One router per floor (3 floors) for good coverage, anyone done this?

goatywoaty

Hi Everyone

I'm about to hardwire in a home network once i've decided on what cable to buy (!), as the floorboards are up at the moment. The house has tall ceiling, thick walls and is spread over 3 floors, so wireless will be a problem if I had a single router placed centrally in the house.

Anyone put a router on each floor for better coverage? Is this a fairly simple solution? Can I configure them with the same name and password so that I can log in once and get access to all three routers without switching between them? (i'm thinking of wireless devices switching between routers when going upstairs/downstairs)

Thanks in advance

Bl4ckGryph0n

A router routes, a wireless access point provides wireless access. I’d be surprised if you need three routers in the house. I would only have one at your boundary with your internet provider.

Whether a wireless access point on every floor makes sense only you would know as it depends on the house. For example my home vertical connections are good but horizontal ones are not due to the thick walls. Your mileage may differ.

goatywoaty

That is a good point so thanks for that, I imagine my situation will be the same, i.e. horizontal will be the problem, maybe I should have a couple of access points but all on the same level so signal can go up and down through the floors

chrisgeary

One on the ground floor and one on the top floor, centrally located, should do. If you do go with three, bear in mind that on 2.4Ghz you only have three channels to choose from to avoid overlap, 1, 6 and 11. If you have neighbours to contend with, that limits your choice even further (depending on signal strength).

I'd suggest getting a Wifi app on your phone and do a brief site survey of the channels in use. That may help your decision. 5Ghz is usually less troublesome with channel contention but with the limited range, an AP per floor may be prudent.

Bl4ckGryph0n

Alternatively a mesh based wifi solution may do the trick. One near the router and the others dotted around. The more you have the better the signal will be.

I ended up with five that provides good coverage in all areas.

Something like Tenda MW3 or if you have very fast broadband the MW6 models. For up to standard 76mbps ADSL the MW3 is plenty to have several Netflix streams going at the same time.

mickevh

Multiple Access Points ("mesh" or otherwise) with cabled backhaul links is by far the best way to provide Wi-Fi coverage. On big site we put up hundreds.

If you are currently putting in cabling, then that's an ideal time to install the cable links for the backhauls and AP's even if you don't immediately buy/deploy the AP's. Thusly, a bit of surveying and stategic planning as others have suggested at the cable install phase could pay dividends later.

It's best to deploy AP's a close to where you do your Wi-Fi'ing as possible. For example, it's a bit of a "rookie" mistake to deploy your AP's in the hallways and corridors - better to deploy them in the lounge, master bedroom, etc. though sometimes costs and geographical constraints prevent so doing.

Don't forget to consider how you get power to your AP's. Mostly the ideal location for an AP doesn't have any power nearby - imagine a ceiling mount or high up on a wall. Using "Power Over Ethernet" (POE) capable AP's neatly "solves" this as POE runs power along the data cable, but of course one has to use something to inject the power the other end of the cable lobe such as a POE capable switch (which are pretty common these days, but cost a little more and can run a bit hotter.) And these days, there a a few varieties of POE (some proprietary) which aren't always compatible with each other. (Grrrr.)

You can configure multiple AP's with the same SSID name and passphrase. This facilitates client devices automatically "roaming" from one AP to another without user intervention. However, beware of falling for "Big Wi-Fi Myth Number 2" that client devices are constantly "hunting for the best signal" - they do not and some clients need the signalling to get pretty grotty before they initiate a roaming assessment.  Note it's the client device that initiates roaming, not "the system," though some of the newer technologies include a kind of "hint" process to encourage (compatible) clients to roam more aggressively, but they don't have to.

There's no real "right" or "wrong" way to do SSID naming, most prefer to keep it all the same, but some prefer different SSID's to they can be sure which AP they are talking to, but you don't get any automatic roaming with different names. You could try it each way for a while and see which you prefer. In most Wi-Fi kit it's pretty simple to change the SSID names ans passphrases so it'll only cost you time to try it each way.

Incidentally, in a SOHO environment with relatively few AP's, I tend to advocate setting the radio channels manually rather than letting them "auto" tune. Stand alone SOHO AP's don't "talk" to each other in any meaningful way to establish a radio channel plan. However, with the newer "whole home" and (so called) "mesh" type systems this situation is changing and we are seeing things such as automatic channel planning that used to be the preserve of enterprise scale "managed" systems trickle down into the SOHO realm, so if you're thinking about multiple AP's you may wish to consider such a system.

mushii

I have a 3 storey house, with a Ubiquiti AC Lite on the landing / hall of each floor. Pretty much 5 bars everywhere in the house. I run a UniFi controller on my Homeseer HA NUC. All APs wired back to a 24 Port Gigabit Switch via Cat6