Networking questions for a new room.

T

trooper11

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
350
I had a question about whole house networking. We will be adding on to our house soon and as part of that, I want to go ahead and have the addon wired with ethernet for internet sharing and of course file sharing from a media server, etc.

what im wondering is, what is the best way to set up this kind of networking? I already have a wireless router i use for our existing networking needs and it works fine, but there have been some drop outs every so often and its an older router. Is it a good idea to just get a gigabit wireless N router so that I can continue using the wireless while getting the gigabit ethernet that will run to outlets in the new space or would it be better to have a wireless/gigabit router and then a gigabit switch to pass it on. The only reason a switch interested me was becuase I could see needing more then 4 ports, and I havent seen any wireless n routers with more than 4 ports.

I was thinking of keeping all the networking equipment in the attic so that the lines would run from the switch/router to the neccesary outlets.

Im new to this level of networking, so there may be a smarter way of doing this, so any tips would be welcomed.
 
The attic is probably not a great location; in most new construction it's rather a pain to get to when you have to work on your gear. Maybe a place to put a wireless AP, but I wouldn't terminate all your cabling and put all your gear there. A basement or garage makes a lot more sense.

Run Cat6 to that location, run twice as much as you think you need, patch it down to a patch panel and wall mount a switch there. If you can, put your cable/DSL modem in the same location along with your router. I'd just keep your existing router if it's served you well and buy a new switch; there's no reason to buy a gigabit router if you already have one. For wireless, plug APs into whatever jacks are in suitable locations in the house, or do a special run or two to a location in the attic.
 
thanks for the info.

i forgot to mention that my current wireless router is not gigabit, its only 10/100, so would that be a reason to replace the router?

let me see if im following your idea here:


lets say i move my modem/equipment to a closet in a central location. would i still want to run cat 6 from the modem to a wall mounted switch gigabit switch box and then from there running whatever number of lines i need to the patch panel and then from the patch panel to the wall outlets needed?

then run one cat 6 line from the switch to the wireless router so that I still have wireless?
 
Last edited:
The ports on your router is part of the built in switch. If you would like to share files across your network and have very high performance streaming capabilities then go with the gigabit but keep in mind youll need gigabit cards in your pc's to take advantage of the extra bandwidth. Otherwise, just keep the current router and if you need more ports get another switch. Do not get a gigabit switch if you dont upgrade the router as well though since it will be limited to the 100mbps coming off the router.
 
jchauncey86 said:
The ports on your router is part of the built in switch. If you would like to share files across your network and have very high performance streaming capabilities then go with the gigabit but keep in mind youll need gigabit cards in your pc's to take advantage of the extra bandwidth. Otherwise, just keep the current router and if you need more ports get another switch. Do not get a gigabit switch if you dont upgrade the router as well though since it will be limited to the 100mbps coming off the router.
Click to expand...

ok, thats what i thought. i will definitely replace the router to match the gigabit a switch would have.

the only reason i was thinking of the switch instead of just using a router is that i know ill need more than 4 ports.
 
You don't need to replace the router if you add a gigabit switch. Your internet connection is going to be slower than 100mbit for sure, as is your wireless (unless you have 802.11n, anyway), so if you plug all your PCs into the gigabit switch and plug your router into the switch as well, you don't gain anything but having a gigabit router.

I'm not sure I understand your question, but basically what you'd have is all your lines coming in from around the house at a patch panel. Mount a GigE switch nearby, and as necessary plug patch cables between the panel and switch to bring ports online. If your router and modem is in the same spot, connect them up as they are now, and just run a patch cable from a LAN port on the router to your Gig switch. If you have to put the modem and/or router in another place for whatever reason, just plug them into a live wall jack and it will all work fine. Or just relocate the modem and keep the router near the patch panel and instead of patching into the switch, patch into the router's wan port instead.
 
That's not true. Just because the router is 10/100 doesn't mean all connections will be 10/100. If he has a gigabit switch, any gigabit device can talk GigE to any other gigabit device. Of course, the WAN link will be limited to 100Mbps, however, if you can find 100Mbit service to your house you are in an excellent position already.
 
hmm ok, i thought that i would need to connect my modem to the switch and then run a cable from the switch to my existing router or to a new router while the other lines from the switch go to the patch panel to bring those ports online.

i doubt ill actually run wired lines from the router, i just want it for the wireless function, while anything using wired connections will be using gigabit (with the appropriate gigabit adapters of course), but if i do, ill keep in mind that those ports will only be getting 10/100 speeds.
 
hmm ok, i thought that i would need to connect my modem to the switch and then run a cable from the switch to my existing router or to a new router while the other lines from the switch go to the patch panel to bring those ports online.
Click to expand...
You probably don't want to connect your modem directly to the switch. Most ISPs will only give you a couple IP addresses and the router affords you some security as well.
 
keenan said:
You probably don't want to connect your modem directly to the switch. Most ISPs will only give you a couple IP addresses and the router affords you some security as well.
Click to expand...


well if thats the case and i need to have the router go between the modem and the switch, would that mean i would want to have a gigabit capable wireless router in order to ensure getting the most out of my gigabit network?

i doubt my internet connection would saturate 10/100 much less gigabit and since the only gigabit im concerned about is the local network for streaming, moving files, etc, then having the router there shouldnt be a bottleneck right?
 
trooper11 said:
well if thats the case and i need to have the router go between the modem and the switch, would that mean i would want to have a gigabit capable wireless router in order to ensure getting the most out of my gigabit network?

i doubt my internet connection would saturate 10/100 much less gigabit and since the only gigabit im concerned about is the local network for streaming, moving files, etc, then having the router there shouldnt be a bottleneck right?
Click to expand...

Your second paragraph is correct. If you run modem -> 10/100 router -> 10/100/1000 switch -> devices, then all your gigabit devices will connect to each other at gigabit speeds. The internet/router connection to the devices will be limited to 100Mb, but as already stated, that isn't an issue for most people.

This setup limits where you can put your router, obviously. If the router is serving as your wireless access point as well, that can be less than ideal. You can get a separate AP (or another WiFi router with all the routing stuff disabled - it's usually cheaper for some reason) and put that elsewhere in the house, cabled to the switch, to improve your wireless coverage.
 
InvisiBill said:
Your second paragraph is correct. If you run modem -> 10/100 router -> 10/100/1000 switch -> devices, then all your gigabit devices will connect to each other at gigabit speeds. The internet/router connection to the devices will be limited to 100Mb, but as already stated, that isn't an issue for most people.

This setup limits where you can put your router, obviously. If the router is serving as your wireless access point as well, that can be less than ideal. You can get a separate AP (or another WiFi router with all the routing stuff disabled - it's usually cheaper for some reason) and put that elsewhere in the house, cabled to the switch, to improve your wireless coverage.
Click to expand...

If you go the seperate AP route I highly recommend a Netgear ProSafe AP. They support POE so you can put it where there isn't a power cord if you want and they are ROCK solid. I leave them running for years at a time with no reboots required. I can just rely on it to work. When I use regular routers as AP's (disable DHCP, etcetc) they lock up every now and then (maybe a few times per year) and it's a pain. So now I've moved to hardware that never locks up.
 
hmm ok, so are you saying that it would be better to have an AP connected to the switch so that it can have the best chance of maxing out bandwidth via gigabit instead of 10/100 via the router for moving anything over the network?

if thats the case, then which is a better idea:

using the current router for the wired connections only between the modem and switch
+
getting an AP that connects to the switch

or

buying a new wireless router with gigabit so that the bottleneck is removed
 
any suggestions on which wireless n router i should get if i choose to replace my current one?

i know there are those dual band n and dual band/dual radio n varieties but im wondering if going to that expense is neccesary.

the linksys dual band n gigabit router is about 90 while the dual band/dual radio gigabit router is about 160. i have read up on the advantages of the having dual radios, but its starting to sound like overkill.

the point of wireless for me will be to connect with maybe one desktop and then any laptops. im just not sure if its neccesary to have the highest end solution even if im streaming HD video to one of those devices. they wont be the media pcs in the house, thats for sure.

my htpc and other pcs will connect via the gigabit for sharing/streaming to ensure i get the output i want.


then as far as the switch goes, will any basic gigabit switch do? I was looking at the linksys 5 or 8 port gigabit switches which are quite reasonable in price, but any better recommendations are welcome.
 
trooper11 said:
hmm ok, so are you saying that it would be better to have an AP connected to the switch so that it can have the best chance of maxing out bandwidth via gigabit instead of 10/100 via the router for moving anything over the network?
Click to expand...

No. Theoretically, 802.11n can transfer data at up to 600Mb/s (150Mb per antenna). However, the linked OCHQ test of a 300Mb adapter gave them an average of 130Mb of throughput. You most likely won't reach those high numbers that are advertised for actual data transfers. If you're really concerned about every last bit of speed on WiFi, then I guess you might want to put it on gigabit, but I honestly doubt you'll notice the difference 99% of the time.

The suggestion for adding an AP was solely regarding WiFi coverage, not bandwidth. With an AP, you can just run a cable to the switch and place the AP where it works the best. If you've got a router/AP, then it has to be between the modem and the network. Unless you want to run cables back and forth to another location, you'll need to place it near your modem and switch.
 
trooper11 said:
then as far as the switch goes, will any basic gigabit switch do? I was looking at the linksys 5 or 8 port gigabit switches which are quite reasonable in price, but any better recommendations are welcome.
Click to expand...

I like TRENDnet's stuff. The TEG-S50G is a 5-port "green" gigabit switch for $35 - $10MIR with free shipping. The TEG-S80G is the 8-port version for $9 more. The free shipping and MIR on these keeps the total cost pretty close to the bottom of the pricing barrel.
 
ah ok i see, its more about coverage than performance.

the plan is to move the modem and router to a more central location along with the patch panel and switch (its a two story house and everything would be set up near the middle of the first floor).

so if coverage is an issue, i could just add an AP plugged into one of the ethernet drops.
 
Signal quality and performance are directly related, so the two do go hand in hand. Usually the place you want to put all your wiring and equipment isn't going to be that close to where you want to use it (garage, basement etc.), so it doesn't make a lot of sense to have that be your only wireless node.

As far as switches, I'd pay the premium for either an HP 1400-8G or NetGear Prosafe GS108. HP makes absolutely rock solid gear and their warranty is second-to-none in the industry (lifetime with next-day cross shipment), and I've been quite happy with the NetGear Prosafe gear as well at a slightly lower price, also with a lifetime warranty (though not as good as HP's). That said, if you just want something that's going to work, basically anything is fine, the even cheaper D-Link 'green' series are fine.
 
well since that hp switch is only a few dollars more, ill definitely consider it. plus, its cheaper then then what linksys has. thanks for the suggestions.


ill be getting that switch along with a new router to get this build going.
 
i had another question.

im looking at the different types of cat 6 ethernet out there and was wanting to know what would be the best choice for my application.

im definitely getting cat 6 bulk cable for the runs, but ive seen different types of cat 6 in bulk. There are UTP (unsheilded)/STP (sheiled), Stranded/Solid, CMG/CMR/CMP, 400mhz/500mhz/550mhz/600mhz, etc. Can anyone help clear these options up for me?

From what Ive read, sheilded is better, solid is better for long runs, cmp is the highest rating and 600mhz corresponds to cat 6a cables, but its all a bit confusing.

CMP seems to be for extreme commercial environments, so that shouldnt apply to me, but it sounds like shielded cable might be neccesary when using it for streaming video, etc. If anyone can shed some light on what is overkill that would be great.

As an example, i was looking at this bulk cat 6 from monoprice:

http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10234&cs_id=1023402&p_id=6206&seq=1&format=2

its utp/cm(g i presume)/550mhz/solid type but im not sure if that means its cat 6a or just regular cat 6 or if that even matters.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6_cable

The CMx ratings with cat cables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_5_cable

What kind of cable really depends on what the environment will be like where the cable is going to run. If you plan on running these cables next to anything that has electricity running along side it then I would buy the STP version. I would buy some PVC and run it to each room. Then just install some female RJ45 outlets.

http://www.connectworld.net/bulkcable/workstation3.html

You better run 2x the cables per room. Just a FYI!
 
im planning for 6 ethernet jacks around the room (running two jacks together in three different places).

so if im goign to have these lines run near the electrical outlets, using stp cable is worth it? if im not goign to have these jacks next to electrical outlets, what distance is too close to the electric lines to warrant stp cabling?
 
anyone have any suggestions as far as which patch panel i should get? of course ill need something wall mountable since i wont be using a rack.
 
trooper11 said:
so if im goign to have these lines run near the electrical outlets, using stp cable is worth it? if im not goign to have these jacks next to electrical outlets, what distance is too close to the electric lines to warrant stp cabling?
Click to expand...

If I'm going to run the cat cables along side anything that has electricity running through it then I would use STP. EMI is always a possibility. STP is suppose to reduce the possibility of EMI. I don't know what would be a safe distance. I'm not an electrical engineer. But if I had to guess I would say a foot is a safe distance just from a common sense approach.

Just a side note though, of all the cat cabling I've seen run, I've never seen EMI be an issue.
 
ElvisG said:
If I'm going to run the cat cables along side anything that has electricity running through it then I would use STP. EMI is always a possibility. STP is suppose to reduce the possibility of EMI. I don't know what would be a safe distance. I'm not an electrical engineer. But if I had to guess I would say a foot is a safe distance just from a common sense approach.

Just a side note though, of all the cat cabling I've seen run, I've never seen EMI be an issue.
Click to expand...

If the cable run will be anywhere near a flourescent light, use STP. Flourescent lighting fixtures will cause issues if UTP is run across them or along them.
 
nessus said:
If the cable run will be anywhere near a flourescent light, use STP. Flourescent lighting fixtures will cause issues if UTP is run across them or along them.
Click to expand...

good point. luckily i wont have anything flourescent running, so thats one less thing to worry about.
 
after reading through the specs for cat 6a cables, it looks like as long as the cable is rated for at least 500mhz then it would be conforming to 6a standards right?

the reason i ask is that im seeing bulk cable sold as 'cat 6' but with ratings like 500mhz/550mhz/600mhz. for isntance, monoprice doesnt sell shielded bulk cable but they do sell the utp variety at 550mhz, even though they are still calling it 'cat 6'. i just wanted to know if that matters or if that is what i need to look for.

it would be nice to find source for cat 6a in lengths of 100 or 500 as bulk cabling instead of just 1000ft, but thats not a big deal as long as i pick the right type lol.
 
The specification doesn't simply say 'the cable must work at x MHz', it is much more specific than that, and as far as I know doesn't really talk about bandwidth at all. The bandwidth 'specification' is pure marketing and can be completely ignored. If it says 'Category 6a', it meets all the requirements. And cable marketed as '500MHz' Cat6 (not a) may not be sufficient to meet the Cat6a spec.

Cat6a is not necessarily shielded (and normally would be unshielded).
 
oh ok, well then im going to have to keep looking for the bulk cat6a cable or settle for the cat6 stuff.

also, about the switch im using. does anyone know if i can run a cable to a 2nd switch in order to have access to more ports?

i may fill all 8 ports on that hp switch so i was wondering if i could just buy a 2nd hp switch and sort of daisy chain it. would that work?

or would i be better off choosing a 16 port switch from another manufacturer? such as the NETGEAR GS116 10/100/1000Mbps ProSafe Gigabit ?
 
It will work fine, with the obvious limitation that traffic between switches is limited to 1Gbps (assuming a GbE switch). If you have 100mbit switches you might need a crossover cable, but this is pretty unlikely, basically every switch made in the past few years is either GbE or has Auto MDI-X.

Even planning for expansion to 10GBase-T I think plain Cat6 is sufficient for pretty much any home installation. It should be good for 10Gbit at least 30m.
 
yeah, from what ive read, cat 6 is able to push 10Gb over 37m while cat 6a can do it over 100m. since none of my runs will exceed 37m, i would say im covered for future expansion.

as far as the switch issue goes, even though the connection between the two switches will be limited to 1Gb, that shouldnt reduce performance right? i mean anything plugged into the 2nd switch will still be getting the full gigabit performance to the device plugged into it.
 
trooper11 said:
as far as the switch issue goes, even though the connection between the two switches will be limited to 1Gb, that shouldnt reduce performance right? i mean anything plugged into the 2nd switch will still be getting the full gigabit performance to the device plugged into it.
Click to expand...

Computers 1 and 2 are on gigabit switch A. Computers 8 and 9 are on gigabit switch B. Switches A and B are uplinked via a regular network cable between ports.

1 and 2 have the full 1Gb between each other, as do 8 and 9. If 1 and 9 connect, they have the full 1Gb. However, if 2 and 8 connect while 1 and 9 are connected, then both connections have to share the 1Gb uplink between the two switches. 1-9 and 2-8 have a total of 1Gb to use. If you add computers 3 and 7 to switches A and B respectively and those connect, then you've got three different connections all sharing that 1Gb uplink.

This probably won't be a major issue, but you don't want to put multiple (major) sources and destinations on different switches, since there can be a bottleneck between the switches. Try to keep the big transfers from crossing switches if possible. For example, put the streaming servers and clients on one, and the casual web browsers and isolated transfer stuff on the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top