Access Point suggestions

Metu69salemi

I prefer cisco systems, but those enterprise devices has also enterprise level price tags

wallabybob

I have tried using some TP-Link 321g devices but lately (since moving them to my primary interfaces) pfSense seems to be crashing very frequently.

I have seen a few crashes reported in the run driver - the driver for newer variants of the TP-Link WN321G but not frequently (maybe a couple of times a month). What did the crash reports say about the crashes - they might be something else.

@broncoBrad:

So, my question for all of you out there is what would you recommend I do? Would you recommend USB adapters as the wireless interfaces (I would like an N nic, but haven't found any USB adapters compatible with pfSense), or would you recommend using LAN NICs and wiring to an access point? If I use external access points, can someone point me in the direction of the simplest, most dumbed down access point so I won't have these issues I'm having with the Buffalo AP.

If you really want N and you don't want to spend much you could consider the TP-Link WR703N which can be purchased from a number of eBay suppliers and Chinese online shops for under US$25. There are online directions for changing the Chinese language firmware to DD-WRT. It has a USB socket for power, a USB socket for a 3G modem, a 10/100 LAN socket and inbuilt 802.11N. I have given mine light use as WiFi AP and its been fine. I can't confirm that DD-WRT supports your particular requirements.

broncoBrad

Well it is a huge crash report, but here is basically the first page:

Crash report begins. Anonymous machine information:

i386
8.1-RELEASE-p6
FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p6 #1: Mon Dec 12 18:18:02 EST 2011 root@FreeBSD_8.0_pfSense_2.0-snaps.pfsense.org:/usr/obj./usr/pfSensesrc/src/sys/pfSense.8

Crash report details:

Filename: /var/crash/bounds
2

Filename: /var/crash/info.0
Dump header from device /dev/ad0s1b
Architecture: i386
Architecture Version: 1
Dump Length: 122880B (0 MB)
Blocksize: 512
Dumptime: Thu Feb 2 19:18:01 2012
Hostname:
Magic: FreeBSD Text Dump
Version String: FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p6 #1: Mon Dec 12 18:18:02 EST 2011
root@FreeBSD_8.0_pfSense_2.0-snaps.pfsense.org:/usr/obj./usr/pfSensesrc/src/sys/pfSense.8
Panic String:
Dump Parity: 3538512712
Bounds: 0
Dump Status: good

Filename: /var/crash/info.1
Dump header from device /dev/ad0s1b
Architecture: i386
Architecture Version: 1
Dump Length: 122880B (0 MB)
Blocksize: 512
Dumptime: Sun Feb 5 18:06:43 2012
Hostname:
Magic: FreeBSD Text Dump
Version String: FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p6 #1: Mon Dec 12 18:18:02 EST 2011
root@FreeBSD_8.0_pfSense_2.0-snaps.pfsense.org:/usr/obj./usr/pfSensesrc/src/sys/pfSense.8
Panic String:
Dump Parity: 2290970440
Bounds: 1
Dump Status: good

Filename: /var/crash/minfree
2048

Filename: /var/crash/textdump.tar.0
ddb.txt06000014000011712650751 7077 ustarrootwheeldb:0:kdb.enter.default> run lockinfo
db:1:lockinfo> show locks
No such command
db:1:locks> show alllocks
No such command
db:1:alllocks> show lockedvnods
Locked vnodes
db:0:kdb.enter.default> show pcpu
cpuid = 0
dynamic pcpu = 0x51f880
curthread = 0xc3d95280: pid 0 "run1 taskq"
curpcb = 0xe7244d90
fpcurthread = none
idlethread = 0xc3995a00: pid 11 "idle: cpu0"
APIC ID = 0
currentldt = 0x50
db:0:kdb.enter.default> bt
Tracing pid 0 tid 64067 td 0xc3d95280
run_newassoc_cb(c3dcd1b4,c0a44611,c3e0f2d4,0,0,…) at run_newassoc_cb+0x11
run_cmdq_cb(c3dcb000,2,0,c12ce3fc,0,...) at run_cmdq_cb+0x175
taskqueue_run(c3db72c0,c3db72d8,0,c0edc643,0,...) at taskqueue_run+0x89
taskqueue_thread_loop(c3dd7074,e7244d38,0,0,0,...) at taskqueue_thread_loop+0x45
fork_exit(c0a77de0,c3dd7074,e7244d38) at fork_exit+0x88
fork_trampoline() at fork_trampoline+0x8
--- trap 0, eip = 0, esp = 0xe7244d70, ebp = 0 ---
db:0:kdb.enter.default> ps

I've sent the report to pfSense pretty much everytime it has happened so they can work on any possible bug.

markuhde

EnGenius EAP-350's work fantastically for me, PoE capable, aesthetically acceptable. EAP-600's coming out later this year look nicer and are dual-band.

taktje

ubiquiti ;D

jasonlitka

I use Ubiquiti UniFi (LR) at work and Apple AirPort (one Time Capsule & one Extreme) at Home.

jimp

Be wary of cheap 802.11N routers…

(a) if they don't have a gigabit switch on the back, you'll never get more than 100Mbit/s per port max, assuming their little CPU will push that much.

(b) even if they have a gig switch on the back, some of them aren't very fast when compared against others

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/router-charts/view

dhatz

Use an external access point.

You didn't specify usage scenario (are to be covered, how many concurrent Wifi clients, specific apps e.g. voip ? etc) but for simple SOHO needs you could use some consumer router with *WRT (OpenWRT, DD-WRT, Tomato etc) firmware.

Otherwise -while still on the very low price segment- check UBNT gear, unless you have high-performance requirements (many clients with sensitive apps like video streaming over Wifi etc).

bman212121

@jimp:

Be wary of cheap 802.11N routers…

(a) if they don't have a gigabit switch on the back, you'll never get more than 100Mbit/s per port max, assuming their little CPU will push that much.

(b) even if they have a gig switch on the back, some of them aren't very fast when compared against others

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/router-charts/view

That is a great little chart they have going there. If you toss aside the WAN to LAN benchmarks as they don't mean anything for using the routers as APs, you'll see that most of the devices cannot break 100mbps over wifi regardless of what settings are used. Realistically having gig ports isn't important for even wireless N as you simply cannot break that barrier. I would have to check but even a little Rosewill like this guy: http://www.rosewill.com/products/1281/ProductDetail_Overview.htm would work okay for an AP. If you need a lot of coverage obviously look for something with removable antennas so you can put on much bigger ones. Just make sure you plug one end into your PFsense box and the other into one of the lan ports on the AP.

Efonnes

@bman212121:

That is a great little chart they have going there. If you toss aside the WAN to LAN benchmarks as they don't mean anything for using the routers as APs, you'll see that most of the devices cannot break 100mbps over wifi regardless of what settings are used.

Still relevant to some degree, because WLAN to LAN is also handled by the firmware on the device, not just WAN to LAN, and thus depends on CPU speed and efficiency of the code in the firmware. The latter is relevant on some devices. For example, on one device I have it could only get about 65 Mbps over the wireless on the stock firmware and a little over 100 Mbps with a more current open source alternative.