Multi-building WIFI (Advice wanted)
I have a small rural farm and am looking to get some decent interconnect between buildings. I currently have an LTE modem and antenna on a lamppost (the place with the best signal), and have a mesh set up between the lamppost and 2 buildings: lamppost <-> house <-> barn. There is line of sight between each hop. I am currently using 3x EAP225-Outdoor. The APs are pole mounted on the lamppost and house, and surface mounted to a wall (log) on the barn.
The first hop (lamppost <> house) is about 25m, and is showing -64 dBm (866tx/351rx). The second hop (house<>barn) is also about 30m and is showing -80 dBm (526tx/234rx).
The current performance between the house and the barn is unacceptable - i would have expected the connection to be much better. Additionally, the weather seems to affect the connection a lot. it can fluctuate between -70 and under -80dBm. There is a difference in elevation of about 15m (the house is at the top of a small incline, and the barn is at the bottom). Again - there is line of sight, so i would have thought the connection would be more stable. There is a tree (currently bare of leaves, about 5m off the line of sight).
I have tried changing channels and width, manually setting power levels, etc.
Ideally I would like a stable 300mbps+ between each hop. Neither is achieving anywhere near that that when running iperf between APs (i effectively get half the connected Rx bitrate).
Am I using the wrong tool for the job? Is this sort of loss expected over these ranges? Would using directional antenna help, and if using a directional antenna, would i then need to use an additional APs to point in the respective directions (one towards lamppost, one towards barn) from the house? Would upgrading to a more recent EAP result in a better connection (EAP650 advertises "long range coverage", for example), or should i look at using at bridges as the interconnect instead of expecting the mesh to do the work? I appreciate its not long distances I am talking about here and could run a wire, but that is not an option this year. I have tried powerline solutions, but they lack stability.
Any advice would be most appreciated.
- Copy Link
- Subscribe
- Bookmark
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @rehashed
Since you already try multiple wireless optimization, you may refer to the following solutions:
- Upgrading to Newer EAP Models: Upgrading to a more recent EAP model like the EAP650 with its advertised "long - range coverage" could potentially help. These newer models may have better antenna designs, more advanced radio chipsets, and improved signal - processing algorithms that can enhance the range and stability of the connection. However, it's important to note that even with a new model, the antenna characteristics and the need for a proper line - of - sight still play a crucial role. EAP650-outdoor is a good choise.
- Bridges: Using wireless bridges instead of relying solely on the mesh functionality could be another option. Wireless bridges are designed specifically for point - to - point connections and can provide a more stable and higher - speed link between two locations. They usually have more advanced features for optimizing the connection between two specific endpoints, such as better signal amplification and noise reduction capabilities. For TP-Link wireless bridge products, I would like to recommend EAP215-Bridge KIT.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Vincent-TP Thanks for your reply, however I was hoping for a bit more tangible information than just "you can try these two options that are the same as what you suggested" as the outlay for each is in the order of hundreds of dollars.
The EAP225-OUTDOOR, which i already have also says "long-range coverage" in the marketing material, and clearly 30m is "too long", so is the newer EAP650-outdoor going to use the same definition of long, or is there any tangible info about how much further, given that it doesn't use a directional antenna? It seems like it should provide vastly increased performance over the equivalent bridge if it can use a 160Mhz wide backhaul?
What is the expected performance out of the EAP215 bridge? I know that you list 867Mbps on the marketing material, but from my experience of bringing the APs close enough together that they negotiate at 866 up and down, i only get measured half duplex performance point-to-point via iperf at 140Mbps or so, so is this going to be the same case for a bridge? Shouldn't i be able to achieve exactly the same performance out of the EAP225-outdoor with a directional antenna (the EAP255-outdoor is advertised as having interchangeable antenna, so clearly thats considered an option) without having to purchase more hardware with the same basic spec?
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @rehashed
I understand your concerns about wanting more specific and tangible information before making a significant investment.
However, wireless performance is highly susceptible to the wireless environment. This is especially the case with your outdoor mesh setup. We are unable to provide you with specific recommendations because we don't have the same understanding of the local wireless environment as you do. The suggestions we gave before were based on our experience. If you are not confident about it, you can purchase a set from a store that allows returns and test it first. If the performance doesn't meet your satisfaction, you can return it.
Replacing the antenna of the EAP225- outdoor units is also an option. We don't sell antenna any more, so I didn't mention that.
What's more, we don't guarantee the compatibility of third-party antennas.
You may have a look on this article in case you want to change the antenna:
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
I am doing something very similar to you with 225-outdoors and have been very happy with the result. One thing you need to be aware of is that when you mesh, all APs must be on the same 5Ghz channel, and when you have a linear string of APs, especially with elevation/foliage factors, you can run into a lot of crosstalk when the edge APs cannot 'hear' each other with significant performance issues. I solved this by adding a second 225 at the house, since that in my case is where the controller/router are, and then broke my linear string into 2 smaller strings operating on different 5.8G channels. I placed my APs on either sidewall of the building to use it as a natural RF shield. I was sure to enable 'preferred' root AP for each child node in the mesh in the controller to prevent flapping or unexpected mesh configurations. I also selected channels in my region that permitted the highest power/bandwidth (149+ in CA). To further optimize the BW available to Meshed APs, I disabled user access to the outdoor APs at the house on 5.8 (they are only permitted on 2.4) to prevent user traffic from competing with backhaul traffic, and added an EAP615 indoors to provide Wifi6 and operate on both bands.
The above may not work so nicely in your setup as my assumption is that in your architecture, you are using a cloud controller, and the modem and AP on the lamppost constitute the router/controller in your setup, and that AP is thus the root AP (since TP-Link hasn't found a good way yet to allow you to use the ethernet port of child APs without them thinking they are root APs because the etherlink is up). You still have the issue of house-barn chatter possibly talking over post-house. The run from post-barn could be ~50m, which might be just too far to get your 300Mbps reliably direct from the post.
In an ideal world, one could add a second AP at the house, mark the upstream house APs as 'child' to prevent it becoming root in the controller (this feature does not exist at this time!), connect their ethernet ports back-back which has the effect of bridging traffic between them, and then provision the second house AP which will self-identify as a root node due to it's active ethernet port on a different 5.8 and then lock the barn AP to that one as it's preferred root. Since that is fiction...
You could temporarily power off the house AP, and test the performance from the remaining two APs (ie POST-BARN) and see if that meets your needs. If it does, then add a second EAP225-outdoor at the lampost, connect it to the LTE router and configure on a different frequency. Pair post1-barn and post2-house APs in the controller.
You could install a high gain cellular antenna on the outside of the house and move the LTE Modem there, add a second 225 AP at the house, pair 'em up and off you go.
Anyways, let me know if any or none of those ideas work for you :)
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Vincent-TP No offense vincent, but saying "the suggestions we gave before were based on our experience" is nonsense. You have literally just reiterated my query and called it an answer. You even had the cheek to mark it as the solution (i have unmarked it as such). I would expect more from someone who actually works for TP-link. I was expecting some technical discussion about a solution to the problem and if a hardware replacement would be warranted some actual justification for it - not a sales pitch based solely on the advertised blurb, which i can clearly read myself.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@d0ugmac1 Thank you doug. You are correct in your assesment of my setup. Unfortunately I am already using the high gain LTE on the lamppost - it was previously on the house and i didnt have the same issues (although i had a terrible internet connection then!). I will move around the controller this weekend and try the steps you mention to see if it is indeed the mesh interfering with itself. Much appreciated for the suggestions. I will let you know how I get on.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Moving just the controller won't help, you need a way to isolate the lamp and barn radios from each other (ie different radio channel, which requires another root AP in the mesh).
I think the most useful test would be powering down the house and seeing what kind of RF link quality you can establish directly from the lamp to the barn.
There is also a chance that your mesh has already configured itself with both the house and barn homing directly back to the lamp (root) AP. If so, you might notice a performance improvement if you force the barn AP to mesh with the house, instead of the lamp. In either case you should also experiment with at least temporarily removing 5.8 user access from your SSIDs on the child APs (house and barn). This will allow the mesh links to operate at their peak, the irony is that the 2.4G link will likely max out in the 100Mbps range.
The thing to watch out for is a 5.8 user at the barn generates a packet, this chews up a timeslot at the barn AP and blocks the channel for the other two APs. Then the barn AP retransmits that packet, again another timeslot consumed at the barn and blocked elsewhere. The upstream AP receives that packet, and a short while later retransmits, chewing another time slot, and blocking the channel. Packet now received by root AP and forwarded via ethernet port. If that packet s repeated, and the user generates packets which consume 20% of the radio channel aka link capacity, it's actually consuming 20+20+20=60% of the channel capacity. This is why you want to minimize radio hops in your mesh and keep chatty users off as well. If that barn user had used 2.4G for access, then the effect on the network would only be 40% instead of 60%. Now add in all the house traffic on 5.8, you can see the mess.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@d0ugmac1 thanks again doug. I was planning to move the controller to the house and completely deactivate the lamppost node, to see if it works better with just the two active nodes. I dont have line of sight between the lamppost and the barn unfortunately. Well, strictly speaking i do, but i can't get that high on the lamppost without a cherry picker - that will likely be my next option if i end up needing dedicated bridge hardware to avoid additional hops.
I hadnt considered the overlap caused by each hop, but it sounds like thats going to be my next problem when i get the connectivity itself fixed. You would think multi-channel support to avoid exactly that in these devices would be a no brainer. I am assuming i can reduce that by using the split-bridge approach you mentioned previously, or ensuring that there is no interference between the lamppost and the barn, maybe using directional antennas or reducing the power output?
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Agree with the approach, start with the basic and then add on from there.
The TP-link approach to meshing is a low-cost approach, the reason many of us are on this platform. Unfortunately, that means the 5G radio is used for user access as well as mesh (it works by using a hidden SSID and some routing magic). The only way to fix the issue would be to put 2 x 5G hardware radios in every AP, which is definitely NOT a common approach by the low-cost 'System on Chip' hardware platforms that form the basis of most routers and APs in the Omada lineup. Fortunately, the APs are cost-effective and the easiest way to go multi-channel is to add another AP.
The other thing about the shared radios is that the antennas are shared as well. So if you go high gain directional, you'll lose out on your local user access coverage. It can also exacerbate the crosstalk problem when multiple nodes are all operating on the same frequency and some are using omni antennas and others directional.
Line of Sight will be your best bet, if you can clearly eyeball each AP from the other, you should get optimal freespace performance. The omni antennas that come with the 225-outdoors are pretty good for random AP orientation, but if you are using the 600 series outdoor APs, they definitely perform much better when facing each other due to the printed internal antennae used.
Do not reduce power, you'll just hamstring the higher bitrate modulations available to you. This only makes sense if you are re-using frequencies for non-related devices.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@d0ugmac1 Unfortunately, moving equipment around hasnt really resulted in anything working any better. Now we have snow its working even worse. Its clear to me that some directional antenna is the only way to go.
So.... I ended up buying an EAP215-bridge kit. They are, in my opinion, a complete and utter piece of garbage. They are passive PoE only (just like the CPE range was). They have 2 additional ports but they dont pass power (not that it is mentioned in the spec, of course), so you still need an outdoor switch to run any equipment you would connect to them, making them completely pointless. They are hard-wired to ONLY connect to another bridge - so you cant even use them as a "directional" AP. They gain is useless compared to the CPE710. Its like they took their old pharos CPE710 hardware, removed the high gain antenna, made it worse, added additional lan ports that can serve no actual purpose, and then locked it down to omada with the reduced level of configuration that offered over PharOS. Needless to say, i am already seeing if I can return it to the supplier.
I have my CPE510 up and running at the moment which is pretty solid but slow (i have a solid 300mbps connection rate on it, but i am being limited by the 100mbps lan port on it), and it is using the only remaining port I have, so I have no client-facing AP coverage in that area. I was considering the CPE710, but if thats also passive PoE, then I am in the same boat with not having an AP.
My next step is using a mikrotik sector antenna on the EAP225. Hopefully that will give enough gain to give a stable connection, or i'll have to look at another vendor.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Information
Helpful: 0
Views: 315
Replies: 10
Voters 0
No one has voted for it yet.