Hacker News Reader

Comment by xuhu | Hacker News Reader

Spoiler: the homebrew solution didn't have WiFi. Unless your LAN is servers-only, how much of an option is no-WiFi these days ?

View on HN

I use separate devices and, personally, I'm much happier this way. Like the author, I could put a mini-PCI Wi-Fi card in my router, but I like my current setup (a RouterMaxx 1106 [0] running OpenBSD from CompactFlash and Aerohive AP330 [1] for wireless) the way that it is. I also have a Ubiquiti NanoStation [2] that connects to the AP330 (as a regular wireless client) and provides Internet access out in the garage.

[0]: http://www.balticnetworks.com/maxxwave-routermaxx-6-port-gig...

[1]: http://www.aerohive.com/products/access-points/ap330.html

[2]: https://www.ubnt.com/airmax/nanostationm/

Not that it would be hard to add and configure; the only problem would be that WiFi PC card offer a much shorter range than APs.

OP used Ubiquiti APs, directly managed from the homebrew router. Seems a sensible solution.

> Not that it would be hard to add and configure; the only problem would be that WiFi PC card offer a much shorter range than APs.

They generally use the same cards, it's having proper antennas that makes the most difference.

I think investing in faster non-wireless router is better with wireless technology changing every few years where you can simply add on wireless only solutions like Ubiquiti's Unifi for only $69.

Assuming you have wired connections to begin with.

I live in an older apartment complex which was build in early 70s and there is only very poor copper connection, so I can get at most 8Mbs in through that. Slow speeds have forced me to look for alternative solutions and 4G LTE is the way to go here, it costs just shy of twice my old setup, but I get 80-100Mbs in and out, which is 10 times as fast, but being on 4G means I can need my router/modem/thing to be 4G enabled and while my main PC is connected to that router via Ethernet most of my devices use WLAN (things like chromecasts, phones, tables, and laptops).

Maybe I'm in very tiny minority here, but just saying things aren't always as simple.

Well I'm not sure if you're the minority but you're not the target for this article or those that require a fast router for broadband speeds going beyond 100Mbit/sec along with several open connections at the same time.

What are your usage caps? A lot of ISPs in Europe offer mobile broadband for home (as LTE is usually a lot faster than wired), but have ridiculously low caps. I'm currently staying in a place in Italy which has Tre (Hutchinson), who have a cap of 30GB/month.

I have no usage caps, but it does get congested during evening hours, at times dropping to ~20Mbs, but during day (working hours) and nights/early mornings it's blazingly fast

A common pattern across networking is the incorrect belief that only bundled products are possible.

So the only product is a combination router+wifiAP. Or the only way to have a stateful firewall in ipv6 is to have stateful firewall+NAT like in ipv4.

Its generally pretty easy to buy a stand alone WAP and configure it to be a very simple bridge to the existing network and call it done.

If you have kids, buy two, connect the kids devices to the second AP, and control its power via various methods (timer, home automation, whatever). This is a trivial way to enforce "homework first, toys like ipad second", or enforced bedtimes or whatever.

Note that this kind of misconception is limited solely to the networking world. The fact that TV+VCR combo devices exist made no one think its impossible to have stand alone TV and stand alone VCR.

The author mentions using WiFi APs, basically Ethernet<>WiFi bridges. I've been envisioning a deployment exactly like this myself.

You could add WiFi if you wanted to. As the article points out, good wireless chips are hard to come by, but (also as pointed out in the article), you could still buy consumer wireless access points and use those.

hostapd is a wonderful thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com