Networking help/advice needed

[Big Jim]

I have a client that lives in a remote location, their business is at same location. (on a farm)

BT have until recently only been able to offer them very slow ADSL, and because of that they went with a company that does wireless broadband (very popular around here as its very rural) which gives them about 10 MB I think.

Now BT have installed FTTP at their house, the problem is BT won't install it in the office as it is 150m away and needs registering as a new address.
They do have a BT wire installed in the ground, which they installed themselves, and BT used to get the old ADSL to the office.


SO, here is where I come in, they would like (potentially) to run office and house off the one line and use the wireless broadband as fail-over.
as the run is anywhere between 120m to 150m, (not entirely sure until a cable is pulled through) we are thinking that ethernet probably wont work (although it might)

My guess is that here we should be looking at pulling a FO cable through that conduit and installing to SFP capable switches at either end.
I would then need a router with failover.

should I be using FO here ?
Is there a router that exists with FO SFP module capability to save buying 2 switches? (or is that just stupid)

this has to be done pretty cheaply as the customer won't spend a lot of money, thats not to say that they will try and low-ball me or anything, I just can't see them throwing money at this, as they do have the option of registering the business office as a separate address and getting FTTP install there, which they had already put in motion before I was contacted.
When the owner was explaining this and I suggested linking the house to the office, he liked the idea as it would allow him to connect to the office from the house at night should he need to (save walking across just to access a file/info)

 

[acs]

I would get a couple of fibre to cable convertors at each end of the Fibre and plug them into a normal switch, nice and cheap option. How are you going to terminate the FO or are you buying a length of pre made FO?

 

[Big Jim]

i don't have enough experience with FO to do anything other than buy it pre-made.

 

[Markverhyden]

That length isn't going to be cheap, just the cable alone is going to be probably in the $150 range. Then you have the interfacing equipment. How is it terminated right now by BT.

 

[acs]

I read this as being between house and farm rather than direct into BT. I would also suggest looking at a radio link between the two buildings if I have read it correct.

 

[Mick]

Just out of interest, I have a client who is also a farmer and has a similar set-up: House, then office approx 80 metres away (so not quite as far as your guy). He has (he did this himself) a garden hose buried in the ground at about five inch depth and, inside that, a CAT 5E cable from his BT 'Home Hub' to the far end, into which he plugs whatever he's using (usually a laptop, sometimes an IP camera). He told me it works great...and....it does! Not sure how long it will last, or how much further you could go with this arrangement, but it works for him.

 

[backwoodsman]

Is there some reason a wireless link from the house to the office won't work? Seems like that would be the easiest solution.

 

[Markverhyden]

I'm wondering how the BT circuit is terminated at the home? Probably like over here with an ONT. But over here the ONT may hand off to a coax or to a Cat connection. If it's Cat then the customer can use pretty much any router. If it's coax then they need a media converter.

If the run really is 150 meters then i could be a problem depending on how much traffic there is. Officially Cat5e, which does GB, is limited to 100 meters. I've gone over that a bit, maybe 10-20 meters, with little issue. I've even done a T1 at almost 200 meters but that is only 1.5mb/1.5mb.

Given the work involved I'd not want to try 150 meters of copper unless the customer signed off on the T&M and knows there is not refund nor guarantee of performance.

You could do wireless or fiber. Fiber will have the higher bandwidth but will require some digging, not to mention proper switches and SFP's or media converters. Wireless will probably be easier to install and could be a bit cheaper. But the bandwidth will be less. Ubuiquiti has plenty of solutions. Nanostation would be a good low cost alternative.

If it was my own situation I'd probably want to go ahead and spend the extra for running fiber.

 

[Big Jim]

there is currently a single cat cable running in the conduit installed by BT, as far as what category it is or termination, I have no clue, so lets work on the basis that it is useless for my needs and fresh cable needs to be run.

the run could be 120m, we don't know for certain, I think when we measured it on google maps it was somewhere around 120m, but he sdaid the conduit isn't a straight run in the ground, it goes around certain buildings.

He is fully aware that copper might not work, I have explained that if we can bring it out halfway somewhere and terminate it and send it to a switch we could get it to work that way, ie 2 x 75m runs instead of 1 single 150m run.
I am not great with wireless solutions if I am honest, but currently he has the wireless internet coming to his house, then they have installed their equipment to transmit that connection accorss the road/yard to his office.
My previous dealings with the wireless company (W3Z) they don't allow anyone to touch their equipment, last time I was on site (somewhere else) I had to ask them to reconfigure the router remotely as they don't allow customer access at all. So I don't think we can "hi-jack" that equipment.

throughput is not the issue here, 50mbps would be perfectly acceptable. if I knew I could get 50 I would go ahead with copper as it would be cheapest and easiest.
they are currently sharing a 20mbps connection over 3 pcs and whatever phones are in the office.

I haven't told him any prices yet as I wanted to look in to the fibre option, but I don't think he is adverse to spending the money if it is going to work and be reliable, that said he is running a small business (10 - 15 employees) so wouldn't be shelling out silly amounts of money.

Setup in the office currently (setup by someone else I might add) is a Dell tower server running business essentials. and 3 desktops all running AD with the server.

 

[nlinecomputers]

I am not great with wireless solutions if I am honest, but currently he has the wireless internet coming to his house, then they have installed their equipment to transmit that connection accorss the road/yard to his office.
My previous dealings with the wireless company (W3Z) they don't allow anyone to touch their equipment, last time I was on site (somewhere else) I had to ask them to reconfigure the router remotely as they don't allow customer access at all. So I don't think we can "hi-jack" that equipment.

You are totally misunderstanding. The WiMAX signal comes into the house and then you run a separate wireless connection point to point to the other building. Ubiquity makes equipment that will do that. Just need to mount on a pole on both buildings and you run the connection into a switch. The only issue would be to pick a frequency NOT being used by the other WiMAX connection. It will be a lot cheaper than digging a 150 m trench for copper or fiber.

 

[Big Jim]

You are totally misunderstanding. The WiMAX signal comes into the house and then you run a separate wireless connection point to point to the other building. Ubiquity makes equipment that will do that. Just need to mount on a pole on both buildings and you run the connection into a switch. The only issue would be to pick a frequency NOT being used by the other WiMAX connection. It will be a lot cheaper than digging a 150 m trench for copper or fiber.

I am not misunderstanding at all. But in fairness your post probably sums up what I already know

As far as the trench goes, yes wireless would be easier, however the trench/conduit is already dug/in place

 

[nlinecomputers]

Well in that case I would just sub it out to a good cable guy. Get him to provide everything but the Ethernet connect. Mark it up and call it good.

 

[backwoodsman]

I am not misunderstanding at all. But in fairness your post probably sums up what I already know

As far as the trench goes, yes wireless would be easier, however the trench/conduit is already dug/in place

Well, someone is certainly misunderstanding something. You really want to go to all the trouble and expense of using the trench and conduit, just because it's already there, rather than doing it the cheap easy way with wireless? What are we missing?

 

[SmallSpace]

In such a situation for my own farm clients and even for myself over a much shorter distance I use Ubiquiti's point to point wireless gear.

The antenna and access point are in one weatherproof outdoor unit that gets mounted outside on a small pole and a single ethernet cable provides power and Ethernet access to the device. I am running a 20M link and I have clients operating on a 1.5KM link between buildings on a property. You do need line of site though but if you do have good line of site you can get 5GHz gear that can give upto 400Mbit of bandwidth.

If the client does want fiber fs.com sell SFP modules, media converters and can make custom length pre-terminated fiber cables but that option will also need costly trenching.

 

[Big Jim]

Well, someone is certainly misunderstanding something. You really want to go to all the trouble and expense of using the trench and conduit, just because it's already there, rather than doing it the cheap easy way with wireless? What are we missing?

Maybe I am misunderstanding then ??
why would the conduit be more trouble ? expensive for a FO/SFP cable yes, but how much is Ubiquiti's PTP gear going to cost ?
I would guess there isn't going to be much difference pricewise, and to me pulling a cable through a (already installed) conduit is surely easier than mounting PTP gear on poles to get line of sight etc. I am almost certain that there are trees in the way that will need figuring out as well.

I'll be honest though I have experience with neither option, I have only ever dealt with wireless repeating on the normal Unifi APs and copper cat cable for wired networking.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I'd be looking at "point to point" wireless, with Ubiquiti airMax units. They have many models under 100 bucks a pop.

Assuming you have some line of site...it's by far the cheapest way to go. Not much work involved. Stick one unit outside the main house facing the barn. Stick the second unit outside the barn facing the one at the house. Each one connects to ethernet (which also provides the power)...usually connecting to a POE switch inside the building, that the rest of the network connects to.

Ubiquiti airMax and airFiber radios just create a connection exactly like an ethernet cable. Think of them like an invisible network cable. So basically if you had a switch at the barn, it would be like running a long network cable to the house and plug into a switch at the house...and that switch uplinks to the ISPs gateway.

Total cost....again, for the small radios you'd use...most models are under 100 bucks each (US dollars)..some down in the 60's. Which model you'd use? Depends...right off the bat the "NanoBeam AC" models are good little small models.

Doesn't seem like your distance is much, depending on the foliage, different frequencies can work better. 5 models have the fastest speeds and less susceptible to other wireless interference, but doesn't tolerate foliage/obstacles very well. Stands up well in heavy rain and snow. 2.4 can punch through foliage and light construction homes a bit better, but more susceptible to interference from other wifi (esp in dense areas...not so much a farm), heavy rain/snow can slow it down a bit, and not as fast as 5 models. 900 can punch through lots of trees and buildings, but even slower.

Adding some cabling costs (which you'd have to do ANYways if you trench)...and adding a POE switch to each side (don't know how large of a switch you want at each side..8 port, 16 port, 24 port, 48 port)? Possible some wireless APs for spreading wifi around the farm..inside the barn, in the house, outdoors in some areas...and your labor, But a quick guesstimate..the link itself could be done likely for under a thousand bucks said 'n done...figuring a pair of NanoBeam ACs..and a small pair of 8 port POE switches..some cabling, and at least several hours for you.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Following the existing trench path...a few things you can look at here.
*As you know, for gigabit standard with ethernet..even fast ethernet standard, 100 meters is the max certified length. People have gone past that without any special equipment..110 meters, 120 meters...without issues. I have not seen a run longer than that, without special equipment. 150 meters is looking at 50% above spec'd length...I would not attempt that with just normal equipment like a switch at each end. It might work...it will likely have some performance degradation if not be quite full of errors.

There are specials devices out there called "ethernet extenders" which will "slow down" a connection a bit, so you can go extra far. For example...do you mind if the connection gets lowered to 50 megs? If you don't mind that...you can run ethernet to 300 meters! Or they have models which will lower speeds to 10 megs if you need to run over 1,000 meters.

If your client just needs internet access these likely would be fine. We've used these in special CAN (campus area network) builds....we used them a bit before Ubiquiti air* products got so cheap and fast.

If you have the budget...go fiber!
If you run ethernet...don't forget copper carries electricity...use ethernet surge suppressing units at each end. Lightening strikes to the ground can travel and cook stuff. Also ensure no power cords are in that conduit already...you don't want to run copper ethernet parallel to power for that distance (or even short distance).

Does the existing conduit have room? Were prior installers smart and left pull strings there? Or you gotta blow a bag through? (that can be a challenge sometimes!)

 

[glennd]

I'm voting for radio. I've done a couple of installations similar to what you describe, around 100-150m, using Nanobeams and I'm guessing StoneCat has done a veritable plethora of them. We're about to do another spanning 2km. They are easy to set up and rock solid performance wise. Admittedly the first time was slower while I was learning how to do it so allow a little time to learn the system.

They can be pole mounted or wall mounted. The pole mounts are packaged but the wall mounts are sold separately.

I might be wrong but I reckon at such a short distance foliage won't have so much of an impact.

They come with the PoE adapters so you can derive power from the mains if you want. You don't *have* to use a PoE switch to power them, you can plug them into whatever existing switch there is.

 

[seedubya]

I'm wondering how the BT circuit is terminated at the home? Probably like over here with an ONT.

They're all using ONT's over here Mark. One thing to bear in mind is that the router or gateway MUST be able to assign a VLAN tag to the WAN port. Low end Cisco's can't do this, neither can any Tp-Link devices I've come across. The Unifi Edge router and USG can do this as can Draytek routers and Sonicwall gateways.

 

[Markverhyden]

They're all using ONT's over here Mark. One thing to bear in mind is that the router or gateway MUST be able to assign a VLAN tag to the WAN port. Low end Cisco's can't do this, neither can any Tp-Link devices I've come across. The Unifi Edge router and USG can do this as can Draytek routers and Sonicwall gateways.

What do they have for output connection types? Over here Verizon, for example, provides both a coax output and an ethernet. So coax still requires another modem but one can pipe the ethernet output to any router. In the beginning Verizon used to enable the coax only, but the last few years they typically just do the ethernet port.