2 ISPs, 1 House

[Noyu]

Long story short, we will be having 2 ISPs in our house.

 

How2Setup both options?

 

Option 1: 1 Network. (I think this require some complicated networking knowledge which I do not have)

 

Option 2: 2 Networks, one for the 3Mbps DSL, and another for the 50 Mbps coax.

 

 

Currently I have this guy,

 

http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/details/cat-9_TL-WR1043ND.html

 

and my modem from my 3 Mbps DSL line.

 

To come on installation is a Router/Modem from my 50 Mbps ISP.

 

Thoughts?

[dantayy]

You might want to look into load balancing two ISPs, google it.

[MeshFile]

Load balancing with fail over. Pfsense or similar. If you're lazy and ony need 1 computer, use forcebindIP.

[matrix07012]

2 ISPs, 1 House? Is that a new viral video?

[skywake]

You need a load balancing router:

 

cheapest and one of the best options -> https://www.ubnt.com/edgemax/edgerouter-x/

more readily avaiable -> http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/details/cat-4910_TL-R470T%2b.html

[Noyu]

2 ISPs, 1 House? Is that a new viral video?

 

You need a load balancing router:

 

cheapest and one of the best options -> https://www.ubnt.com/edgemax/edgerouter-x/

more readily avaiable -> http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/details/cat-4910_TL-R470T%2b.html

hmmm.. will look into this............ after 10s........ WOW, ~~100$.

EDIT: woops actually is just 66$, 100$ is 480T which includes WiFi.

 

How about option 2? Is there some way I can set up 2 different routers where they're not interfering, but they're physically beside each other? different channels yes?

SOLVED I guess.

 

[skywake]

@Noyu

I don't know about where you are but from what I can tell in my local currency it's ~$100AU for the Edge Router and ~$130AU for the TP-Link one. So if you can try for the Ubiquiti one, it's a lower price and although you probably won't need them it has Gigabit ports rather than 100Mbps. 

[Peter Smyth]

How much does your internet cost you, because paying for an extra 3 Mbps on top of 50 Mbps doesn't make much difference, and probably isn't worth bothering with if you take into account the cost of hardware to load balance?

[Noyu]

@Noyu

I don't know about where you are but from what I can tell in my local currency it's ~$100AU for the Edge Router and ~$130AU for the TP-Link one. So if you can try for the Ubiquiti one, it's a lower price and although you probably won't need them it has Gigabit ports rather than 100Mbps. 

Philippines. I'm roughly checked the price of the edge router compared to the TP-Link one. Ubiquit is 1.5x more expensive. But that may just be because of overpriced online sellers. I'll recheck.

 

How much does your internet cost you, because paying for an extra 3 Mbps on top of 50 Mbps doesn't make much difference, and probably isn't worth bothering with if you take into account the cost of hardware to load balance?

Sorry I wasn't clear. I ALREADY have a 3 Mbps line and will get a 50 Mbps on top of it since the 3Mbps doesn't hold up anymore.

 

Why not cut the 3 Mbps line?

We don't trust the 50Mbps line yet since it's coming from an ISP with bad reputation. But it's the only ISP that has available infra on our building for a 50Mbps line.

On the other hand, the 3Mbps works as advertised. But ofc, it can't handle 7 of us playing youtube all at the same time.

Worst comes to worst, we'll be cutting the 50Mbps and will sit back and wait higher-speed plans from our 3Mbps ISP.

[unijab]

No point in load balancing over those two connections with that large a speed difference.

I'd go more for a failover setup.

[skywake]

Philippines. I'm roughly checked the price of the edge router compared to the TP-Link one. Ubiquit is 1.5x more expensive. But that may just be because of overpriced online sellers. I'll recheck.

Could be a distribution thing. For your uses it probably won't make a different which one you get but the Ubiquiti one is better AFAIK.

 

No point in load balancing over those two connections with that large a speed difference.

I'd go more for a failover setup.

I'm pretty sure you can set that as the rule in any of these load-balancing routers. It just requires a bit of configuration. Though if it was me I'd probably want to set it up so that I could use that tiny bit of extra bandwidth. You're right though, with 50Mbps and 3Mbps it's probably not going to matter either way

[Noyu]

Could be a distribution thing. For your uses it probably won't make a different which one you get but the Ubiquiti one is better AFAIK.

 

I'm pretty sure you can set that as the rule in any of these load-balancing routers. It just requires a bit of configuration. Though if it was me I'd probably want to set it up so that I could use that tiny bit of extra bandwidth. You're right though, with 50Mbps and 3Mbps it's probably not going to matter either way

Hmm. I just realized. How would my connections look like?

 

2 WANS > Load Balancer > Wireless Router > Devices?

 

Would it still work properly?

[skywake]

Hmm. I just realized. How would my connections look like?

 

2 WANS > Load Balancer > Wireless Router > Devices?

 

Would it still work properly?

It's effectively the same as link aggregation:

https://youtu.be/ycbq_gTqT5M?t=4m

[Noyu]

It's effectively the same as link aggregation:

https://youtu.be/ycbq_gTqT5M?t=4m

Thank you for this. Will watch when I get home.

 

Rethinking this, I might just setup 2 separate WiFi networks which the current hardware will already be capable of.

1 will be the 2-in-1 WiFi Modem from the 50 Mbps line.

Another will be the 3Mbps modem + TP-Link router.

AFAIK, I just need to set the routers on different channels and SSIDs for them to work even if they're physically side-by-side. Please confirm.

 

Also, we can turnoff the 3Mbps modem (when no one's using it) to save some electricity. SAVE MOTHER EARTH!

 

If I use a load-balancer, I think the shelf where I place all the networking stuff will get too crowded (and messy).

Unless ofc, I buy a load-balancing router with Wi-Fi. Then that's a different story.

 

2 Networks Option: 0$, "Manual" Failover setup. Can save electricity.

Cheap Load Balancing Router Option: 60+$ Maybe better connection. Messy setup.

Load Balancing with WiFi Option: 100+$ Maybe better connection. Less mess (but not better than 1st option).

 

Option 1 it is. Sorry wasting your time and thank you @skywake

[skywake]

@Noyu

If you're going to do it you're better off having a load balancing router. It's a much simpler setup than having two entirely separate networks

 

i.e this:

modem(s) -> router -> switch -> access point(s)

 

rather than this: 

modem -> router -> switch -> access point

modem -> router -> switch -> access point

 

"option 1" lets you have everything on the same network. You don't have to reconnect devices when one network or the other goes down. You don't have to remember if your TV is connected to network 1 or 2 when you want to control if from your phone. Or when you want to do some in-home streaming. Option 2 is far too complicated.

 

Of course the simpler setup would be to just have one network. Plug in a different modem when your first one goes down. But again, I wouldn't run multiple SSIDs. Effectively this would be the same as the load balancing router option except that you're manually changing things over. 

[brwainer]

Thank you for this. Will watch when I get home.

Rethinking this, I might just setup 2 separate WiFi networks which the current hardware will already be capable of.

1 will be the 2-in-1 WiFi Modem from the 50 Mbps line.

Another will be the 3Mbps modem + TP-Link router.

AFAIK, I just need to set the routers on different channels and SSIDs for them to work even if they're physically side-by-side. Please confirm.

Also, we can turnoff the 3Mbps modem (when no one's using it) to save some electricity. SAVE MOTHER EARTH!

If I use a load-balancer, I think the shelf where I place all the networking stuff will get too crowded (and messy).

Unless ofc, I buy a load-balancing router with Wi-Fi. Then that's a different story.

2 Networks Option: 0$, "Manual" Failover setup. Can save electricity.

Cheap Load Balancing Router Option: 60+$ Maybe better connection. Messy setup.

Load Balancing with WiFi Option: 100+$ Maybe better connection. Less mess (but not better than 1st option).

Option 1 it is. Sorry wasting your time and thank you @skywake

Two routers physically next to each other, even on seperate non-overlapping channels, will create a bunch of noise that will affect each other. The radios and chips just create RF noise outside of the frequencies they use. Rule of thumb between two wireless transmitters is at least 3 feet, 6-10 feet preferred. Devices with more than one radio builtin, like units with two 5GHz radios, only avoid this due to careful engineering inside the device.

[Noyu]

@Noyu

If you're going to do it you're better off having a load balancing router. It's a much simpler setup than having two entirely separate networks

 

i.e this:

modem(s) -> router -> switch -> access point(s)

 

rather than this: 

modem -> router -> switch -> access point

modem -> router -> switch -> access point

 

"option 1" lets you have everything on the same network. You don't have to reconnect devices when one network or the other goes down. You don't have to remember if your TV is connected to network 1 or 2 when you want to control if from your phone. Or when you want to do some in-home streaming. Option 2 is far too complicated.

 

Of course the simpler setup would be to just have one network. Plug in a different modem when your first one goes down. But again, I wouldn't run multiple SSIDs. Effectively this would be the same as the load balancing router option except that you're manually changing things over. 

I get what you mean by "much simpler setup"... In terms software.

But in terms of hardware, there will be a clusterf*ck of cables and wiring on the shelf.

Not much I can DIY since it's not my house and I can't go hanging the devices on the wall.

 

Offtopic: I might try a pegboard setup, but have to hide it in plain sight.

 

Ontopic: Not really that hard to switch networks since all my devices are on WiFi. Even my PC is on WiFi.

As soon as the 50Mbps frocks up, I'll go turn on the 2nd network and connect there.

Problem is, there will certainly about a 1 minute downtime (which is crucial when I'm playing games like LoL).

But I think I can bear with it.

 

Two routers physically next to each other, even on seperate non-overlapping channels, will create a bunch of noise that will affect each other. The radios and chips just create RF noise outside of the frequencies they use. Rule of thumb between two wireless transmitters is at least 3 feet, 6-10 feet preferred. Devices with more than one radio builtin, like units with two 5GHz radios, only avoid this due to careful engineering inside the device.

Hot damn. Hmm. It's like every way I look at it, I'm "required" to buy a load balancer.

I think I can do 10 feet. My brother-in-law WILL NOT be happy though.

[skywake]

I get what you mean by "much simpler setup"... In terms software.

But in terms of hardware, there will be a clusterf*ck of cables and wiring on the shelf.

Not much I can DIY since it's not my house and I can't go hanging the devices on the wall.

 

Not really that hard to switch networks since all my devices are on WiFi. Even my PC is on WiFi.

As soon as the 50Mbps frocks up, I'll go turn on the 2nd network and connect there.

Problem is, there will certainly about a 1 minute downtime (which is crucial when I'm playing games like LoL).

But I think I can bear with it.

Well for the first point I don't understand what you're saying TBH. The load balancer setup has a grand total of 4 devices. There's Modem A, Modem B, the load balancing router and an access point. One SSID, one network. With the other setup as I understand it you'd have Modem A, Modem B, Router A and Router B. Still four devices even though two of them include an access point in the package. Entirely different SSIDs, nothing automatic and your second connection is literally sitting completely unused at all times.

 

On the second point, if you don't want to use a load-balancing router how about this as a thought. Don't set up two entirely different routers at all. When Network A dies walk over to your router, unplug Modem A and plug in Modem B. This idea of having two networks is very, very average. Literally any other solution would be better. 

[Noyu]

Well for the first point I don't understand what you're saying TBH. The load balancer setup has a grand total of 4 devices. There's Modem A, Modem B, the load balancing router and an access point. One SSID, one network. With the other setup as I understand it you'd have Modem A, Modem B, Router A and Router B. Still four devices even though two of them include an access point in the package. Entirely different SSIDs, nothing automatic and your second connection is literally sitting completely unused at all times.

 

On the second point, if you don't want to use a load-balancing router how about this as a thought. Don't set up two entirely different routers at all. When Network A dies walk over to your router, unplug Modem A and plug in Modem B. This idea of having two networks is very, very average. Literally any other solution would be better. 

Oh. I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding.

The 50 Mbps ISP provides a 2-in-1 modem/router device (CISCO i think). So that's one less router. Basically 1 less device vs the load balancer setup.

With that said,

Modem/Router A (50 Mbps line) >>>> SSID #1 (Channel X)

Modem B + Router B (3 Mbps line) >>>> SSID #2 (Channel Y)

SSID #2 will be turned off if SSID #1 works properly (good ping). As soon as SSID #1 shows latency, or worse, disconnects, SSID #2 will be turned on..

PROS: Save a small bit of electricity.

            Less devices.

CONS: Involves at least a 1-minute downtime to transfer to another network.

            Very "manual".

            Lower internet reliability.

            Would have to transfer back to SSID #1 to check if it's working properly before I can turn off SSID #2.

 

If only there's a load balancing WiFi router. This would solve all my problems. ahahahaha

But this stuff would probably cost so much it wouldn't be worth.

[skywake]

@Noyu

This is what I was suggesting BTW....

 

Modem/Router A in "modem only" mode -> Load Balancing Router

Modem B -> Load Balancing Router

->-> Load Balancing Router -> Router B with DHCP disabled (plugged into LAN port) -> SSID #1

 

Set and forget

[brwainer]

Oh. I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding.

The 50 Mbps ISP provides a 2-in-1 modem/router device (CISCO i think). So that's one less router. Basically 1 less device vs the load balancer setup.

With that said,

Modem/Router A (50 Mbps line) >>>> SSID #1 (Channel X)

Modem B + Router B (3 Mbps line) >>>> SSID #2 (Channel Y)

SSID #2 will be turned off if SSID #1 works properly (good ping). As soon as SSID #1 shows latency, or worse, disconnects, SSID #2 will be turned on..

PROS: Save a small bit of electricity.

Less devices.

CONS: Involves at least a 1-minute downtime to transfer to another network.

Very "manual".

Lower internet reliability.

Would have to transfer back to SSID #1 to check if it's working properly before I can turn off SSID #2.

If only there's a load balancing WiFi router. This would solve all my problems. ahahahaha

But this stuff would probably cost so much it wouldn't be worth.

A Mikrotik router, one of the models with builtin wifi, can be set up to do load balancing and traditional home router functions in one, but it is a very manual process. And they haven't released anything with AC and gigabit ports yet, and their N products are 2.4GHz OR 5GHz.... Waiting for their hAP AC to vome out any month now to finally have a piece of hardware with no gotchas. But if you can deal with 2.4GHz N and manual setup, I would go with an RB951G for about $80.