Bad wifi signal and latency in old house, how to improve?

[stacker512]

I'll try 5G when I can, last time I tried it was even worse.

Here's some pings, suddenly network in-game goes bad

$ ping lwn.net
PING lwn.net (173.255.236.65) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=79.4 ms
From serenity (192.168.1.244) icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=5 ttl=50 time=84.2 ms
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=6 ttl=50 time=86.0 ms
From serenity (192.168.1.244) icmp_seq=7 Destination Host Unreachable
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=10 ttl=50 time=86.1 ms
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=15 ttl=50 time=79.5 ms
From serenity (192.168.1.244) icmp_seq=16 Destination Host Unreachable
From serenity.lan (192.168.1.244) icmp_seq=17 Destination Host Unreachable
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=19 ttl=50 time=81.4 ms
From serenity (192.168.1.244) icmp_seq=20 Destination Host Unreachable
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=23 ttl=50 time=81.1 ms
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=24 ttl=50 time=92.7 ms
From serenity (192.168.1.244) icmp_seq=25 Destination Host Unreachable
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=28 ttl=50 time=81.5 ms
From serenity (192.168.1.244) icmp_seq=29 Destination Host Unreachable
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=32 ttl=50 time=93.1 ms
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=33 ttl=50 time=86.7 ms
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=34 ttl=50 time=79.5 ms
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=35 ttl=50 time=81.3 ms
From serenity (192.168.1.244) icmp_seq=36 Destination Host Unreachable
64 bytes from prodcs.lwn.net (173.255.236.65): icmp_seq=39 ttl=50 time=93.2 ms
^C
--- lwn.net ping statistics ---
42 packets transmitted, 14 received, +8 errors, 66.6667% packet loss, time 51913ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 79.428/84.702/93.233/4.946 ms, pipe 3

How is it that it gets so bad sometimes?

Yeah also get these:

[ 1528.315462] wlp5s0: Limiting TX power to 20 (20 - 0) dBm as advertised by MAC-ADDR
[ 1532.299651] wlp5s0: Connection to AP MAC-ADDR lost
[ 1536.332321] wlp5s0: authenticate with MAC-ADDR
[ 1536.463459] wlp5s0: send auth to MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1536.468496] wlp5s0: authenticated
[ 1536.475069] wlp5s0: associate with MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1536.479988] wlp5s0: RX AssocResp from MAC-ADDR (capab=0x1411 status=0 aid=24)
[ 1536.595744] wlp5s0: associated
[ 1536.637756] wlp5s0: Limiting TX power to 20 (20 - 0) dBm as advertised by MAC-ADDR
[ 1537.931531] wlp5s0: Connection to AP MAC-ADDR lost
[ 1541.972898] wlp5s0: authenticate with MAC-ADDR
[ 1542.103314] wlp5s0: send auth to MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1542.104848] wlp5s0: authenticated
[ 1542.111407] wlp5s0: associate with MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1542.116442] wlp5s0: RX AssocResp from MAC-ADDR (capab=0x1411 status=0 aid=9)
[ 1542.231550] wlp5s0: associated
[ 1542.371436] wlp5s0: Limiting TX power to 20 (20 - 0) dBm as advertised by MAC-ADDR
[ 1543.358665] wlp5s0: Connection to AP MAC-ADDR lost
[ 1547.388158] wlp5s0: authenticate with MAC-ADDR
[ 1547.516911] wlp5s0: send auth to MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1547.518480] wlp5s0: authenticated
[ 1547.519210] wlp5s0: associate with MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1547.524753] wlp5s0: RX AssocResp from MAC-ADDR (capab=0x1411 status=0 aid=22)
[ 1547.639343] wlp5s0: associated
[ 1548.698166] wlp5s0: Limiting TX power to 20 (20 - 0) dBm as advertised by MAC-ADDR
[ 1549.707368] wlp5s0: Connection to AP MAC-ADDR lost
[ 1553.776402] wlp5s0: authenticate with MAC-ADDR
[ 1553.906865] wlp5s0: send auth to MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1553.908372] wlp5s0: authenticated
[ 1553.911006] wlp5s0: associate with MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1553.915966] wlp5s0: RX AssocResp from MAC-ADDR (capab=0x1411 status=0 aid=18)
[ 1554.031146] wlp5s0: associated
[ 1554.324630] wlp5s0: Limiting TX power to 20 (20 - 0) dBm as advertised by MAC-ADDR
[ 1557.080072] wlp5s0: Connection to AP MAC-ADDR lost
[ 1561.107564] wlp5s0: authenticate with MAC-ADDR
[ 1561.238432] wlp5s0: send auth to MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1561.239949] wlp5s0: authenticated
[ 1561.242780] wlp5s0: associate with MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1561.254491] wlp5s0: RX AssocResp from MAC-ADDR (capab=0x1411 status=0 aid=17)
[ 1561.366895] wlp5s0: associated
[ 1561.366938] wlp5s0: Limiting TX power to 20 (20 - 0) dBm as advertised by MAC-ADDR
[ 1584.425340] wlp5s0: Connection to AP MAC-ADDR lost
[ 1588.495299] wlp5s0: authenticate with MAC-ADDR
[ 1588.625768] wlp5s0: send auth to MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1588.629629] wlp5s0: authenticated
[ 1588.629981] wlp5s0: associate with MAC-ADDR (try 1/3)
[ 1588.634915] wlp5s0: RX AssocResp from MAC-ADDR (capab=0x1411 status=0 aid=23)
[ 1588.750134] wlp5s0: associated
[ 1588.750215] wlp5s0: Limiting TX power to 20 (20 - 0) dBm as advertised by MAC-ADDR

Ok I assume it's dissassociating from the AP because of low signal strength.

[stacker512]

I'll order AV1000 such that I synchronize it with a day that I'm WFH rather than the silly work at office day.
I was thinking of getting 100m of cat6, about £100 or something, but running it around the hallways, through door frame, up the stair etc would be a real hassle.

[mc2fool]

My speed was quite adequate for my needs. I upgraded the equipment because I felt that it was getting flaky.

However since there seems to be an interest in my internal network speed ...

:
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  3]  0.0-10.1 sec   144 MBytes   120 Mbits/sec
:

So, were I concerned about file transfer speed's I'd be well advised to route cables or locate the NAS adjacent to the computer using it.

Thanks. Yeah, that's pretty disappointing, although not totally unexpected....

[stacker512]

Thank you all, especially with the recommendation to use powerline adapters.

I just got my TP-Link AV1000 adapter about an hour ago, and after testing I got my desktop setup on it now.

Pings to lwn website are very consistent now, the range is just over 5ms, and just a smidge over 100mbps up / 20 down now.

37 packets transmitted, 37 received, 0% packet loss, time 36048ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 80.292/82.020/85.750/0.964 ms

[stacker512]

Powerline adapter seems to be working ok.

One of the units was dropping out, turns out it was power-saving feature was enabled.
I had to download TP-Link's software and configure that unit to disable the power saving feature.
Now the units are on, and no connection drops so far.

One thing that was very concerning, is that while using the admin tool, I saw 1 or 2 other powerline devices. These must be neighbours?
This seems like a security hell-hole, any of those devices could potentially become part of my network, getting DHCP from my router, and being part of the internal network. Once there, they could browse all the devices on the network and access my docker containers that I am running.

This is really worrying.
I'll look at powerline encryption in the next day or two.

[Infrasonic]

...One thing that was very concerning, is that while using the admin tool, I saw 1 or 2 other powerline devices. These must be neighbours?
This seems like a security hell-hole, any of those devices could potentially become part of my network, getting DHCP from my router, and being part of the internal network. Once there, they could browse all the devices on the network and access my docker containers that I am running.

This is really worrying.
I'll look at powerline encryption in the next day or two.

Read the review sites that have covered PL over the years - all this stuff is under known issues and most of it has simple solutions...

E.g....https://www.lifewire.com/how-to-secure- ... rk-2487487

[Infrasonic]

Also... if you want to create an easy WAN/LAN encrypted environment look at overlay VPN networks like Tailscale / Zerotier/ Netbird.

Dead easy to set up, no port forwarding / subnetting / VLAN configuration to worry about (for basic use anyway), and if you need self hosting for business compliance reasons Netbird has that covered with a 1 minute set up...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ay+VPN%27s

[stacker512]

Also... if you want to create an easy WAN/LAN encrypted environment look at overlay VPN networks like Tailscale / Zerotier/ Netbird.

Dead easy to set up....

But that would I assume depend on the ISP-provided router being capable of running that?
Consumer grade hardware tends to be a bit... cheap and featureless, no?

[Infrasonic]

Also... if you want to create an easy WAN/LAN encrypted environment look at overlay VPN networks like Tailscale / Zerotier/ Netbird.

Dead easy to set up....

But that would I assume depend on the ISP-provided router being capable of running that?
Consumer grade hardware tends to be a bit... cheap and featureless, no?

Nope.

You install an app to each client device and the coordination server does all the rest - it's literally install, sign in and off you go.
I've been running Tailscale for over a year now and currently have about 15 instances running, including linux containers/VM's, phones, laptops (W11 +WSL2 Ubuntu + 2 x Chromebook + Debian VM's), desktop W10 PC + WSL2 VM, music streamer, 4K short throw projector.

I recently bought a GL.iNet router that does have Tailscale and Zerotier capability built in, but was running perfectly well before without it...

[stacker512]

You install an app to each client device and the coordination server does all the rest - it's literally install, sign in and off you go.

But you do need a coordination server to make it run.

I have:
- my desktop
- my NAS
- my laptop

I mostly just use my desktop. NAS only when I need to backup things or access things. Laptop rarely.

Got dnsmasq setup on the desktop that used to serve DHCP to the NAS, via a 5 port gigabit switch.

Now that the powerline is connected to the switch, I had to stop my desktop dnsmasq (so that it does not offer DHCP in conflict with the internet router's DHCP). Have not booted the NAS since, so that's an unresolved.

In my case, would my desktop become a Tailscale coordination server, just for my desktop and NAS?

Ideally I want to give the NAS internet access (via NAT or similar) so that it can get updates, or occasional cloud-backups.
But I don't want anyone else in the house (a lodger or anyone visiting and accessing the wifi) access to the NAS or anyone in the neighbourhood (via powerline house-leakage) to have access.

So far been thinking of these angles:
- restrict desktop dnsmasq to give out DCHP (with a different IP address to the main address) to only a specific MAC address (of my NAS), while restricting internet router to not give DHCP to NAS.
- look into VLANs and configure the Netgear 5 port switch differently
- get a different sort of appliance to provide filtering / NAT so outsider access to NAS is not allowed.

[Infrasonic]

If you aren't self hosting the coordination server is run by Tailscale - it's literally all plug and play as the default set up as I posted above.
That's how I'm currently operating.

If you do want to self host Tailscale themselves don't do it but there is third party Headscale that TS endorse, but it's an all command line set up - I watched a couple of YT tutorial videos on it and it was a bit too convoluted for me - If I was going to go self hosted I'd use Netbird which is a single line of bash to set up. Watch the videos I linked to previously.

https://www.youtube.com/@Tailscale/videos

You're going to need to do some reading up to see if it will work for you with your specific set up.
The basics are simple, but as with all networking once you start trying to customise it to specific situations outside the general remit then it can get messy.

The linked TS YT channel has some great specific tutorials for more involved 'home lab' style setups that many IT pros might wish to employ.
I'm not that complicated yet but will be adding WAN accessible NAS' and other stuff to my home office setup in future - hence me preparing in advance to see if there's any gotchas.

[Urbandreamer]

FWIW, I was trying to help my brother set up his office and remote access NAS arrangements.
We had terrible issues, that I now know were entirely due to port forwarding.

Struggling like mad I installed tailscale upon two of his NAS and a GSM toughpad. It was a breeze. The most difficult bit was not knowing that the tailscale application on the toughpad was only visible as an option in the services box at the bottom right corner of windows.

Sadly, as he wants to work a certain way, we still have to get the port forwarding working correctly.

I can however see why Infrasonic keeps praising tailscale.

[Infrasonic]

https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale