2 LANs (each w/their own WAN) connected by radio link
LAN1 is the house with a DSL connection to the internet (WAN1).
LAN2 is an observatory with Verizon cellular broadband modem (WAN2), 420 meters from the house.
Today they are not connected, but I would like to add a radio link to connect them so:
- the two WANs can back each other up.... i.e. when the DSL at the house is choked, LAN1 can use WAN2 and vice versa.
- I can transfer files or remote desktop between LANs without going through the WANs.
Can someone advise as to whether this is possible, what hardware would you suggest, where can I learn how to do this?
I've used pfSense for many years on a home built router in another location (finally replaced with an SG-2220).
Yeah this is quite possible... All comes down to budget.. How much are you willing to spend on the link? What speed do you want/need?
This would be simple, clicky clicky sort of solution
mple, clicky clicky sort of solution
Yes I'm seriously looking at the Ubiquiti units. I can borrow some to make sure they will work before buying. The conduit from the observatory to the pole where I would mount it is probably frozen until spring, but I would upgrade the routers now.
I need to buy a multi-wan router for each LAN? Any suggestions there? I wouldn't want to buy the gear and then post my config questions only to learn that I bought the wrong stuff.
You need to buy something that can run pfsense on it, be it you use physical interfaces or vlans for your multiple connections doesn't matter..
The box needs enough umph to push the traffic you want to push through it, and run any packages you might want to run on it.. But you could do such a setup with something as small as the sg1100 for sure, shoot even the old sg1000 would be able to do something like this.
If your going to want to push gig through it, prob sg3100 would be best choice.. Isn't the 5100 on sale ;)
OK let's say I get the Ubiquitis and one sg-3100 for each LAN.
I just want to confirm that you're saying I would be able to configure things to meet goal #1 above:
- when LAN1 (house) is streaming SONOS audio, browsing the web and playing online video games, traffic can be spread between WAN1 (the slow DSL) and WAN2 (the observatory's cellular modem) to increase reliability and avoid bottlenecks? And when WAN1 is just randomly down (which happens), LAN1 can fully push traffic out over WAN2?
Can you suggest any resources to help me lean how to set this up in pfSense?
I would start here
Once you connect each building together, your link just becomes a transit to get to wherever you want to go on the other site, be lan over there or use of their enternet... You could for sure put that link into a wan group and load balance over it, etc.
that's really great thank you!
Couple of 3100's and that building to building unifi bridge - going to have pretty slick setup for sure!!! Make sure come back and share when you have it up and rocking!
Love to see some real world benchmarks over the bridge as well.. I wish I had a scenario to play with those with ;)
lfoerster last edited by lfoerster
I would better take a look to Mikrotik Radio Bridges like the SXT:
They perform much better than UBQT and most of them run RouterOS which makes a full layer 3 (routed) link possible which will suppress all the the board- and multicast traffic from the 2 local networks and hence keep the link performant.
You have not idea how this performs - its brand new product!!
And the range of this is 500m, while the range of the mikrotek is 200m on sim product. Their wireless wire..
You do understand he has layer 2 devices in the 2 buildings.. His sonos - so maybe he wants some multicast across.. Can always filter stuff you don't want with switch.. And if he uses the layer 2 as just transit from router to router - there would be no broadcast/multicast on it since its now its own layer 2, etc. etc.
This product can do gig, all the other wireless devices your talking about do like 300mbps, etc.. They use 2.4 and 5ghz - this is using 60Ghz.. I would listed the mikrotek version of this - but it list range of only 200m, while his requirement is 420m
What you would want in such a setup is a wire between the two buildings, so you can have an extended vlan and do layer 2 stuff if you want, or route over as a transit, etc. etc.
I didn't mention in my original post that there could be some interference with trees. This little animation shows the setup, but trees appear flat to the ground. The guy who would loan me the UBQT units thinks the trees won't be a problem based on other places he's used them.
When we built the road 6 years ago, I wanted a conduit for a fiber cable, but there is so little soil over so much granite ledge (New Hampshire) that we couldn't get below the frost line without blasting. It might have quintupled the cost of building the road.
I don't need to share Sonos zones between buildings, but I would like Sonos to be able to stream through either WAN. I have saved music files on network attached storage in both buildings, but ideally I could use either.
The guy who would loan me the UBQT
Which specific units - this new building to building 60Ghz product... Or one of their other wireless bridges?
He said he has a set of these.
That is not what I linked too.. That is not clicky clicky goodness ;) And very limited bandwidth..
So do you actually have line of sight or not? You can always use poles to go above the trees..
There is a pad with solar panels where I could mount a pole (that's what's depicted in the animation). Conduit already goes there. I guess I worry that too tall a pole becomes a lightning rod. We're already on the top of a knoll.
Down at the house, I'm also hesitant to mount a super tall pole on the roof, but I would feel better about a pole near the house someplace, it just has to be taller.
I'm trying to get my son to make a drone video showing how high we need to go for clear line of sight.