LexiconGeek71

Q: Airport Extreme

I have read and scene 1st hand how awesome the airport extreme is with WiFi speeds well of over 100 Mbps at friends homes when using speedtest.net. I currently have (3) Cisco 24 port gigabyte switches in my basement network rack. I also have (1) cat6 600 Mhz cable from this rack to the attic and my house is about 5000sq ft I have been using a Comcast Arris router in basment rack and a Pakedge access point in the attic.The Pakedge is several years old and only has 2.4 ghz. If I put the airport extreme in the rack in the basement as good as the extreme unit is i'm worried i wont have coverage on the 2nd floor. Would I just run (3) cat7 wires from the airport extreme to my (3) 24 ports switches and then the other port take my cat6 wire that goes to attic and put in a airport express up there to extend coverage?

null, iOS 9.3

Posted on Mar 30, 2016 9:16 AM

Close

Q: Airport Extreme

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by Tesserax,

    Tesserax Tesserax Mar 30, 2016 9:23 AM in response to LexiconGeek71
    Level 9 (54,452 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 9:23 AM in response to LexiconGeek71

    With your home's Ethernet backbone as you described you can add AirPort base stations at each location that has Ethernet available. You would then have the basis for a roaming style network.

     

    As you may already know, with this type of network, a portable wireless client can literally roam between base stations (on different floors) and still be connected to the "same" Wi-Fi network.

  • by LexiconGeek71,

    LexiconGeek71 LexiconGeek71 Mar 30, 2016 9:39 AM in response to Tesserax
    Level 1 (8 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 9:39 AM in response to Tesserax

    Thank you for your response and help. I have read many articles saying that less WiFi units you have in a home is actually better. I used to have (3) access points and when I went to just one my coverage actually increased. Now i'm just missing the 5 ghz and higher speed. My hard wired network speeds are over 100mbps but my Wifi now is only at 35mbps. My basement is unfinished. Could I just run (3) new cat6 cables from my network rack to the 1st floor office and put an airport extreme in there? Then relocate my cat6 network wire from attic to the office?

  • by Tesserax,Helpful

    Tesserax Tesserax Mar 30, 2016 1:22 PM in response to LexiconGeek71
    Level 9 (54,452 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 1:22 PM in response to LexiconGeek71

    I have read many articles saying that less WiFi units you have in a home is actually better.

    Well, these articles appear to be partially correct. The main reason you would want to avoid multiple Wireless Access Points (WAP) is to prevent Wi-Fi interference between them ... but this has more to do with proximity than anything else. How may WAPs you employ will depend on both your networking goals and the area that you need to cover to meet them.

     

    Each AirPort base station deployed, in a roaming network, perform as a WAP. The following Cisco article is a bit lengthy but may give you an idea of how it is done in a commercial site. They are basically a type of roaming network similar to the one in the Apple Support article I referenced earlier. Fortunately, the Cisco article has lots of pictures.

    Could I just run (3) new cat6 cables from my network rack to the 1st floor office and put an airport extreme in there? Then relocate my cat6 network wire from attic to the office?

    You could. Again, it will depend on your networking goals. If, for example, you want to cover three floors, I would, as a minimum deploy three base stations. I would place them in the center of each floor and as high up in that room as possible. For best placement, or to determine if you need any additional base stations, you would want to perform a site survey. A great application for this, is NetSpot. There are many others.

  • by LexiconGeek71,

    LexiconGeek71 LexiconGeek71 Mar 30, 2016 9:59 AM in response to Tesserax
    Level 1 (8 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 9:59 AM in response to Tesserax

    You are the best! Thank you. I will absolutely look over and try. Thanks again for your time. 

  • by Tesserax,Helpful

    Tesserax Tesserax Mar 30, 2016 1:22 PM in response to LexiconGeek71
    Level 9 (54,452 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 1:22 PM in response to LexiconGeek71

    You're very welcome! I'm glad I was able to help. Be sure to post back if you need further assistance or start a new post if you have anything else you need help with.

  • by Bob Timmons,

    Bob Timmons Bob Timmons Mar 30, 2016 10:07 AM in response to LexiconGeek71
    Level 10 (105,079 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 10:07 AM in response to LexiconGeek71
    I have read many articles saying that less WiFi units you have in a home is actually better

    Some of those articles might have been referring a network in which the access points connect to the main router using a wireless connection.......not using an Ethernet connection.

     

    This is known as "extending using wireless", or "repeating using wireless" among other things.  When you try to extend a network this way, then there will always be a significant loss of the maximum signal speed over the entire network.....usually at least 40%, but it can be more.

     

    So, in that respect, the articles that you have read are correct.  But the articles would not be correct if you asking about a network where all of the access points connect using an Ethernet connection.  Assuming correct wiring and correct configuration. there is no signal loss through the Ethernet network, so this is by far the best way to design a network when you need wireless coverage in different areas.

  • by Tesserax,

    Tesserax Tesserax Mar 30, 2016 10:10 AM in response to Bob Timmons
    Level 9 (54,452 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 10:10 AM in response to Bob Timmons

    So, in that respect, the articles that you have read are correct.  But the articles would not be correct if you asking about a network where all of the access points connect using an Ethernet connection.

    Sorry Bob, but that is not entirely true. You can still have issues with wireless performance, even in all WAP Ethernet-connected networks, due to Wi-Fi interference between WAPs. True, it is not as severe as in all wireless setups, but it still exists and proper placement of the wire-connected WAPs is still important for wireless client connectivity/performance.

  • by LexiconGeek71,

    LexiconGeek71 LexiconGeek71 Mar 30, 2016 10:15 AM in response to Bob Timmons
    Level 1 (8 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 10:15 AM in response to Bob Timmons

    When I had my (3) access points running they were wired with cat6 to each one coming out of the gigabyte switch. One was in the attic, one was in my office, and one was in the basement. Each of the cat6 runs to there locations was tested with a hi end tester and passed. At least for me in my home when I went to just one access point in the attic location that is when I noticed improved performance and coverage.

  • by Bob Timmons,

    Bob Timmons Bob Timmons Mar 30, 2016 10:26 AM in response to LexiconGeek71
    Level 10 (105,079 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 10:26 AM in response to LexiconGeek71

    Totally different results for me.  One router centrally located would not come close to reaching either side of the house or to the patio area. Now I have 4 access points, and they all test out literally identically. So, the network is the same, it is just much bigger.

     

    Yours will be as well, if the setup and wiring are correct, and the access points are well spaced.

     

    But, if you are happy with only one router, then no need to make any changes.

  • by LexiconGeek71,

    LexiconGeek71 LexiconGeek71 Mar 30, 2016 10:49 AM in response to Bob Timmons
    Level 1 (8 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 10:49 AM in response to Bob Timmons

    I appreciate and do value your help for sure. The (3) Pakedge access points I have are about 3-4 years old. At that particular time they were considered to be one of the most powerful highest signal output units you could get. So the thinking at that time was to do one on each floor and just literally flood the house with WiFi. But I think what happened was that being they were so powerful I actually may have had to much interference going on and when I just went to one that's when everything really improved. This whole update basically started with a few of my friends coming over and teasing me saying how slow my WiFi was. I said "are you kidding me?!" "I have a wired cat6 600Mhz network with (3) hi end Cicso 24 port gig switches" and over 100 Mbps. They told me "yes but your WiFi is old and 35 Mbps slow" I said "Okay" and "Well what are you running in your homes?" Then when I visited my friends homes I saw 1st hand how they were getting a little over 100Mbps on there WiFi as my "Wired cat6" network when testing on there mac and pc's. I said "are you kidding me?! "what do you have?" They all had Apple Airport Express units. So for me seeing is believing. We all have the Comcast "Blast" package of 75Mbps. But when we all test in our homes were getting a little more over a 100Mbps via hard wired. So now I would like to get the best WiFi performance that I can and will do a Airport Extreme. I have scene that there are other units out like Netgears Blackhawk AC3200 unit who claim up to 3.2Gbps, 3 WiFi bands but I find it hard to really believe the specs. And the review articles seem to say this as well. And that the 2.4 Ghz  on this new model is actually worse than on there previous models. I want something reliable and saw 1st hand at my friends homes with the Apple Airport Extreme. I do take Apple at its word when they say up to 1.3 Gbps speeds via WiFi. Although i'm not sure there is anything out there yet that you would need to stream that fast via WiFi.

  • by Bob Timmons,

    Bob Timmons Bob Timmons Mar 30, 2016 11:05 AM in response to LexiconGeek71
    Level 10 (105,079 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 11:05 AM in response to LexiconGeek71

    Good luck on the AirPort Extreme. It is quite a bit less powerful than some of the other routers that you mention, but you won't know if it will do what you want until you try.

     

    But, be realistic in your expectations. The only way that you will ever see 1.3 Gbps speeds is if you have an 802.11ac capable computer very close to the AirPort Extreme with clear line of sight......and almost no other wireless devices connecting at the same time.

     

    The forums are packed with users who have done everything right, and they are still having issues. This is normal.

     

    The AirPort Extreme is frankly at the low end of the router pack as far as performance is concerned.....my opinion.  It has been almost 3 years since it was introduced. Since you like specifications, you might want to look this one over and locate the AirPort Extreme in the charts.

     

    http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/view

     

    Buy from Apple and you have 14 days to return the product for exchange or a refund if you are not satisfied.  The only way that you will know if things works well is to check them out in your home. Good luck!

  • by LexiconGeek71,

    LexiconGeek71 LexiconGeek71 Mar 30, 2016 11:32 AM in response to Bob Timmons
    Level 1 (8 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 11:32 AM in response to Bob Timmons

    Thanks for your reply and help with sending the chart link. It cant hurt to try like you said.

  • by Bob Timmons,

    Bob Timmons Bob Timmons Mar 30, 2016 11:37 AM in response to LexiconGeek71
    Level 10 (105,079 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 11:37 AM in response to LexiconGeek71

    The AirPort Extreme is well down on the charts since it is almost 3 years old at this point, but it might work well for you.  My AirPorts work well for me.

  • by LexiconGeek71,

    LexiconGeek71 LexiconGeek71 Mar 30, 2016 1:48 PM in response to Tesserax
    Level 1 (8 points)
    Wireless
    Mar 30, 2016 1:48 PM in response to Tesserax

    I read some of the Cisco docs and used the Netspot. Very cool! Thanks!