate bottlenecks and/or single points of failure will then quite obviously contribute to better performance, and consequently reliability through load sharing/distribution. But like I said, whether or not that is worth it in a SOHO deployment really depends on the topology, throughput and performance requirements set out by the home/business owner.

Click to expand...

May I ask what version is your DIR-655?