Wifi Network Between two houses 150-300M apart

Forums › LAN (ethernet/Wifi/routers/Bluetooth) › Wifi Network Between two houses 150-300M apart

musicismypill

28 posts

Geek

#96911 7-Feb-2012 12:06

Hi There,

I've been having a good browse online and have read what others on the forum have done in the past, but I wouldn't mind getting a second opinion.

I would like to setup a Wifi network between two houses which are two streets apart. My guess is it looks about 150M-300M. My house is on a hill above the second house and we have perfect line of sight with no obstructions.

Ideally a speed of 30Mbps+ would be excellent, although 12Mbps would still be acceptable.

Our current equipment :

My House; D-Link ADSL DVA-G3670B & Apple Airport Extreme (most recent generation)

House 2; Basic Telecom Thompson ADSL/Wifi router

My plan was to hook up a lan cable from the Airport Extreme running to either another router (DD-WRT'd) with a big external antenna, or some sort of wireless bridge. On the other end, would be an exact copy.

Budget would be roughly $200-500

What I'm currently looking at :

http://www.gowifi.co.nz/backhaul-point-to-point/ubiquiti-nanostation-locom2-802.11n/g-200mw-outdoor-ap/bridge.html

http://www.gowifi.co.nz/backhaul-point-to-point/ubiquiti-rocket-m2-802.11n/b/g-500mw-outdoor-ap/bridge.html

Would it be enough to have one of the m2 or m5's or would two of them be required? Is this a long enough distance to look into a small parabolic antenna setup?

Keen for any thoughts on the forum.

Cheers,

chevrolux

4962 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#578148 7-Feb-2012 12:38

My guess would be just use two nanostations. 300m isn't that far.
As for routing, just use one router on the end with ADSL to do all the hard work and then at the remote end just plug a switch in to the nanostation. I would of thought you would only need a router on the remote end if you were running something like a PPPoE server at the main end.

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#578152 7-Feb-2012 12:43

Hi, you dont need to run any more routers just use the nanoM5 stations as a Layer2 bridge, pretend its a piece of cat5e. But maybe you could clarify is the DLink currently used as the network gateway NAT router or is it in half bridge with the Airport doing NAT duties.

Cyril

musicismypill

28 posts

Geek

#578154 7-Feb-2012 12:47

Thanks for the fast response and helpful advice.

D-Link is half-bridge with Airport Extreme handling NAT at the moment.

Looking to share internet and do minor file transfers if that helps.

Any particular advantage with wireless-N vs G in this instance?

What kind of speed could I hope for with modest AP's mentioned in this thread?

Airport Extreme currently serves up two Wifi networks (2.4GHZ and 5GHZ N)

Thanks,

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#578160 7-Feb-2012 13:04

2 * http://www.gowifi.co.nz/backhaul-point-to-point/ubiquiti-nanostation-loco-m5-802.11n/a-200mw-outdoor-ap/bridge.html

Per Cyril's response you just just set up a wifi bridge.

Use the M5 Loco's on that range is all you'll net with perfect line of site... though you can spend extra $$$ if you really want to.

You should get 60mibt at least.

Use the 5.x version as you don't want to interfere with your 2.4 in the house.

D

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#578171 7-Feb-2012 13:22

Hi, so you want to set it up as follows, oh forgot to label the Airport but its the 2nd device between the Dlink and first Nano.

Cheers
Cyril

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#578173 7-Feb-2012 13:26

Cyril is there any reason you're recommending the Nano rather than the Loco in this situation?

(Readers should note that I'm asking because Cyril really is a guru in this space and there's often a very good reason why he suggests stuff! :) )

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#578184 7-Feb-2012 13:36

Hi Don, doh I meant Nanostation LocoM5's I just assumed that the OP would select the smaller radio which is more than adequate for 300m of clear path, sorry should have been more specific.

Cheers
Cyril

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

musicismypill

28 posts

Geek

#578194 7-Feb-2012 13:53

Thanks very much for the diagram. Really appreciate it.

NanoStation Loco M5 looks like the way to go.

Would any of the cheaper 100-200mW versions still work well enough? (wireless-N wouldn't be critical)
e.g bullet 2, picostation 2, loco 2?

With a strong enough throw I could probably land stones on the roof it's that close. My guess is at least 150M though. There's two roads and two average size sections between the houses.

Thanks once again for all of your advice.

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#578199 7-Feb-2012 14:01

Hi, I strongly recommend that you use the M5, note these are 5.7GHz radios not 2.4GHz as used by your normal WiFi, by using 5.7GHz you will not use up the limited 2.4GHz spectrum for the WiFi coverage at each location. Also note that the 5GHz radio in the Airport should not interfere with the bridge and vice versa as there is plenty of room to spare.

A pair of LocoM5's will cost you $320ish, lesser options might save you $100, but the outcome might be more variable. The M series radios use Ver5 firmware which is much more capable than the older Ver2-3 as used by the lesser non M models, well worth the extra few $ in my view.

Cyril

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#578210 7-Feb-2012 14:16

Use Loco M5 /thread.

Cyril is right. I've used 2.4 and 5.7 gear and there is just no comparison in my view. In 12 months time you'll be hating on us if we agree to go the non loco way.

Also the Loco's should have processors fast enough for v6 when the firmware eventually hits us.

Not that it's really an issue as you're going to be using a layer 2 bridge and don't care to much, but it does make sense to buy stuff that's v6 ready just in case.

Remember you'll also likely be swapping out that DSL modem for fibre at some point and then what to improve your bridge if you only put in a slow 2.4g version.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

musicismypill

28 posts

Geek

#578214 7-Feb-2012 14:22

Awesome.

$320ish is pretty reasonable I think for that kind of functionality anyway.

Cheers!

musicismypill

28 posts

Geek

#582425 16-Feb-2012 16:04

Just before I pull the trigger on this purchase,

I was offered a Ubiquiti Nano Station 5 Kit for just under $100

Would that work just the same as the Loco in the example above?

I'm happy to accept a performance hit given the price difference. It's not vital that the connection is super high speed.

Thanks!

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#582465 16-Feb-2012 17:06

The non-M series doesn't have as much features. I run older an older NanoStations and they were second hand when I got them. They still do the job just perfect. Except I use them over KM's of range.

The NanoStation vs Loco is just antenna gain, that's it. There's less features on the non-M series units though and older firmware. Ubiquiti stuff is great, so is MikroTik. My only dislike with new Ubiquiti stuff is the semi/quasi TDMA still uses CSMA media access, which in my view redenders any other sort of TDMA pointless. Whereas Nv2 on MikroTik units on the newer Atheros chips is true TDMA. Both of which though you don't need in a point to point bridge ;o)

Seriously though, 300M, that's nothing. The Loco's would do the job, and the NanoStations probably just as well. If you want to spend money for the sake of spending, the rockets are over-kill but they do have a more narrow beamwidth if interference was a problem.

I still use 2.4GHz at channel 13 since no one in my town of 55,000 uses it little own many channel 11 channels close by, and the Ubiquiti's you can narrow the channels used except at the cost of bandwidth.

I'd also recommend 5.8GHz, less crowded in some areas, something I'm looking in to wih new MikroTik gear to replace my old Ubiquiti's.

Don't be fooled by the amazing through-put speeds of some Ubiquiti and MikroTik gear though, especially when half of them still have only 10/100Mbps NIC's.

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#582535 16-Feb-2012 20:16

Hi, if you can get a pair of 5.8GHz pre m5 nanos for $100 then I am sure they will be just fine for what your requirement is.

Cheers
Cyril