Xplornet - ViaSat to Airport Extreme connection

Lets go back to the main issue..

You ViaSat modem should not just switch off with a router connected..

Tell me more about the setup.. if you plug a computer directly into the modem.. what IP do you get?? Gateway (router in AppleSpeak) and DNS?? Generally it is 10.x.x.x with satellite systems. And this is a problem.. since Airport uses 10.0.1.1 as its home IP.

So first thing to try IMHO the basic issue is not your home network but is inherent in any satellite communications.. the shear distance travelled introduces a latency that cannot be overcome.

Test what is the latency with a direct connection to the modem..

Then if the modem / satellite system is using 10.x.x.x ie any IP that begins with 10.. move the IP of the Airport Extreme to 192.168.1.x here.

You should be in router mode.. so DHCP and NAT.. and you can see default to 10.0.1.x

Click on the network options on the bottom of the page.

And select 192.168 here

The Airport will then use 192.168.1.1 as home address..

This might stop the issue with the Airport crashing the modem.. as the IP clash.

And then you won't need the switch.. tell me if it works as well as the actual IP you get.

Thanks for the feedback and excellent screenshots.. that helps me see what is happening.

The change in IP fixed one problem.. it means the satellite system is using 10.x.x.x address somewhere in the system.. but interestingly you are actually getting a special IP which is not public but likely CGNAT.

As a test you could try doing a traceroute from the terminal to any normal web address.. e.g. google public dns like 8.8.8.8 and see what you come up with. I would expect some 10.x.x.x numbers in there.

traceroute 8.8.8.8

traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 rt-ac3200-82f0 (192.168.2.254) 1.837 ms 0.932 ms 1.040 ms

2 melbvoc-lns12.mel.eftel.com.au (203.123.68.185) 17.571 ms 17.784 ms 17.745 ms

3 po-1-353.core1.mel.eftel.com.au (203.123.68.193) 17.927 ms 18.200 ms 17.613 ms

4 203.123.69.134 (203.123.69.134) 18.702 ms 19.230 ms 18.841 ms

5 233.1.2.123.network.m2core.net.au (123.2.1.233) 29.813 ms 29.898 ms 30.311 ms

6 74.125.52.10 (74.125.52.10) 30.598 ms 31.620 ms 31.537 ms

7 108.170.247.33 (108.170.247.33) 31.130 ms

108.170.247.81 (108.170.247.81) 31.326 ms

108.170.247.49 (108.170.247.49) 31.451 ms

8 216.239.41.1 (216.239.41.1) 30.514 ms

216.239.41.189 (216.239.41.189) 82.072 ms

66.249.95.51 (66.249.95.51) 31.713 ms

9 google-public-dns-a.google.com (8.8.8.8) 126.147 ms 29.250 ms 136.867 ms

The problem with high latency links is the way it interacts with other links like wireless which share bandwidth and can also be high latency.

Apple does not give us anyway to fix packet size in wireless.. but the usual solution to this is reduction of packet size.

The issues seem more than just .7 of a second and is unacceptable on things like WIFI assist calls, Skype, Web X, FaceTime etc.

You really need hard wired connections for anything interactive on your end.. wifi is just going to work terribly. And btw that is the case with even a double hop wireless system.

For example you are using double hop wireless.. so if you are trying to make a call over wifi from your phone.. and the phone connects to one of the express instead of the extreme.. the connection will become near unusable. I found this out myself the hard way. If you at least remove the double hop this will help. ie the phone must connect to the airport extreme.. never the express.

In the end you could try with a wireless router that allows pro level access to reduce packet size.. and you must eliminate double hop wireless.

However I think the satellite is probably just not going to work well enough for this.

If you can afford it.. the best solution is to keep the DSL network going.. and use it specifically for any interactive calls you are going to use. Keep the satellite for data streams.

Is there any advantage to this set up or any other way I can prioritize her to the available signal available

There is, but not with the current networking hardware that you have. You would need hardware that support VLANs. These would allow you to control traffic priorities on your local network. Your Apple Extreme only supports a very simple type of VLAN with its implementation of a Guest Network ... but this would not be the VLAN solution for what you are considering.

Instead, you would need to replace your Extreme with a router that does support "true" VLAN implementation. These are typically business-grade, but numerous consumer-grade models do as well.

Regardless, even if you can provide her with full priority, voice over IP, is going to be problematic as you also have to take into consideration uplink speed as well. Ideally, you will want something in the order of 10 Mbps (down) / 5 Mbps (up) as a minimum with low latency. Otherwise voice communications will sound "under water." A number of companies are "technology" oriented and she may find that her's can help by providing her with high speed Internet service if she is working from home full-time.

I agree with Tesserax .. you need a router with much better controls.

VOIP is fine over standard ADSL type upload speeds.. but video calls no.. it will require much better bandwidth to get smooth video.. especially if running webinars. Check your local 4G supplier.. although it is expensive you can get much better bandwidth now if the signal in your area is high enough. You can easily test it by tethering your phone to the computer. Much better than Satellite in terms of latency although of course it is never going to match a wired connection.

A suitable router does not need to be expensive.

One of the best is a 3rd party firmware called Gargoyle, which you load to a cheap router.. e.g. WNDR3800 or WD mynet N750 .. you can buy them second hand for a few dollars. They don't have great wireless so you can keep the airport extreme as WAP only. They have a very limited list of newer routers. The best and cheapest is Linksys WRT1200AC.

I am not sure how you have the Extreme setup with ADSL but whichever router you use would need to take over as main router.. so PPPOE is passed from the modem to the router.. modem is bridged.

I use Asus router now.. their better models RT-AC68U and above have excellent firmware developed from 3rd party by Asus themselves.. it now has most of the features you will find in the better grade routers but with a fairly simple GUI setup.. During the time your wife is doing her webinars she would need full dedication of the upload on adsl.. this is possible by setting throttling limits or even the QoS might be sufficient. You need to sacrifice the rest of the network to a very small amount of upload while she is streaming.

More pro level like Ubiquiti is also not over expensive but have a fairly steep learning curve.

A second hand WD mynet N750 can be had for maybe $10 on eBay.. and is one of the best routers to handle difficult control on a limited connection with gargoyle firmware.. it is really not a big outlay if that is your only choice to use ADSL for connection.

2.4 GHz signals are stronger.....but slower.....than 5 GHz signals

5.0 GHz signals are weaker.....but faster.....than 2.4 GHz signals

If a device is capable of connecting to either 2.4 GHz or 5.0 GHz, then it will connect at the 5.0 GHz rate if it is in the same room or close proximity to the WiFi router.

If the same device moves a few rooms away from the WiFi router, it will connect at 2.4 GHz since those signals are stronger and penetrate obstructions like walls, furniture, etc much more effectively than 5.0 GHz signals.

The speed of 2.4ghz is poorer than 5ghz.. as Bob has indicated.. but be assured it is more than adequate for your slow ADSL. Using either band will make almost no difference where you live.

For people crowded into apartments in the city.. with every neighbour running 2.4ghz wifi plus microwaves, security cams, av senders, front door bells, baby monitors, cordless phones, garage door openers etc etc.. it is really hard now to get useful reliable connections on 2.4ghz.

Crazy vendors of new routers offer higher and higher speeds on 2.4ghz using up all the channels in one go for absolutely no useful results. So 5ghz has become essential now for decent reliable connections. I suspect 5ghz is going to go the same way though.