I have a somewhat difficult router situation at my house.

I am currently using a pair of WRT54GL routers to provide wireless coverage to my condominium and to the condominium below mine in the same building.

The "primary" router runs a LAN (my computer, SWMBO's iMac, cable modem, OOMA VOIP phone, color laser printer) through Ethernet. Its wireless signal goes out my window and feeds a "repeater" router out on the deck of the condominium below mine. These routers were configured for me by Mark Lord and have worked well for the past several years. The primary router is running the native Cisco firmware, and Mark set up the repeater with DD-WRT.

Both routers are becoming a bit flaky, and I think they will need to be replaced in the not too distant future.

Mark has suggested that I upgrade to Class-N routers, and this seems reasonable to me. The Class-N routers are rated to have considerably more range than the Class-G routers (three to five times more), so I am wondering if perhaps I could get by with a single Class-N to cover both floors. Currently the lower floor can "see" the primary router, but signal strength is such that there is no reliable internet connectivity.

The increased speed/throughput of the Class-N is not a factor, since my ISP provides a maximum 15Mbps per second, of which I've never seen more than 14.

Of course, increased range through the air does not necessarily mean increased penetration through concrete, and therein lies the problem. The floor/ceiling between the two condominiums is 14 inches of steel-reinforced concrete, which is pretty effective at damping out wireless signals.

I understand that the 2.4GHz band is better at penetrating walls than the 5GHz band, and I think that some of our wireless equipment may not be 5GHz capable, so dual-band is not necessary. 2.4GHz is all I want.

So... what is the likelihood of a Class-N router punching a signal through the floor to the condominium below? And if it might work, are there recommendations for any particular router?

tanstaafl.

Is it possible to locate the 'main' router very close to, or perhaps just outside, the window?
Is the 'main deck' a potential location for the single router?

If there is a stairwell that leads to the lower unit, or is there a location that would present a radio path with less obstruction?

The thinking is that a single WiFi source may better 'illuminate' both residences if the location of the main unit is rethought.

In general I have found that within a 'typical' residence the WiFi/router unit when located at head height or a little higher provides generally good dispersion.

In your situation I suspect that most of the radio propagation is occurring through windows, doorways, and other openings in the structure. Especially between floors. So think about where there are 'thin spots' in the structure, from a radio perspective.

The radio signal will of course also be affected by large metal items which can create 'radio shadows'. Metal ductwork, large appliances, metal desk, metal doors.

Without a rather thorough 3D model of the structure it can be difficult to estimate how successful a single router might be, even one with amped up radio specs.

Is there a chance of just running a wire thru the floor and installing the second router at the end of the wife.

He brought that up before, when he was planning the wireless setup in the first place, a long time ago. The wire is not really feasible as it would need to be through concrete, if I recall correctly.

Drilling a hole through concrete is not a terribly difficult thing to do. Even one 14" deep. Long masonry bits exist at hardware stores for exactly such purposes (well, intended for thick walls rather than floors, but close enough).

That remains the best technical solution.

Next up, drill 3/16" holes through an upper story window frame, and a lower story window frame, and run the cabling through those. Also a very good technical solution.

The problem with most consumer grade Wifi gear is that a lot of it tends to run HOT. Which can be a problem for setups like the current outdoor repeater. A purpose-built pole-mount style of repeater might deal better with the elements, but those do tend to cost as much as 3-5 of the current WRT54GL unit out there.

Another idea I had, was to locate the upstairs wifi next to a window with a really good view of the lower balcony/terrace. And place a suitable metal object down on that balcony to reflect signals between that wifi unit and the suite downstairs. Might work, might not. Easy to mock up and try with some foil wrap or a metal patio table.

As for the existing routers, like most electronics, all that can/will fail are the electrolytic capacitors. Most likely in the power supply dongles before anything else. So just replacing those relatively cheap items can often extend the lifetime of the gear by another few years.

Cheers!

As you can see, there is no easy way to place the primary router so that it could illuminate both residences without stringing cables along the floor and through the air in a most unsightly manner. Should I wish to remain married, this would not be optimal.

The first picture shows the current setup with the repeater in place out on the deck of the lower unit.

Mark has made a suggestion that I at first dismissed as impractical, but then after thinking about it, would appear to be a workable solution.

With some effort (I'll have to hire it done, I don't have a hammer drill and an 18" masonry bit) I can drill a 1/2" hole through my floor and into the bedroom ceiling of the room below. I could then run an Ethernet cable down to the second router which would mount on the ceiling. Mark says that instead of being a repeater, the second router would be a simple Access Point, with double the throughput of the current repeater setup. The hole would be quite unobtrusive and SWMBO concurs that it would be OK to "mutilate" the house to that small extent.

One small difficulty will be securing the router to the ceiling. I'll probably end up doing something crude, like pop-rivet aluminum strips to the feet of the router, protruding an inch or so out past the sides, so that when the router is mounted upside down on the ceiling I can run screws through the strips into anchors in the ceiling. Maybe paint the router and the strips to match the ceiling.

Uh-oh! I have to get power to the router as well. Can I run the power cord right along the Ethernet cable without causing interference?

So far this looks like my best solution. I can keep using my G-Class routers and replace them one at a time when they finally quit, configuration is much simpler and straightforward, enough so that even I can manage it, only one wireless network will be required, and overall performance will be better.

tanstaafl.

Sure, no problem having the power cable alongside the ethernet.

With a half-inch hole, I don't know if the RJ45 plugs will fit through the hole or not -- might need to just feed a raw cable end through the hole, and have somebody crimp a new connector onto it afterward.

One thought, if you're going to do a ceiling mount: shop around for a small, modern router (no more than USD$20) with keyhole slots for screws on the underside. Makes mounting easier, and probably will look better too. The model I would like to recommend (tp link wr720n v1) is no longer sold, but was small, cheap, and very low on power usage.

Configure the downstairs router as a "router", with a separate SSID on a different channel from the upstairs one.

Cheers

Also note, depending upon where the hole ends up in the ceiling downstairs, you could just run the network cabling to a corner, and then down the wall to floor/desk level there. And put the router and power dongle together on a table or floor there.

One caveat for drilling: apart from steel, what else is embedded in that concrete floor? Any pipes, wires?

-ml

802.11n routers can optionally support a feature called beamforming. Specifically for your needs, you would want one that does implicit beamforming.

This allows the router to use multiple antennas to focus the power of the radio signal directionally towards the wireless client (your neighboors computer or other device). Implicit means the wireless client is passive in this setup, the router works alone to support it.

802.11ac equipment has beamforming as part of the base spec instead of being optional. However it is an explicit setup requiring both the router and devices to work together for beamforming. There may be a 802.11ac class router that does the implicit 802.11n style beamforming too, though I've not researched consumer routers in a while.

There's no guarantee that beamforming would alleviate the concrete issues, it would at least let the router direct about a 3db signal increase though.

Mostly an alternative suggestion to the other discussions already going in the other threads. For my own use at home, 802.11ac beamforming is helping my desktop get a nearly solid 700mbit wireless link to my NAS without an ethernet cable. Without beamforming, it was getting around ~500mbit or so and a slightly weaker signal.

I hesitate to disagree, but configuring the secondary WiFi unit as a 'router' would create a double NAT configuration, no? Is this intentional, to prevent the computers on the second WiFi from easily 'seeing' the primary local network?

Personally I prefer to utilize the 'guest network' facility in a modern router to create two WiFi networks with separate SSID but central control and monitoring of everything from the primary router. In my current case these happen to be Apple gear, AirPort Extreme and Airport Express. Certainly easy to manage , and for me they have tended to be very stable over time. Pretty good signal quality and range, the stability and consistency has been the attractive aspect.

I long ago tired of the bleeding edge WiFi gear that needs multiple updates before it becomes trustworthy, if it ever gets there. And the really cheap stuff is all over the map, can consume a lot time and energy sifting through all the crap looking for something that won't become trouble later on.

I measured. 12mm, or .47 inches. Three hundredths of an inch to spare, and if I know Victor (my contractor) his masonry bit will be bent enough that the hole will actually come out closer to 9/16ths then half an inch.

Not where we'll be drilling. The steel... just hope we miss it.

tanstaafl.

Some routers have keyhole style mounting holes on the underside, which can hold the unit to the ceiling of the holes are carefully located and the screws are just the right size to provide a snug fit, and screwed in until they just barely allow the slots to fit over the screws and slide into position.

If you choose this method, I can provide a tip for getting the drilled hole locations fairly precise without any measuring.

There are purpose made ceiling mounts, this one fits the compact Apple Airport Express router.

[video:youtube]http://youtu.be/cWLjo9yPFKc[/video]

I suggest making the hole a tad larger, perhaps 3/4" size. Power cord for the router with end attached will need some wiggle room, and the sharp cornered RJ45 plugs tend to snag.

Thread a pull cord (string) through first, then draw one cable at a time through. Make the pull cord long enough that you don't pull the other end through, create a loop in the middle and use that to bring the cord ends down.

Half an inch should be fine for the RJ45 and the power plug. Actually, gimme a minute, and I'll go drill a half inch hole in a block of wood and test it out..


EDIT:
Okay, just tried it through a 3.5" thick chunk of wood. A 1/2" hole will NOT pass an RJ-45 connector at all. A 9/16" hole will pass one, but it is a close enough fit to make it very difficult.

No problem at all with just the ethernet cabling and then a DC-power cord from a WRT54GL.

Cheers

So I'll make a 5/8" hole. Probably the extra 16th won't weaken the floor so much that it will be dangerous.

I'll probably have to buy the bit for Victor, trade it to him for his using his hammer drill and making the hole. And yes, I am (with difficulty) resisting the temptation to buy my own hammer drill and bit and do it all myself. Figuring how often I actually need a hammer drill, over the next five years it would cost me about $30.00 per hole...

tanstaafl.

Consider using a Ubiquiti UniFi access point. Then you can inject power over ethernet and have it plugged into whatever power conditioner or UPS you have next to your computer. You also only need a drill a hole large enough for Cat5e, which is pretty slim.

As a bonus, they include everything you need to ceiling mount them and look reasonably nice mounted there on the ceiling. The LED status ring can be disabled if it's annoying.

If you need the tools to run a cable and crimp a new end on, I have them here. Let me know and maybe we can meet halfway or something. They sell cable and everything you need with it at Steren.

I've never used this company, but they have them on their website:
INTTELEC

I second the Unifi APs. If you only need an N version, they run around $80-90. The AC models are considerably more.

As the resident Google fanboy, I'd also check out the OnHub made by TP-Link. It has an impressive antenna array that reaches farther than any other home router I've tested so far. I have no idea how it'll do with your concrete floors, but in my own home it's able to go through two floors (wooden joist construction), a stairway, and several walls to a guest room in our basement. We've had people stay there several times and they've had no connectivity issues. When I test the signal strength it's still very good.

Anyway, just a suggestion. It's more expensive than a Unifi AP, but if you have to replace your router anyway, it's probably roughly equivalent.

Mmm.., apparently my recommended AP is still sold:

http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-WR720N-Wireless-150Mbps-Internal/dp/B008IFXQIW

At USD$21.50, it is a tad expensive (only cost me CAD$12/each when I last bought several), but still an order of magnitude less than some of the otherworldly suggestions here!

Looks really good on a wall or ceiling, too.

I love TP-Link's products, and I use them all the time, particularly their awesome travel routers that cost about as much.

My suggestion was for a router that might get through the concrete without drilling a hole and mounting something on the ceiling, while also offering 802.11ac and leapfrogging n altogether. But that might not be necessary.

The advantage to the Unifi product is that it's PoE, which will simplify things.

Chiming in late...

. I second the comment that, should you run a wire, it's really straightforward to add a new connector to it. The tools are designed to be idiot-proof, since electricians are often idiots. This means you may need to test that you terminated the wire correctly. At worst, I've needed 3 attempts to get a wire properly terminated.

. After that, the idea of doing a ceiling-mounted AP, powered with PoE seems pretty slick. That's the "dollar no cost, do it properly" solution.

. If you really want to stick with wireless, the beamforming stuff that people have talked about here is going to be an odd thing. Most APs will have antennae arranged in a circle of some sort, meaning that they can steer horizontally, like a lighthouse, but can't steer vertically. One of the things to play with, then, is tilting the AP, such that it has the chance to beam at a downward angle. This will require a huge amount of experimentation to get right.

. I don't know if it's feasible, but you could also investigate wireline networking. If the two apartments are on separate power meters, this would seem less likely to work, but it's certainly worth a shot.

Crimping an 8-pin UTP connector is generally a fiddly business, especially the first few times.

I will mention that it matters whether the individual thin wire conductors in the cable are flexible stranded wire or the stiffer 'solid conductor' type. The clear plugs that crimp on have different shapes to the tiny metal internal prongs. Using a 'stranded' connector on solid wire, or a 'solid' connector on stranded wire, will often result in a non-functioning connection, or even worse, a connection that becomes intermittent and troublesome over time.

Also be aware that one should not intermix CAT6 cables and crimp ends with CAT5e stuff. A pre-made CAT6 cable should work nicely with everything, but when hand crimping connectors the connector and cable must be of the same grade, CAT6 or CAT5(e).

Typically the cable that is sold on spools for running through walls and such is solid core wire while the pre-assembled Ethernet cables with connectors on both ends, aka patch cables, tend to use stranded wire for flexibility.

In this situation I would suggest using a factory assembled Ethernet cable with both ends in place, from a reputable source. Do not remove the end, make the hole big enough to fit the cable through without damage.

Look for either CAT5e or CAT6 rated cable. I consider CAT5 (without the e suffix) to be deprecated and not worth using as proper CAT5e cable is generally not more expensive.

Among low priced network cables it is not unusual for the ink printing on the cable jacket to over state the actual caliber of the cable product inside. There is almost no enforcement of technical standards regarding bulk manufactured cabling from low cost 'offshore' producers. Not just for Ethernet, of course, as we have seen with USB-C, HDMI, etc.

My own experiences with power line networking is that in almost every case I ended up removing the power line gear. Either it did not work consistently in the necessary locations, or it became troublesome later on. Often the problem causes were unclear ('electrical noise' from 'something' is often the prime suspect) or the power line devices themselves just became flakey.

I think that for the immediate future I will stick with the WRT54GL routers until they quit working, but I will connect the two routers by Ethernet through a hole in the floor/ceiling rather than wireless. Both of them have been working perfectly for the last week or so, so perhaps they will continue.

What configuration changes will be necessary for the second router, which is currently running as a repeater with DD-WRT, receiving a wireless signal from the primary router and then rebroadcasting it?

tanstaafl.

Acording to Amazon "There is a newer model of this item".

http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-WR841N-Wireless-Router-300Mbps/dp/B001FWYGJS/ref=dp_ob_title_ce

Do you also approve of this version?

Bah, it's not that bad. Sure, it takes a little practice, but it's pretty easy to do once you get the hang of it. Then again, I have the color order burned into my brain at this point, so maybe I forget how tough it was the first few times I did it.


You can get an SDS hammer drill for about $90, and non-SDS for as low as $30 in some places I'm looking. I may have missed it, but have you mentioned how thick your floor is? If you don't have to go too far you won't need the kind of long bits you can get with SDS drills. You'll still be able to find some pretty long bits, though. I think I have one that's 12", which I sometimes need to get through cinderblock plus plaster or drywall.

I have this cordless drill that does the job. It's not just a hammer drill, but works as a normal drill too. I use it for everything around the house, and it's essentially replaced the standard cordless drill I had before this one. Just tonight I installed a baby gate on our stairs (toddlers are scary) and used that to make the pilot holes. I guess if you already have a drill it's silly to get a hammer drill, but it might be a good time to upgrade the drill you have for features like brushless, cordless, etc.

+100 (!}

No direct experience with it, thus no recommendation one way or the other.
The original is HIGHLY recommended though, both from past first-person experience and from a power-consumption perspective (less than 3W at the outlet).

You can just plug in the ethernet cable (through the ceiling) and it will work. Plug it into one of the four LAN ports.

But.. Messy. VERY messy.

Instead, plug the ethernet cable into the WAN ("Internet") port, and then visit the web GUI on the device and set "Type" to "DHCP".

Unfortunately, my personal memory is worsening, and my own WRT54GL devices all have Tomato firmware rather than DD-WRT. But do (by all means!) email me if there is any confusion or issue. We'll sort it out. I can/will install DD-WRT on a spare to make things simpler for both of us!

-ml

When we had our attic space converted into a spare room, the electrician had to run power cables up the corner of the house (the fuse/distribution box is by the front door), which meant cutting channels in the brickwork and plaster (none of those hollow walls in this house) from the ground floor, up through what's now my study, to the top floor. Rather than have him attempt to wire up Ethernet, I just handed him a roll of CAT5e cable and asked him to do two runs: ground floor to corner study and ground floor to attic conversion, and to make sure he left 3 feet of cable sticking out at each end. I temporarily crimped connectors on the end to check continuity before they re-dressed the plastering, and then I did the wall boxes myself later.

That will result in a double NAT situation. Why is the straight plug in messy?

Just set it up with a second SSID and run it on the same network. Doesn't need any special settings. Set them up for different channels so they don't interfere with each other. You can possibly even set them to the same SSID etc and almost roam between them (not quite that simple).

Was there a requirement to keep the networks separate at all?