MoCA advice (have VZ FiOS TV)

[JOSHSKORN]

As the title suggests, I have Verizon FiOS at home, triple play, actually (Phone, Internet & TV). My house is not wired for Ethernet, although I really wish it was. My house is two-story. My router is in my Main bedroom (downstairs) and I have a Coax hookup for the family room upstairs and the family room downstairs. My goal is to have some form of wired internet to both of these family rooms using the existing Coax cable. I heard this is possible using MoCA adapters. Correct?

Here's the thing. I don't know what adapters to use to achieve this. I recently purchased an InfiniTV6 ETH device, which works great as long as I'm wired to my router. For some reason, this device requires a gigabit connection, which is ridiculous since most devices don't even have that type of connection in my house, anyway (they're 10/100 bit). I've tried connecting and viewing TV through the wireless network, and the signal is spotty and not watchable.

I know that MoCA 2.0 is freshly out, and its data transfer rates are 400 Mbit/s - 800 Mbit/s, whereas MoCA 1.1 is 175 Mbit/s. Would like to stick with MoCA 2.0, if possible. My Verizon FiOS router is a MoCA 1.1 device. I don't know about the FiOS device inside of my garage (I think you call that the ONT), but I also don't know if it would play a roll in a MoCA setup, anyway.

Any advice on hardware or leads would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[OFaceSIG]

Actiontec ecb2500 is the most common MOCA adapter out there but it's still moca 1.1. The good part is that your verizon router has a built in moca bridge already. That's how the set top boxes communicate out to the internet.

The ECB2500 however only has a 100Mbps port. So the best I've seen is 88Mbps. From what I understand actiontec has a new moca adapter/wireless bridge that has gigabit ports so you may see more throughput.

I have the older version, the ecb2200 all over my house. Four units in total. They work flawlessly. The one thing to remember is do NOT use the "tv out" port on the moca adapter if your FIOS TV set top box is behind it. You'll need to use a splitter. The reason is the adapter filters out the moca signal so the "tv out" portion is only cable TV. This isn't a problem for me has I use TIVO units and the moca adapter provides the ethernet I need.

Actiontec is the name of the game here. They'll have all the gear you need.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Actiontec ecb2500 is the most common MOCA adapter out there but it's still moca 1.1. The good part is that your verizon router has a built in moca bridge already. That's how the set top boxes communicate out to the internet.

Can you explain how I'd set this up or where I'd put it? Again, trying to get an internet connection to two different rooms (one up and one down-stairs). Would I plug the ECB2500 into my router or would I need two ECB2500 devices (one for each room?)?

Just to clarify, THIS is what I saw on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Actiontec-Eth...e=UTF8&qid=1411257238&sr=8-1&keywords=ECB2500

The model is the ECB2500c (not ECB2500).

 

[SkuLLy|RT]

Can you explain how I'd set this up or where I'd put it? Again, trying to get an internet connection to two different rooms (one up and one down-stairs). Would I plug the ECB2500 into my router or would I need two ECB2500 devices (one for each room?)?

Just to clarify, THIS is what I saw on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Actiontec-Eth...e=UTF8&qid=1411257238&sr=8-1&keywords=ECB2500

The model is the ECB2500c (not ECB2500).

I ended up going through Craigslist and buying 3-4 additional Verizon Actiontec MI424s WiFi routers. Disable WiFi, pull the antenna, set them in bridge mode, and call it a day. $20 a pop vs the $70+ that you're looking at on Amazon.

You'd need a MOCA adapter for each room that you wanted connectivity in. They plug into coax, not directly into your router. So I have my main FiOS router in my office, and then an additional FiOS router in every room that I need wired connectivity in.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

I ended up going through Craigslist and buying 3-4 additional Verizon Actiontec MI424s WiFi routers. Disable WiFi, pull the antenna, set them in bridge mode, and call it a day. $20 a pop vs the $70+ that you're looking at on Amazon.

You'd need a MOCA adapter for each room that you wanted connectivity in. They plug into coax, not directly into your router. So I have my main FiOS router in my office, and then an additional FiOS router in every room that I need wired connectivity in.

So, this is my ideal setup:

• Downstairs master bedroom - Verizon Fios Router MI424WR-GEN3I (Rev I)
  • Note: Has InfiniTV6 ETH device connected to it
  • I want to be able to have a secondary router to plug into my router for increased coverage and my own storage cloud via USB 3.0
• Downstairs Family Room
  • Receives a MoCA signal for Internet
  • Must be on same network to access USB storage connected to the router
• Upstairs Family Room
  • Receives a MoCA signal for Internet
  • Must be on same network to access USB storage connected to the router

That said, you're telling me all I need to do, is buy two additional Verizon FiOS routers, set them as bridges and it's a done deal? Will I still have access to my USB storage on my network or am I missing a step here? I can't quite see how they would be on the same network.

 

[raiderj]

Here's a slightly outdated diagram of my home network where I have FiOS and am using COAX directly from the Verizon box. Think of the router having separate networks - One is your COAX WAN, one is your COAX LAN, and another is your Ethernet network. By default, they are all connected, and the router is in "router" mode, and the COAX WAN is connected to your COAX LAN and Ethernet. If you go into bridge mode, you typically manually connect your COAX WAN to Ethernet, then use your personal router to take the Verizon FiOS IP you get and split accordingly. The trick is to now bridge COAX LAN with your home network, which you do by creating another bridge. This process is slightly different between the Verizon router models I've found, but not overly complicated.

Essentially, you can use the Verizon routers as COAX/Ethernet bridges if you don't mind playing around in the settings. I found it confusing the first couple times, but it makes sense after you work it through a few times. It's also dependent on the version of router you get. I have a "C" and an "I" version - the "C" version makes more logical sense to set up, but the "I" version is overall easier and seems to be more stable.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

I was JUST going to ask this. I have both a Verizon/Actiontec Rev C (which is currently unused) and a Rev I (currently in-use). Upstairs, could I plug in my Rev C. and use it as a MoCA bridge? If I plug a computer into this Rev C. router then, will it still have access to the Rev I router's network? That's basically what I want. If so, is it basically plug in, configure the Rev C. router and play? Or will I have to physically connect something else together between the ONT and the end of the Coax cable? I don't quite get how the devices would all communicate, is what I'm trying to say.

 

[devman]

Here's a slightly outdated diagram of my home network where I have FiOS and am using COAX directly from the Verizon box. Think of the router having separate networks - One is your COAX WAN, one is your COAX LAN, and another is your Ethernet network. By default, they are all connected, and the router is in "router" mode, and the COAX WAN is connected to your COAX LAN and Ethernet. If you go into bridge mode, you typically manually connect your COAX WAN to Ethernet, then use your personal router to take the Verizon FiOS IP you get and split accordingly. The trick is to now bridge COAX LAN with your home network, which you do by creating another bridge. This process is slightly different between the Verizon router models I've found, but not overly complicated.

*image tags removed for quote*
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/147504/network.jpg

Essentially, you can use the Verizon routers as COAX/Ethernet bridges if you don't mind playing around in the settings. I found it confusing the first couple times, but it makes sense after you work it through a few times. It's also dependent on the version of router you get. I have a "C" and an "I" version - the "C" version makes more logical sense to set up, but the "I" version is overall easier and seems to be more stable.

What model of actiontek do you have? Most models can not run a bridge mode and you end up with double-NAT.

I have a FIOS triple-play and had Verizon switch my WAN over to Cat5 instead of Coax because I didn't want double-NAT. I currently use an ERL as my gateway, though I still keep the Actiontek as a MoCA bridge, however in my setup the actiontek is inside my LAN behind the gatway, not in front of it.

The setup is described in part 4 of "Replacing the ActionTek" at http://www.dslreports.com/faq/verizonfios/3.1_Actiontec

 

[JOSHSKORN]

See the drawing. This is what I'm attempting to do. Just know for now, I do not have the Dlink router, yet and am going to use the Rev I as my main router, for now until I can get a Dlink router (or Asus or Netgear, which ever I decide). That said, the USB/NAS storage is out of the question until I get that router (all USB ports on Verizon routers are disabled for some reason).

Basically, I would like for Computer B to be able to access content off the NAS/USB Storage drive. I just can't see how the two would be on the same network. THIS is where I'm getting confused.

 

[devman]

See the drawing. This is what I'm attempting to do. Just know for now, I do not have the Dlink router, yet and am going to use the Rev I as my main router, for now until I can get a Dlink router (or Asus or Netgear, which ever I decide). That said, the USB/NAS storage is out of the question until I get that router (all USB ports on Verizon routers are disabled for some reason).

Basically, I would like for Computer B to be able to access content off the NAS/USB Storage drive. I just can't see how the two would be on the same network. THIS is where I'm getting confused.

*Image tags removed for quote*
http://i58.tinypic.com/2wcjthy.jpg

Are you running NAT on the DLINK-Router, if so then your Actiontec Rev C and Computer B are going to both be outside the network created by DLINK-Router. B won't be able to access anything inside that network unless you punch holes through the NAT for it. Also anything inside DLINK-Router's LAN network will be double NAT.



dslreports has a list of various configurations for FIOS, they all have trade-offs.

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/16077

Personally I use configuration 7, it is nice because you can use your own equipment as the gateway and the ActionTec gets serves as a MoCA bridge, Switch, and Wireless AP, but has no Routing/NAT duties.


*UPDATE*:

I don't have any nor have ever worked with any of the newer actionteks (Rev G, H, I), apparently they can bridge now.

Potentially you could do something like bridge ActionTek WAN-Coax to WAN-Ethernet. Connect ActionTek WAN-Ethernet to DLINK WAN. Connect a DLINK LAN port to ActionTek LAN-Ethernet and bridge LAN-Ethernet to LAN-Coax. That would make your above topology work. I don't know if the Actiontek supports it though.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Are you running NAT on the DLINK-Router, if so then your Actiontec Rev C and Computer B are going to both be outside the network created by DLINK-Router. B won't be able to access anything inside that network unless you punch holes through the NAT for it. Also anything inside DLINK-Router's LAN network will be double NAT.



dslreports has a list of various configurations for FIOS, they all have trade-offs.

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/16077

Personally I use configuration 7, it is nice because you can use your own equipment as the gateway and the ActionTec gets serves as a MoCA bridge, Switch, and Wireless AP, but has no Routing/NAT duties.

I don't follow you, sorry. I need to familiarize myself with some terms.

For now, my Rev I will be my primary router. Don't have the D-link, yet, therefore do not have the NAS storage hooked up. For now, the Rev I router will be handling the wireless network. Eventually, it'll be the DLink router or which ever router I choose (if not a D-Link DIR-880L, then either ASUS-AC87U or Netgear R8000). When I say, "handling the wireless network" (thus distributing IPs), is it the same as "NAT"? That said, "Double-NAT", do you mean two difference devices distributing IPs to wireless clients?

 

[raiderj]

Your diagram is spot on. Or, at least I know what you're going for, and I believe it can be done. You have almost the exact same setup I do, except of going for a second Actiontec Router to connect a device in another room I just have the Verizion STB that connects to my TV. Here's a picture of what I think you need to do:

A couple things will need explanation. First, keep in mind that a single COAX cable will carry two networks, one is for your WAN and runs at 1000MHz. The second is your LAN and run at the 1150MHz frequency. Pretend they're VLANs if you're more comfortable with that terminology.

Second, if you notice the Actiontec diagrams at the bottom, you actually do bridge the COAX WAN connection to the LAN-4 port, which will then connect to your router. This is counter-intuitive, but for whatever reason the Actiontec routers can't bridge the COAX WAN to the Ethernet WAN port. Regardless, just connect an Ethernet cable from any of the four ports to your router's WAN port. If the bridge is set up, and your router is set to get an IP via DHCP, it should work just fine.

Lastly, you will bridge your COAX LAN to the Ethernet WAN port, and then this will go to a port on your router's switch. This link will then allow your secondary Actiontec router to provide Computer B with an IP address and communication to the rest of your network.

In summary, your Actiontec router will have two bridges set up. One is from COAX WAN to Ethernet LAN, and the second is from COAX LAN to Ethernet WAN. That means you have two cables coming from the Actiontec to your router. You will also need a third if you want to log into the Actiontec router web interface. Simply connect another cable from one of the Actiontec router's LAN ports to your router's LAN switch. Yes, three cables in total

Now, the differences between the Rev C and Rev I router. I've used both in bridge mode to pass along to my personal router, and both work. However, the Rev I seems unable to create two bridges as described above. However, my STB can still get an IP address via the COAX LAN. So maybe it doesn't need both bridges manually created. I suggest trying both and see which works better for you.

You'll probably need help to get all this set in the Actiontec router's web interface. It's tricky, but see if you can first get the COAX WAN to Ethernet/Network LAN bridge working so your router gets an external IP from Verizon. Note that if you don't release the WAN IP from the Actiontec, you'll have to call Verizon tech support and get them to do it manually. It's not hard, I've always been able to get them to do it for me no problem.

 

[raiderj]

If you follow the steps in Option 4 (Internet-Only Bridge) from the DSL Reports link and use the Rev C Actiontec, then it should only be a small extra step to add in the COAX LAN to Ethernet WAN bridge. Then, do basically the same thing with the Rev I Actiontec.

Follow Option 4

I did a LOT of reading/searching before I figured all this out. I'm surprised it isn't described in better detail, to my knowledge there isn't a write-up on this anywhere that I've found.

EDIT: After reading that page a bit more, I think Option 5 describes my setup above. It just shows an STB instead of another Actiontec router. Double bridging sounds right, I was thinking that was describing double-NAT, which isn't what you want.

 

[devman]

I don't follow you, sorry. I need to familiarize myself with some terms.

For now, my Rev I will be my primary router. Don't have the D-link, yet, therefore do not have the NAS storage hooked up. For now, the Rev I router will be handling the wireless network. Eventually, it'll be the DLink router or which ever router I choose (if not a D-Link DIR-880L, then either ASUS-AC87U or Netgear R8000). When I say, "handling the wireless network" (thus distributing IPs), is it the same as "NAT"? That said, "Double-NAT", do you mean two difference devices distributing IPs to wireless clients?

Consumer grade routers to a lot of things all in one box. Generally, the roles they have are switch, wireless access point (generally bridged to the switch), router, firewall, NAT, DHCP server, and DNS cache/relay.

Handling the wireless network (Wireless AP) and handing out IP addresses (DHCP server) are distinct roles. Generally you only want one DHCP server on a LAN, whereas you can have many Wireless APs, and the these roles do not have to be done by the same box. The most important thing is simply that you have only one box handing out IPs (DHCP server).

NAT is responsible for translating network address on packets transmitted to your gateway's public IPs (WAN IP) to the private IPs of computers on your LAN. This role is done at the network edge so it will usually performed by your gateway/router. Running NAT requires connection tracking so packets get translated correctly, this requires memory to store the NAT table. Early actionteks did not allow tracking of very many connections which is why people ditched them (it caused problems with Steam, BitTorrent, etc).

If you daisy chain two consumer routers together when both are doing NAT (WAN-LAN ---> WAN-LAN ---> Computer A) a computer inside the second router will have its connections double NATed as the second router creates its own private LAN separate from the first routers private LAN. This is not optimal, but it may not be an issue unless one of the boxes doing NAT has a low max number of connections.

 

[raiderj]

Consumer grade routers to a lot of things all in one box. Generally, the roles they have are switch, wireless access point (generally bridged to the switch), router, firewall, NAT, DHCP server, and DNS cache/relay.

Handling the wireless network (Wireless AP) and handing out IP addresses (DHCP server) are distinct roles. Generally you only want one DHCP server on a LAN, whereas you can have many Wireless APs, and the these roles do not have to be done by the same box. The most important thing is simply that you have only one box handing out IPs (DHCP server).

NAT is responsible for translating network address on packets transmitted to your gateway's public IPs (WAN IP) to the private IPs of computers on your LAN. This role is done at the network edge so it will usually performed by your gateway/router. Running NAT requires connection tracking so packets get translated correctly, this requires memory to store the NAT table. Early actionteks did not allow tracking of very many connections which is why people ditched them (it caused problems with Steam, BitTorrent, etc).

If you daisy chain two consumer routers together when both are doing NAT (WAN-LAN ---> WAN-LAN ---> Computer A) a computer inside the second router will have its connections double NATed as the second router creates its own private LAN separate from the first routers private LAN. This is not optimal, but it may not be an issue unless one of the boxes doing NAT has a low max number of connections.

Spot on. I've never understood why it's not easier to re-configure the routers they give you to work in bridge mode. I'm sure it's easier on their tech support, and to be fair Verizon support has always been helpful when it comes to getting IP releases and such. They just don't help you get their router into bridge mode unless you get lucky on the individual you're talking to.

 

[OFaceSIG]

Spot on. I've never understood why it's not easier to re-configure the routers they give you to work in bridge mode. I'm sure it's easier on their tech support, and to be fair Verizon support has always been helpful when it comes to getting IP releases and such. They just don't help you get their router into bridge mode unless you get lucky on the individual you're talking to.

This is a new thing. All Telco equipment used to be VERY simple to put into bridge mode. I used to work for BellSouth and all our DSL modems were westell and were very simple to put into bridge mode.

The complication lies in the fact that Verizon really doesn't want you putting your router in bridge mode as all their set top boxes, ie their cash cows, won't work properly on video on demand if anything goes wrong with the MOCA network. So they discourage it to the point now that I believe the new N router cannot even be rigged into a bridge the way the older ones could.

 

[raiderj]

This is a new thing. All Telco equipment used to be VERY simple to put into bridge mode. I used to work for BellSouth and all our DSL modems were westell and were very simple to put into bridge mode.

The complication lies in the fact that Verizon really doesn't want you putting your router in bridge mode as all their set top boxes, ie their cash cows, won't work properly on video on demand if anything goes wrong with the MOCA network. So they discourage it to the point now that I believe the new N router cannot even be rigged into a bridge the way the older ones could.

That's frustrating. Right now my "I" version of the router still works in bridge mode, but I can see the differences between the "C" version and that bridging mode is less of an option. Really frustrating if they disable bridging... how else would you set up a home router?

 

[OFaceSIG]

That's the point. They don't want you to. Now to the point where new customers now have a rental fee for the routers, yet they have no choice but to use them. That's the part that burns me. I know FIOS is better than cable but I love the fact I could buy a cable modem and wouldn't have to rent. Luckily my account is old enough that I don't have to rent but all new customers have to.

 

[tonyyy]

Just curious is the cost of buying different equipment/components is cheaper then just cutting a hole through the wall and trying to fish a line to your MDF?

 

[devman]

Just curious is the cost of buying different equipment/components is cheaper then just cutting a hole through the wall and trying to fish a line to your MDF?

I did that for my home. I installed a wallplate with an inline coupler in an exterior wall. I then ran a Cat5e patch cable from the backside of the coupler through an exterior penetration and plugged it in to the RJ-45 inside the ONT box.

Even if you do this, you'll still need the actiontek (or another MoCA bridge) if you have Verizon STB and want VOD and Guide data. The only advantage to this method is that it doesn't require Verizon equipment to support bridging. This method also loses remote DVR control through verizon's website and the caller-id feature of the STB. In my case I cared about neither of these features.

 

[dandragonrage]

That's the point. They don't want you to. Now to the point where new customers now have a rental fee for the routers, yet they have no choice but to use them. That's the part that burns me. I know FIOS is better than cable but I love the fact I could buy a cable modem and wouldn't have to rent.

Yeah. Verizon used to give the Actiontec crap away for free, which is about what it's worth IMO. They switched me to charging something like $8/mo for it which motivated me to buy a decent router (got an Asus RT-AC66u on a pretty good sale) and run ethernet instead. I was already using HDHomeRun rather than the overpriced Verizon STBs so I didn't even need to bother with a MoCA adapter. Except that I already have a couple MoCA adapters that I had bought before going ethernet. Couldn't get them to work via WAN though (not all MoCA adapters will work with the WAN frequencies, but the D-Link ones I got were supposed to... Could be that I didn't set them up right, not sure).

Previously I had thought that you could only run ethernet OR coax from the ONT, but that's wrong. You can use coax and ethernet at the same time on the newer ONTs, though you can't actually pull an internet connection from both of them. As others have mentioned you would still need a MoCA adapter to provide the internet signal to your STBs for guide and such if you have them. I had thought I was going to rule out TV alltogether by using ethernet. A FIOS rep did set me straight on that.

I don't even have a choice right now. I live in an apartment building and we have Comcast + FIOS in town but only FIOS in the building. I think that's technically illegal, really.


As a side-note: The Actiontec MoCA bridges don't support the WAN channels. Only their "FIOS router" MI-424WR does. Not the standalone bridges.