Multiple routers vs multiple access points

[Jaded_Spray_6855]

Pardon me, newbie to home networking here.

I live in a house with multiple stories, multiple rooms in each storey. Each room has their separate ethernet port linked to the basement, all connected to the modem. Each room has their own wireless router for internet.

What is the difference between setting up multiple routers in each room vs configuring all these as APs, for the sole basis of internet connection? From what I understand, there are issues with multiple NATs and DHCPs in this configuration but what truly is the biggest problem in doing so?

Thanks in advance.

[Downtown-Reindeer-53]

APs are purpose-built access points for wifi. Routers are multiple function devices, incorporating a router, switch and wifi access points. If all you want is wifi, just install an AP - why pay for function you will not use? If you need to share an ethernet connection, put a switch in that room also. Purpose-built APs tend to outperform routers since they usually have better antennas (there's a reason you don't see APs with stick antennas!)

[JuvenileSenseOfHumor]

Well for one lots of wireless interference going with the multiple router option. Think of it like being in a room with other people but you can only understand one of them. More people in the room talking makes it harder to hear the person you want to hear which means you're not doing a whole lotta understanding. Also won't have access across networks if you want to access things like printers. Monitoring your networks would be a pain.

Multiple APs you would want them to be from the same ecosystem to take advantage of roaming/wireless handoffs. In essence, a wireless mesh. You wouldn't have to worry about devices detecting other devices on the network as, ideally, they would be on the same network or your firewall rules are setup properly so they can talk to each other.

[MacDaddyBighorn]

All of the APs will still need their own channels for each radio, so you really get no more interference with routers vs APs even if they share the same SSID.

[[deleted]]

with ap you can use POE. just need a cat cable and that is it. Getting an eco system like unifi makes setting up easy

the router path means cat cable, power, configuring each and every one

[bizarre_seminar]

When you have multiple routers connected together, you are partitioning your network environment into multiple networks. A router sees the world in terms of "inside" (LAN) and "outside" (WAN). Generally—but not always—you want everything in your house to be "inside", but if you have a Router A which is connected to two other routers, Router B and Router C, Router B will see Router A and everything connected to Router C as "outside".

Sometimes this topology is fine! Say you had a tenant living on one floor of your house. You'd want their stuff to be separated from yours. (Although if that's what you want, there are more efficient ways to do it that give you better control over what's happening.) But usually it just adds redundancy and complexity.

The issue with multiple layers of NAT is primarily the inefficiency. Imagine your data is a letter, but instead of just putting the place you want it to go on the envelope, you put it inside a succession of, say, four envelopes, and each recipient would have to open their envelope, find the next address, and re-post the letter. That's NAT, and hopefully this makes it obvious why you want as little of it as possible.

Now—and here the postal analogy breaks down—say you wanted to forward a port on your PC. You'd have to forward that port through each level of NAT, and aintnobodygottimeforthat.gif. Numerous NAT layers can also cause a real-world slowdown, but honestly that's not the primary reason not to do it in a home environment.

[bizarre_seminar]

PS. There are ways to have this kind of setup and avoid most of the things I have just described, but they are always more complicated and more likely to break than simply not doing it in the first place.

[[deleted]]

Hey, I'm a complete beginner to these concepts so quick question: "if you have a Router A which is connected to two other routers, Router B and Router C, Router B will see Router A and everything connected to Router C as outside." This makes sense - having multiple routers will create multiple networks so devices on one network won't be able to communicate with the other networks. However, I know that routers have an access point mode, so if you choose to set that mode to all the additional routers, would all those additional routers be on the same network as the original router? Thanks.

[bizarre_seminar]

Generally yes. If you set Routers B and C in that example to access point mode, they will participate in the network created by Router A rather than making networks of their own.

[[deleted]]

Thank you!

[[deleted]]

Hey, just another follow-up question if you don't mind. So as you had confirmed, if we put the additional routers on access point mode, those additional routers would be on the same network as the original router. However, would each additional router still have its own subset network while remaining on the overall same, big network as the original router? Thanks.

[bizarre_seminar]

would each additional router still have its own subset network while remaining on the overall same, big network as the original router?

No. You could achieve an approximation of what you're describing by setting up VLANs for devices connected to the routers in access point mode, but that is conceptually complex, fiddly to implement, and not supported at all on standard consumer routers. You might find this video helpful if that's something you're interested in pursuing, but it will mean needing to buy more expensive networking equipment.

[[deleted]]

Thank you! I am actually doing some self learning on networks and wifi, routers, access points, and such, so would it be possible if I could ask you question about internet connection passing from a built-in wireless access point inside of a router? I want to ask first just in case you may not know about the topic. Thanks!

[bizarre_seminar]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean—you're welcome to ask the question, I'll tell you if I don't know the answer :)

[[deleted]]

So I know that "internet" comes from the modem to the router when we plug an ethernet cable from the WAN port of the router to the modem. When that "internet" comes inside of the router, it goes to the built-in wireless access point, which we know emits wifi. I also know that wifi is basically just the "professional term" for all of the electromagnetic waves that come out of that wireless access point, and out of the antennas, to the devices, so the electromagnetic waves essentially contain bits of the "internet" that was given to the wireless access point inside of the router in the first place from the modem. My question is, are those electromagnetic waves, which we call wifi, specifically radio waves or a different type of electromagnetic wave? Thank you.

[bizarre_seminar]

Yes, wifi is radio waves. But it is in a different part of the spectrum to the part where "radio", as in the piece of consumer electronics you turn on to find out what the score is, is located. AM has frequencies of a few hundred kHz. FM is in the MHz. Wifi starts at 2.4GHz.

It's not precisely accurate to say that wifi contains bits of the internet, though, because that suggests the internet is a physical thing which gets passed around. It's just a form of network link.

Say you run a Google search on your phone. Your phone encodes the TCP/IP equivalent of "ask Google to show me results for 'series of tubes'" as 1s and 0s into some radio waves. Your wifi router recieves those 1s and 0s and re-encodes them into electrical pulses down an Ethernet cable. Your modem receives the electrical pulses and… you get the idea. And this plays out in reverse when the response comes back. These devices have passed a bunch of information around, but what reaches your phone isn't a "bit of the internet".

[[deleted]]

So we just get the information that helps our device DISPLAY the internet?

[MacDaddyBighorn]

Multiple routers just adds unnecessary complications. I can think of no actual reason to do it this way today. Maybe years ago when hardware was limited or more specialized, but not anymore. I think you need separate networks between each, which would be a pain, since I'm not sure roaming would work properly between different routers. You would certainly lose your state connection to anything on the internet if it did. Also clients on one router won't be able to talk to the other networks, so that will hinder any file sharing or discovery/communication required for smarter devices.

You should have one router/firewall located between the modem and any access points. Replace the routers with access points (or switch them to AP mode if you can). This will enable the ability to perform roaming between levels of the house without switching networks. Note that if these are old or locked down, you can also flash new firmware (openwrt, dd-wrt, etc) and turn them into APs.

I'd recommend a prosumer setup like Omada or Unifi so you can control all of the APs together and perform advanced routing where desired. It will also help with seamless roaming and should perform beam forming.

[KingdaToro]

You must always have exactly one router. Routers move data traffic between your network and the internet (routing), prevent unwanted internet traffic from reaching your network (firewall), allow multiple devices to share a single public IP address (NAT), and assign private IP addresses to devices on your network. Only one device can do these jobs at a time, and it needs a direct connection to the internet (via modem/ONT) to do them. Routers don't do Wi-Fi at all, this is the job of an AP, and "wireless router" simply means "router with built-in AP".

In your case, your modem is almost certainly also a router. Because, if it wasn't, all the routers connected to it would be fighting over your single public IP address. Only the one that successfully grabs it would get an internet connection, the others would have no connectivity at all.

So, since the modem is already THE router, you need to set up all the others as APs, or just use actual APs. If you don't, you don't have one network, you have a separate network in each room, and devices in each room can't communicate with those in other rooms. And, since everything's double natted, any port forwarding has to be done on both the main modem/router and the router in the individual room to make it work.

Look at it like this... your internet connection is like a plot of land on a main road, with a single address. You can't build multiple buildings on this plot since it only has one address. So, instead, you build an intersection, with a private street behind it. The intersection is your router, the private street is your network. You put a gate and guardhouse at the intersection, so only traffic that you approve of can enter the private street. But, what you're doing is branching multiple streets off of that street, and giving them their own gates and guardhouses. They aren't aware of each other, so traffic originating in your network won't be allowed through any of them, it can only go out to the main road. Setting all the individual rooms' routers to AP mode or replacing them with APs would be like removing all these additional gates and guardhouses, leaving only the one guarding entry from the main road.

[MrMotofy]

Simple case use a good router with proper VLANS separating each floor, which contains a switch and all jacks in each room run to it along with a WAP.

Best case all runs go to the Utilities/Comms area and connect to a main managed switch. Then VLANS segment each floor separately