A somewhat different question about mesh set ups. I just installed an Eero with one remote. I have a choice of plugging the base (Eero) unit directly into my ONT (a unit that converts fiber-optic signal to digital data) via an Ethernet cable, or to go through my existing 1G modem/router (T3200M) in ‘bridge mode’. Both options work. My question is: Is/are there ADVANTAGE of leaving the Modem/router in the circuit vs just usint the Eero base station taking data from the ONT?
Fewer components in the signal chain so simpler troubleshooting. Less heat. Less space.
What’s your fiber system? Since your router is an Actiontec model, I assume you’re using Verizon FiOS.
FiOS has some special firmware in their routers which is needed to provide some of the more advanced voice/TV services (e.g. multi-room DVR, and on-screen caller ID). If you use these services, then you don’t want to get rid of it. Instead, configure your Eero mesh for bridge mode (so it only provides Wi-Fi) and disable Wi-Fi on the Actiontec.
If you’re not using any voice/TV services, then you should be able to remove the Actiontec router and connect your Eero directly to the ONT’s Ethernet port.
But note that most FiOS installations don’t use the Ethernet port. Most use the coax cable port and deliver data over MoCA. If your ONT is not conveniently located near your Eero, then you may have to run an Ethernet line to it, which may be a pain in the neck, depending on your home’s existing wiring. In which case, you may want to keep the Actiontec router in the loop, configured for bridge mode and with Ethernet disabled, allowing it to act as a MoCA-Ethernet adapter, so you won’t need to buy your own adapter.
2 Likes
Thank you David for your comprehensive analysis. I am in Canada, my ISP is Telus; they provide fiber-optic input for the ONT. The ONT has 6 Ethernet ports and I’m not using those advanced TV features. I guess I will go direct to the ONT and skip going through the extra switches and cables.
Late to the thread, but FWIW, I use the split approach: my ISP (Community Fibre in London) provides the fibre ONT, my router is (currently) a MikroTik RB5009 (MikroTik is a Latvian company, and the router will have to be replaced with something beefier because my uplink is now already faster than its 2.5GbE port) and my Wi-Fi is provided by two Netgear RS700s (which can also do duty as serviceable backup routers if the need arises). The Netgear routers (not meshes) are stodgy and feature-sparse in the extreme, but they can be configured entirely using a browser, work well and are performant in their roles as classic APs, and although the support is terrible I’ve actually had contact with one of the firmware engineers to test betas of features I needed (like disabling particular Wi-Fi channels). Their forums are actually quite helpful in that regard. The only part I don’t like is that, even when in “Access Point” mode, you can’t use the “Guest” network feature to tag the Wi-Fi traffic: the isolation is only allowed when in the full router mode. But, there, this is consumer tat (albeit, fast and expensive consumer tat) so one must not expect miracles.
MikroTik RouterOS is for social inadequates and I don’t recommend it unless you’re planning on a career as a network engineer or you really, really like configurability, which I do. And the RB5009, amusingly, is one of those devices that OpenWRT has hacked to support. I mean, why? But it’s great that it’s an option. If you’re in the UK and you want one, feel free to reach out …
1 Like
The Synology routers require only a Web browser to configure them. And you can do minimal configuration if you so choose.
3 Likes
Apple bringing back Airport products would be a welcome development - especially if the Time Capsule network data storage product was revived.
3 Likes
I’d love it if Apple brought back AirPort or something like it, but realistically it’s not going to be a primary focus on network backups—certainly not in this brave new world of monthly recurring revenue collection. Maybe if they also made it a HomeKit hub or a netwide privacy device or software cache or remote access broker, but the trouble is that these things seem very remote when they are all to some extent already possible in an all-Apple ecosystem of Mac/iPhone/HomePod/ATV etc., and without all the bother of being in the home router market.
I’ll confess that when I went back to Netgear after years of hanging on to my AirPorts I did feel pretty silly for denying myself all those years the simple comfort of high-power and low-cost Wi-Fi, but I still dream about the return of what was an excellent (and, more important for my purposes, technically adept) product line like AirPort. (To this day, they still offer the best IPv6 support of any home gateway.) Guess that’s all we can do, for now. Meantime, buy the latest fashion accessory disguised as a router. It’s fine, for the most part.
I’ll be alone in the flat for a while soon, so I’ll see about turning my Mac Mini server into a router as a potential future option, though it is of course not going to be very easy given I’ll have to do a lot of manual tinkering of configuration files—even the basic options in AirPort (like DHCP range or reservations) never made it to the macOS “Internet Sharing” feature, sadly (stupidly). So I’ll have to write my own bootpd and pf configuration. And few vendors make Mac-compatible 5 GbE or 10 GbE adaptors that aren’t OWC and expensive. Fun! Some part of me is screaming at me that this is a terrible idea, which I will only discover when an update breaks or even just takes a long time, during which my Internet connection is down, and that I would really be much better off with that beefier MikroTik CCR I’ve been covetting, which boots and updates fast, is in a solid enclosure with no moving parts or external connectors but the fans and power supplies, and that has industrial-grade SSDs for its software and storage. But I’m an Apple user, and Apple users always have a solution to every problem that involves the use of Apple products. So …
3 Likes
My Asus wireless router has a USB port that will do Time Machine backups. Mostly reliable but every time the router’s firmware gets updated, I have to tell all my Macs that the disk has changed as they lost their connection to it. I finally gave up using it and hung a 4TB external off my Mac Mini - all the Macs in the house use this.
You’re right that Apple isn’t going to get back into this business. They have no desire to compete in a market where equipment is cheap - that’s a race to the bottom.
But if you want an Apple-approved network backup solution (e.g. to replace a Time Capsule), you can configure any Mac to be a Time Machine server.
The steps are:
- Turn on file sharing
- Add a folder/volume to the Shared Folders list
- Ctrl-click the share and choose Advanced Options
- From there, you can share it as a Time Machine backup destination
At which point, any Mac on your network can be configured to send its backups there.
Not quite as convenient as a Time Capsule, but it means all you need to do is connect an external storage device of suitable size and configure it for TM sharing.
If you have an always-on Mac on your network (maybe one you already use for serving other content), this is a quick and easy solution.
See also:
6 Likes
Yes, indeed. And I have an always-on Mini for the purpose.
The problem is networked Time Machine’s distinct unreliability, which somehow doesn’t improve but in some ways is now even worse with the APFS transition. For laptops I think using Arq will always give superior results for backups of selected files and/or volumes and is much more resilient, however I don’t think it could functionally replace Time Machine, because I don’t think you can use it to make full data clones over the network that could be restored and then macOS installed onto or migrated from for recovery. It would be great if that were an option, or maybe it is and I can’t find it.
Using CCC with the Remote Macintosh destination choice works perfectly even if the laptop is asleep…and it is Finder readable and the SafetyNet option makes it work like TM is supposed to work. That setup has been bulletproof for me going on 2 years now. I hate to say it ….but TM to a network drive has never been reliable…and I’ve been a Mac buy since 1988 and did considerable consulting as a member of Washington Apple Pi up until we retired in 2011.
4 Likes
Yes, I looked into this little-known option, and indeed, on the face of it, it’s very close to the desired end goal, however there’s this tiny little caveat, which is that it’s using the old CCC replicator, which doesn’t do APFS snapshots of the source. I don’t know if that’s an intractable limitation, but I hope it is lifted one day because that would be perfection. It was a cold day in hell when Apple decided to use sparse disk images on network volumes to hold system backups, instead of a dedicated protocol for transferring backup data.
2 Likes
TP-Link routers are a concern for some in Congress:
1 Like
Additional very strong support for Ubiquiti for the quality and consistent function of its products. I have used several different versions of their network router and wifi devices over years.
Currently using the Dream Machine Router – connects directly as the first device to your internet connection, has 4 USB output ports and a powerful wifi. I have it in the middle of the house, high on a second floor wall and it serves the entire house down to the basement.
It is weak only over the garage where it is separated by tile walls of two back to back bathrooms. Solution was a plain Ubiquiti WiFi installed in that area that was automatically meshed with the primary wifi access account for the house. There are additional access accounts for internet of things and for guest access.
I connect the Router to two Ubiquiti 8-port ethernet hubs and those supports all the wired internet functions in the house. The system is as close to hassle free as any home computer system I have used over decades.
My only connection to Ubiquiti is as a (very) satisfied customer.
Bob
4 Likes
Ubiquiti just announced several new products, including the Dream Router 7 ($279.00). No new alien yet.
2 Likes
As previously – I still have and love my Dream Router – but I recently hit its one apparently unchangeable feature.
It can only be used as a router. If it is not the first device in your household ethernet after the internet service arrives it can’t do anything. You cannot place a router upstream of the Dream Router and plug your LAN into one of the DR LAN ports. The device cannot use that input at all - not as an ethernet switch and not to activate the WiFi.
This may never be an issue for many folks, but it is worth factoring in if you think you might want to regroup your LAN at some point in the future.
I still think Ubiquiti is a great manufacturer. And it may well have been my limitation to not anticipate this issue.
Bob
Fortunately the Ubiquity AmpliFi Alien does not have this limitation. Configured in bridge mode, the Alien should function as a mesh point including a 4 port ethernet switch, using Gb ethernet backhaul if available. This will bypass the Alien’s dated gateway/router, while retaining use of its WiFi 6 access point.
Realizing this solved an issue for me. The Alien router is good, but its gateway only implements WPA2 security. Even though the hardware was introduced five years ago, the Alien WiFi access point is very strong by current standards. Operating as a mesh point in bridge mode will allow me to continue benefiting from this WiFi hardware, downstream from a more secure gateway/router.
That is what I believe from reading the documentation, although I have not set it up yet. My new Dream Router 7 is due to arrive today.
I’m not sure in which scenario a second router after the first one would be required. Can you explain? Also, on a DreamRouter (UDR7) only the top three (!) ports are LAN ports. DreamRouter (UDR) and DreamMachine (UDM) had four.
The scenario is simple the geometry of wiring in my house.
I don’t want two routers – I agree completely that doesn’t work.
I want the router in a different location so I can more easily pull an ethernet wire to another location. It is purely related to my personal situation not to some larger LAN functional issue.
The DreamRouter meshes beautifully with any Ubiquiti WiFi access point. I could move the Router, and it that creates any dead spots fix that with just getting another Wifi AP. That would be the cost-effective way to do it.
Yes Ubiquiti changed the number of LAN ports on the other Dream devices as you describe.
I have no idea why they did that.