[Discuss] Looking for WiFi router with certain characteristics

Tue Jul 29 10:00:06 EDT 2014

A couple notes.

I NEVER, repeat, NEVER use stock software from the vendor of my wireless
router. Sorry, I don't trust <fill in company name here> All my routers
use DD-WRT.

Once you make that jump, then you can just hop over to their website and
look for compatible routers. The DD-WRT code has a LOT of features that
the commercial routers do not provide, including SSH access.

So, now that you can have the features that you want regardless of vendor,
just find a router that is supported at a good price.

Last year I found a DLink-N 615 router for $30. I bought two of them and
put one at each end of the house.

> Apologies to Lewis Carroll. I'm afraid the following doesn't scan as
> well as his version:
>
>     "The time has come," my router said, "to talk of many things.
>     Of 802.11 ac and n and g and b,
>     And why Cisco updates without permission.
>     And the safety of ASUS settings."
>
>     :-)
>
> It's long past time for me to replace my 802.11 g router with something
> more recent.  But I have a few constraints that make it tricky to select
> the right router. So my question is, do any of you have experience with
> the ASUS RT-N66U or any other router that fits the constraints I
> describe below?  While I'm interested in recommendations of what's
> worked well for you, I'd also appreciate warnings of what to stay away
> from. advTHANKSance for your help.
>
> My constraints are:
>
> 1. COVERAGE:
>
>     The construction of the house the router will be installed in is
>     problematic WRT getting signals through.  It was built before
>     drywall was in common use in the U.S.  But rather than using wood
>     lath, the plaster is held in place by lath.  But it's not
>     traditional wood lath.  It's WIRE LATH.  Also, the heating system is
>     forced hot air, which means that there's SHEET-METAL DUCTWORK
>     between all the ceilings and floors.
>
>     So all the walls, floors, and ceilings have metal in them.
>
>     With the old router, I had to replace one of the stick antennas with
>     a directional antenna aimed toward the part of the house where
>     coverage was weakest.  But since 802.11 N and AC use MIMO, I believe
>     that replacing one of the stick antennas with a directional antenna
>     would screw up the interference pattern that MIMO depends on.
>
>     I'm hoping that MIMO will solve the coverage problem that the
>     directional antenna solved with the old router.
>
>     Do any of you have any experience with routers in environments like
>     this?  If MIMO doesn't get me the coverage I need, what are my
> options?
>
> 2. N vs. AC:
>
>     I have a 5 GHz cordless phone that I do not want to replace.  It
>     implements features that would be difficult to find a replacement
>     for, and even if I could, replacing it would be quite expensive.  So
>     it was important for me to figure out whether this phone will
>     interfere with an 802.11-AC router.  It took several months of
>     research, but eventually I determined that it definitely will
>     interfere with over half of the 5 GHz WiFi channels used in the U.S.
>
>     Since 802.11-AC only operates in the 5 GHz band, but 802.11-N
>     operates in both the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands, 802.11-N seems like a
>     much better choice for my circumstances.
>
>     Furthermore, most of the computers on my network don't support
>     802.11-AC, but are recent enough that I'm not likely to replace them
>     anytime soon.
>
>     So it makes sense to me to ignore 802.11-AC routers and only look at
>     802.11-N.  Does this logic make sense to you?
>
> 3. SPEED:
>
>     Of the 802.11-N offerings, the highest aggregate speed seems to be
>     450 Mbps in the 2.4 GHz band plus 450 Mbps in the 5 GHz band.  This
>     is commonly known as an N900 router.  Given the potential
>     interference from the 5 GHz cordless phone, I may not get the full
>     450 Mbps from the 5 GHz range, but a dual band N router seems the
>     choice most likely to get me the fastest throughput possible for my
>     circumstances.
>
> 4. PORTS:
>
>     In addition to supporting WiFi, I also need the router to provide 4
>     LAN Ethernet ports in addition to the 1 WAN Ethernet port for
>     connecting it to my cable modem.
>
> 5. WHAT ROUTERS CAN BE TRUSTED?
>
>     CISCO: Given the above constraints, I was considering the Linksys
>     (Cisco) EA4500, but when I Googled it, I quickly learned that about
>     2 years ago, Cisco/Linksys had pushed out their Cloud Connect
>     firmware to all their routers without the router owners' permission,
>     and in order for the owner to continue using his own router, he had
>     no choice but to sign an agreement that allows Cisco to spy on his
>     Internet use, allows Cisco to sell any data they collect, and allows
>     Cisco to legally lock the router's owner out of his own router
>     whenever they feel like it.
>     http://boingboing.net/2012/07/03/cisco-locks-customers-out-of-t.html,
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228687/Linksys_firmware_upgrade_for_Wi_Fi_routers_angers_some_users,
>     http://www.extremetech.com/computing/132142-ciscos-cloud-vision-mandatory-monetized-and-killed-at-their-discretion
>
>     Even though they eventually changed their policy, they have reserved
>     the right to change it back, and also the right to change how your
>     router works, EVEN IF YOU SET IT NOT TO ACCEPT AUTOMATIC UPDATES.
>
>     I will never again in my life trust anything Cisco/Linksys says or
>     have anything to do with any of their equipment.
>
>     ASUS: The next router I've been considering is the ASUS RT-N66U.
>     But Googling for that model turned up the following articles:
>
>     http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/02/dear-asus-router-user-youve-been-pwned-thanks-to-easily-exploited-flaw
>     http://nullfluid.com/asusgate.txt,
>     http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/zeroday/2014/02/05/so-this-is-what-getting-pwned-is-like
>
>     It sounds like ASUS was informed of a major security flaw in their
>     firmware, and chose to bury their head in the sand instead of fixing
>     the problem. While not the best behavior, it's nowhere near as
>     egregious as Cisco's behavior.
>
>     Have any of you seen other router manufacturers trying to seize
>     control of the hardware, either like Cisco tried to do, or in some
>     other fashion?  If so, which manufacturers, and what have they done?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>