A single fiber connection linking two networks, explained simply.
A single fiber connection linking two networks, explained simply.
Ah ok, stumbling block here, they wouldn't want me seeing their stuff either, the idea is to run it as separate as possible. Anything I can do about this? Don't imagine running the fibre and power together will be an issue and would make things neater also as all I'd have to do is feed the fibre through the current conduit that's run under ground now. Then I can somehow just run it through the wall into my router. I assume you'd run the fibre into one of those cheap TP-Link boxes to convert it to RJ45 then go from there into a standard router? Thanks for your advice on this though, I hugely appreciate it!
Execute the three router configurations now. Absolutely it functions properly in this location. Because the proximity is minimal, you can also connect a standard Ethernet cable and opt for a direct burial option if you prefer cost-effectiveness.
I'll choose the three routers. Straightforward and easy to understand. Regarding the cabling, it depends on what the landlord prefers. If I locate some external grade fiber, it can be laid next to the existing power cable and connected to TP Link boxes. External CAT6a costs around £30 per reel, which would be very affordable if I can dig the channel. Just need someone who can terminate the connections since I don’t have the necessary tools or expertise. Does this seem like a viable option? Products: EDIT – I realized the TP-Link MC200CM supports multiple modes, not single mode, and from what I read, single mode might be preferable. Also, my key is broken—copper is red, fiber is blue. If it wasn’t too clear, edited June 1, 2024 by Pastronomer
It's a technique, but the ideal approach would be to use your main router with two separate LAN subnets on different ports, then connect switches to those ports. This prevents double-NAT issues. Generally, the affordable way is using several routers, or the adaptable but pricier choice is a superior main router.
You're considering which setup would be most stable for your situation. Based on what you described, your example seems to align more with the second flexible option using a better router. It appears this would likely be the second choice rather than the first. You're aiming to keep your current ISP setup intact, so sticking with their router makes sense. Your plan to configure separate networks for different areas—main house and annexe—with proper VLAN restrictions should help maintain separation. This approach also lets you control what devices can communicate without affecting the existing infrastructure. It's a bit advanced, but it matches your goal of stability and customization.
I’d prefer to avoid Unifi unless you’re planning multiple subnets, which would add complexity. I’d opt for a fiber converter with LC connectors—these are the standard cables. Regarding the double nat setup, I don’t see major problems since portforwarding isn’t active and I’ve handled similar configurations successfully.
You're correct, relying on the landlords' router might not be effective. I considered a better approach with robust network management tools to simplify QoS across properties, beyond just security.
I was thinking subnets were the setup I planned? Or am I misunderstanding completely? For example, using one subnet for me and another for them—just plug a Wi-Fi router into each and you’re ready to go with some background work. If I use a standard router, would it be all plug-and-play? I’m not opposed to a little configuration myself; learning new tech excites me. It’s just a fresh area I haven’t explored before, and I enjoy experimenting. What I don’t want is forcing my landlord to rewire every device in their home for a new Wi-Fi connection. Ideally, they could simply switch their existing ISP router into the one handling the split connection, so everything works back up quickly. Fiber seems logical, but I’m unsure if copper would be better for the short distance I measured (about 1.6m or 5¼ft). Direct buried copper is usually the most affordable, though routing could get close to power lines, which might not be ideal.
You can skip creating subnets with the 3 router setup. Just use regular routers—it's straightforward and plug-and-play. Subnets are only necessary if you need a single router, then connect everything else via switches and access points. For short distances, running fiber isn't required; copper should suffice. Keeping it next to power for three meters should work well.
Subnets become important only when other routers can't share the same one as the main device. Apart from that, setup should be straightforward. I tried a similar approach with a wireless connection across the street to a friend, so they couldn’t mistakenly send commands to my equipment. Now I own a pfSense router; I might have handled it differently to better monitor connected clients and bandwidth. I probably would have used VLANs to broadcast both my public and private networks. That’s what made it more adaptable. I’d definitely choose fibre over copper—it’s more stable and less prone to interference, lightening issues or grounding problems.