Advice on a Cisco home setup

[Clurch]

I am searching for a more robust wireless solution and have found this forum very helpful so far. I am in a 4 story house, and the current setup consisted of the ISP-provided modem/router/WAP running one network in the bottom (basement) floor, which is then connected through MoCa to a Linksys WRT1900AC on the top floor, running another network (different SSID's). This setup has worked alright in the best of times, but reliability, convenience, and coverage have all been issues, particularly this year with 4 of us being home all the time.

After reading a number of threads on this forum, and in particular the suggestions of @Trip and @coxhaus, I am planning to move to a Cisco AP setup using MoCa as a wired backhaul. In detail, this would involve:
- The ISP provided modem/router running as a modem only in the basement
- A Cisco RV260P router/switch
- One Cisco CBW240AC connected directly to the RV260P via POE
- Another CBW240AC on the top floor, connected via MoCa (Actiontec ECB 6200) and powered by an injector

I would appreciate any suggestions or comments regarding this setup. I also have a few specific questions:
- Would there be any disadvantage to simply using an EdgeRouter X instead of the RV260P?
- A future possibility would be to add a third AP on the ground floor. In such a setup, would this involve simply buying another Cisco AP, MoCa adapter and injector?
- Do I need to configure each AP separately or are their settings automatically syncronized?

 

[degrub]

i have an RV325 with 4 RV371 APs running only 5 GHz. MOCA back haul (Actiontec 6200s for back haul and GoCoax2.5 from ONT to ISP router in wiring closet) covering my 2 story house. Too many walls to use less and get solid coverage for roaming. ATT fiber 1 GHz up/down. 4-5 users nominally

What is your ISP up/down available bandwidth ?

Are you planning on using wireless VOIP services ?

Why the RV260 series ? Are you planning on a point to offsite point VPN ?
Why not the RV3xx series ?

Are you thinking mesh with the APs ? If you have MOCA or ethernet backhaul, no need for wireless mesh unless you cannot reach a location. Why not the 3xx series APs ?

The APs can do "single point setup" where one AP is configured and then when the others are powered up and connected to the lan, they get their config from the initial AP. The user guide can give you some indication.

 

[Clurch]

Thanks for sharing your setup and for the comments. It sounds generally like something that could work for me, although I may use less APs because of the limited locations for coax outputs.

ISP is 1000 mbps down / 100 mbps up.

Wireless VOIP is not something we're currently using, but maybe in the future.

I am quite new to the world of SMB class networking equipment, so I'm a bit uncertain if I'm choosing the components for the right reasons. I was looking at the RV260P specifically for the integrated POE ports, as I thought that may simplify the setup a bit. I'm not interested in a VPN though.

I also looked at the RV3xx series, however the P variant was significantly more expensive in this line. The RV340 + an injector for POE would be about the same price as the RV260P here in Switzerland. Does the 3 series offer significant advantages over the 2 series?

I am not 100% sure on what a mesh is. I would want an apparently seamless network with roaming, but I don't plan on having any APs that do not connect back to the router via MoCa.

My understanding was that the CBW is the more current line of Cisco APs, and that the WAP series are being phased out, but please correct me if I am wrong. The WAP371 that you mention is more expensive than the CBW 240AC here.

Thanks for the confirmation on "single point setup", that is very helpful.

 

[degrub]

i don't have any experience with the newer CISCO gear. Seamless roaming is very much up to the hand held device even if the APs support the right protocols and have low latency. Tripp and Coxhaus can advise more directly, so you might reach out to them.

 

[L&LD]

It is Sir @Trip to you and me.

 

[Trip]

@Clurch - Your aims are well-founded, albeit gear choice might be tweaked to better suit your setup.

SMB Gear Overview - Leaving the particulars aside, the biggest every-day difference is the "it just works" factor (provided network design and configuration are proper). Adding to that, a single-vendor stack is nice for ensuring high cross-compatibility and lower admin/support overhead. Cisco Business gear is a great example (arguably the best in the segment).

Overall Approach - Pretty spot-on. ISP unit in bridge mode (as a plain modem), cabled to a wired router+switch (or router and discrete switch), plus controller-based wifi APs over copper backhaul (MoCa in this case). Reliable, set-and-forget solution right there.

Routing/Switching - If "only" ~800Mb download would suffice, and 8 core switch ports were enough, then an RV260P could be a nice converged solution. That said, unless you're considering a full ethernet install instead of continuing to use MoCa, you won't be able to use centralized PoE, so having it onboard the router becomes about ~$50 of unused extra cost. Presuming MoCa stays in-play, I would instead upgrade to the RV340 and if you need more than the 4 LAN ports, add in an SG250-08 -- the total coming to only ~$70 more than the RV260P, but your putting a higher percentage of those dollars to work for you (presuming you care enough about utilizing all your download speed at any given time).

Wireless - CBW is the newer product, set to replace WAP, and is the better choice, less so for the newness or hardware than the software: it's basically trimmed-down Mobility Express (Cisco's embedded enterprise controller). Cisco was smart here, following Aruba's lead with Instant On. Why re-invent the wheel when all you have to do is take your flagship wifi code (already with 15+ years of development and bug-fixes behind it), trim it down and re-pack it as your "SMB" product. Simple, yet brilliant. And a big upgrade over the WAP concept of "single-point-setup" and "cluster" (aka limited LLDP/CDP/SNMP-based config and info-gathering). With CBW, you get a real control plane, able to configure and coordinate the entire WLAN and all sub-components as a single logical entity (as it should be). If you have to go with fewer APs than perhaps ideally intended, consider the CBW240AC over the 140AC; the 4x4 spatial streams (vs 2x2) will provide more receive gain, adding 5-20% of effective range per AP, roughly.

MoCa - Depending on how much data you may want to push/pull over the network, you might consider an upgrade to MoCa 2.5 with GoCoax WF-803M's. Otherwise, the ActionTec's will suffice well enough.

Hope that helps. Any questions, feel free.

 

[L&LD]

@Trip, I would love to see a writeup from you about such an upgrade (from consumer to SMB/Enterprise-like) level of hardware with any comparisons of the before/after.

Mostly, what would the benefits be to a customer from such an upgrade? Let's assume a customer with 2x RT-AX86U's with wired backhaul and 1Gbps up/down symmetrical ISP speeds. Would a non-noob be able to implement this level of hardware? Easily?

Thank you for your contributions here. Wishing you and yours; All the best!

 

[Trip]

@L&LD - Very welcome, and same to you! I think that's a great idea. I suppose I'd have to put more time into understanding the exact state of certain consumer gear, such as the hardware you mentioned, plus the state of the available firmwares, stuff in related segments like consumer "mesh" (AiMesh, Eero, etc.), then put the compound average of all that up against what can be achieved with SMB/community/refurb-enterprise kit. Considering the context, any "conclusion" is most likely destined to be a six-of-one, half-dozen of the other view, with no real "winner", but therein perhaps lies the value, of at least allowing the average SNB'er to see what's on the other side of the fence, for better or for worse. I'll perhaps set this as a goal for 2021!

 

[Clurch]

@Trip, thank you for the comprehensive and extremely helpful advice!

Following your and @degrub's suggestions, I am almost sure I will use an RV340 with two CBW240AC's. For now, I am fine with MoCa 2.0, but I will keep the upgrade in mind for the future.

There are two more considerations that have come to my mind. Firstly, the 4 LAN ports on the RV340 would work but leave no room for expansion (2 ports to the APs, 1 to a NAS, 1 to a nearby desktop computer). On the other hand, the RV260 (without POE) has 8 ports, while being over 100$ cheaper than an RV340 + switch combo (or RV345) at my local prices. I understand the tradeoff in terms of speed, but are there are any other major tradeoffs I should consider when deciding between the two lines?

Secondly, I realized we have a security camera on the top floor which needs an Ethernet (non POE) connection. Can I simply plug this into the second port on the CBW240AC?

Finally, I have a general question on how the MoCa wired backhaul would work if I were to add a third AP. Obviously, the new AP would need its own MoCa adapter, but is there any modification needed upstream? Would I need to connect two separate ethernet cables to the router/switch, run each of these to its own MoCa adapter, into a two-way splitter? Or can a single upstream MoCa adapter connect to multiple downstream APs?

 

[degrub]

A plan view layout map of your options will be very useful to your planning.

If your layout is a physical star with a dedicated moca run per room location e.g. Router/switch Lan port --ethernet cable --Moca modem--coax--Moca modem ---ethernet cable--small switch (if more than one device in room wired)--POE injector--ethernet cable--AP, then for each run you will need a pair of moca modems.

If your layout is a physical multi-drop with single Router/lan port --ethernet cable --Moca modem--MOCA certified splitter---then coax to each location--(and at each location) Moca modem ---ethernet cable--small switch (if more than one device in room wired)--POE injector--ethernet cable--AP then you will need N+1 moca modems where N is the number of locations.

The first option will maximize the bandwidth available to each location with either the Router/Switch being the bottleneck or the bandwidth of MOCA modem chosen. This can make for a simple "fair" distribution of total bandwidth.

The second choice minimizes the number of modems but shares the total moca bandwidth amongst all the modems at any given time. It is possible for contention and slight increase in latency to occur, but practically there will be no difference for ordinary users. If you had routine high bandwith demand for a pair of users, you could provide them an individual set of moca runs to segment them away from the other network users if it is an issue.

The other thing to recognize, is that when you test lan speed across moca, there will be a slight increase in latency. Unlikely to matter for ordinary users, but if ~3 ms matters, it is something to think about for your layout.

The second port on the CBW240AC is probably for Link Aggregation to the AP from a switch as this was what CISCO was doing with the earlier hardware. It is not for connecting other devices. LAG allows the throughput to increase for large numbers of users. It does not increase the lan bandwidth available to any given user. A classic example is to use LAG to a server (such as a NAS) to increase total available bandwith for many users accessing the server. Each user roughly still sees the original bandwith if the server can support the demand. Have a look in the user guide for the AP. If you need other user hardwire connection, just add a small switch at the ethernet connection on the MOCA modem instead of direct connecting to the POE injector for the AP or the AP itself.

If you are going to run additional , non-routing, services in the Router then go with the higher rated device as these can bog down routers.

Adding another AP - if as first option for a new location, then just a pair of modems added and a lan connection the to router/switch. IF as the second, then just one moca modem and possibly a splitter with more ports. If you are adding an additional AP connected to an existing MOCA run, then you just need a second ethernet connection - so a small switch should suffice.

 

[Clurch]

@degrub, thank you for the detailed explanation, it clarifies a lot. I will have to investigate what my coax cabling setup is.

Also, thanks for the clarification on the CBW240AC. I couldn't find a manual discussing these ports, and the quick start guide simply the second port as 'Ethernet GbE'. So I will get a small switch (likely an SG110D-05) to hook up to the MoCa modem upstairs.

I am ordering the devices today and will hopefully get to set everything up next week and let you all know how it goes. Thank you all again for your kind help.

 

[Trip]

@Clurch - Very welcome. @degrub gave you a good explanation of the nuances of how you'd configure your MoCa setup.

Re- the second port on the CBW240AC, per page 115 of the admin manual, the additional port is indeed a LAN port that can be used to plug-in another network node or endpoint device. That being said, at that point the AP would become a cascading single point of failure for that downstream device; probably not a huge deal in your use-case, but if you could somehow cable that IP cam direct to your core switch, all the better.

Re- RV340 vs RV260, the 340 has a 30% more powerful CPU at 1.2Ghz (NXP LS1024ASE7MLA) versus the 900Mhz version on the 260 (NXP LS1024ASN7JLA) which would allow it to handle roughly that many more CPU-bound things, like TCP sessions, IP filtering rules, etc., plus a hardware ASIC to offload IPSec VPN, as is evident by the way higher number there (600Mb vs 75Mb); it also supports load-balancing for dual-WAN (not just fail-over). All of this is in the RV-series comparison matrix. That said, most of those things may be inconsequential to your setup, and if you simply care more about the 8 onboard switch ports so you don't have to bring in a discrete switch, then yes, perhaps the 260 would be a good choice. If it were me, I'd hate to compromise my choice of router just for the sake of more onboard items I could address with a better-performing discrete addition (separate managed switch), but I do understand we have budgets to stick to, so I respect your decision either way.

Hope that helps again.

 

[Clurch]

@Trip, thank you for the additional clarifications. It is good to know the LAN port on the CBW240AC, I will hold off on the extra switch then.

The details on the RV340 vs RV260 are also a great help. From the comparison matrix I suspected that the RV340 was more powerful in some way, but your explanation is much more explicit. I think it solidifies my decision to go with the RV340 now, and look into switches if need be later.

Happy holidays to all!