Hi all, I've been running a Sky router to Tp link to PC (via ethernet cable) with our smartphones and ipad connected to the Sky router via Wifi. I want to keep the PC hardwired but be able to control the speed/data rate that goes to the wifi side of things. Of an evening it gets silly where I might want to go on the PC but the usage is so great it's impossible to game. At the moment the priority seems to be towards the wifi side of things with no way to control who gets what. Is there a better way to control network priority (eg. wifi vs ethernet) and if so, is there a way to be able to control it without the PC being on all the time?
tp link with controllable wifi
- Thread starter timbo2410
- Start date
This level of control happens at the router. If you're using the standard sky hardware I doubt you'd be able to do this. I get the option to prioritise my traffic but then I've got a decent third party router and my Virgin router runs in modem only mode.
I'm pretty sure there will be other options - I'll get this thread moved over to the Networking section - you might get a better answer there.
I'm pretty sure there will be other options - I'll get this thread moved over to the Networking section - you might get a better answer there.
Yes sky hub is not really made for adjustments. I was thinking if I plugged the hub directly into a new/different router (using an old TP link at present), then instead of connecting to the hub, we would all connect to the new router. I run ethernet to my PC and want to continue to do so. All the other smartphones/tablets connect via wifi. A router like the Netgear seem to have far more control via it's software .. I'm all ears though. Have no idea what is good and what is not.
Couple of choices I can think of:
1. Replace the Sky router with something that can control traffic better as already suggested
2. If it is just wireless devices you want to limit then turn off wifi on everything else and add an access point that can throttle bandwidth for devices accessing it (Ubiquiti can do this)
1. Replace the Sky router with something that can control traffic better as already suggested
2. If it is just wireless devices you want to limit then turn off wifi on everything else and add an access point that can throttle bandwidth for devices accessing it (Ubiquiti can do this)
This is what I do. Bear in mind I believe you'll need a different SSID and can only control bandwidth on a per AP basis rather than individual clients. There's a thread on ubnt that might be worth a look : https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/limit-bandwidth-per-AP/td-p/1548316
I have a virgin SH2ac, it's currently handling routing with all wifi switched off, and APs handling wifi.
I believe a router solution is always better, but if you're talking a house with one or two APs, this is a simpler solution.
I had no idea that I could run without the Sky hub .. never even thought of that .. so basically buy a router that will do it all (sky HD boxes x2, ethernet for the PC and wifi for the phones/ipad) .. I had a quick look on the net and the Netgear Nighthawk R7000 or 9000 seem to have a lot of good reviews (albeit expensive) ... any recommendations?
First question should be what's the connection speed? Unless you're on a very slow connection, then it would be unusual for mobiles etc. to saturate the up/down link to an extent or need a significant number of them to seriously negatively impact your ability to game.
TP Link have basic QoS/VLAN/Multi SSID options from memory, personally when in Sky I went with an Asus AC56U and Merlin firmware with an HG612/ECI modem, the firmware gives a lot of options in terms of prioritising either traffic types or specific clients over others. Whatever you buy, check it's compatible with Sky's MAC encapsulation standard (it's often referred to incorrectly as MER). Extracting your u/p details from the SR102 isn't that hard.
TP Link have basic QoS/VLAN/Multi SSID options from memory, personally when in Sky I went with an Asus AC56U and Merlin firmware with an HG612/ECI modem, the firmware gives a lot of options in terms of prioritising either traffic types or specific clients over others. Whatever you buy, check it's compatible with Sky's MAC encapsulation standard (it's often referred to incorrectly as MER). Extracting your u/p details from the SR102 isn't that hard.
completely over my head ... the TP link I have I use to connect a second desktop pc if needed but I do have that option .. but that is why I have that. I'm on a standard 17mb Sky broadband but have had loads of issues with it and they are now saying that there are times when the bandwidth is maxed out. The Sky hub also seems to prioritise the wifi side of things with the result being that if anybody is using the computer, it is the first to grind to a halt (not a good thing if your gaming). Now my thoughts were, if I can limit the wifi speed and prioritise the PC then all should be well. I could upgrade the broadband package to fibre but that is just getting silly in price. So controlling how the network is used (i think) might be the best option. From the looks of things, netgear software/ap allows for this. There might be others out there but they seem to have some good reviews. I also looked at the Asus routers but some say they have loads of problems .. I shall go off and have a look at what has MER as you have suggested .. but keep the advice coming guys, much appreciated 
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Traffic prioritisation / QoS on low-end consumer grade routers is very poor... not worth spending money on.
There are APs available for about £200 which will give you per-client and/or per-SSID rate limiting.
Otherwise you can get a managed switch that has per-port rate limiting for about £100 and have your wifi AP/router running off that port and your PC connected to a different port.
Those are probably the cheapest options to do what you want to do effectively.
There are APs available for about £200 which will give you per-client and/or per-SSID rate limiting.
Otherwise you can get a managed switch that has per-port rate limiting for about £100 and have your wifi AP/router running off that port and your PC connected to a different port.
Those are probably the cheapest options to do what you want to do effectively.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
On my AP it's really easy to setup... per SSID:
2017-09-15_15-28-02 by CosmicLogos, on Flickr
Per client:
2017-09-15_15-31-27 by CosmicLogos, on Flickr
2017-09-15_15-28-02 by CosmicLogos, on FlickrPer client:
2017-09-15_15-31-27 by CosmicLogos, on Flickrright, so are we saying that the Sky hub is probably not the best right from the start?
Cheap, routers are not worth the effort? (either a netgear or Asus top of the line router is around £400!!! flippin heck)
Do these aps run the sky router ? I can understand a per-port limit on a switch/router but wouldn't that be introducing another device to plug in? Could I replace the Sky hub somehow and control it all via the ap ..
I mean I have learned a lot by just browsing around .. and your suggestions .. so .. my options are:
1. replace the sky hub with something that will do the same job but is controllable via app/software
2. keep the sky hub and buy a new replacement for the TP link that gives wifi and control that via app/software
can I ask .. if I went to fibre in the future, do they have the same connections to the router/modem? The same plugs? If I bought a new replacement for the Sky router, can it still be used with fibre?
Cheap, routers are not worth the effort? (either a netgear or Asus top of the line router is around £400!!! flippin heck)
Do these aps run the sky router ? I can understand a per-port limit on a switch/router but wouldn't that be introducing another device to plug in? Could I replace the Sky hub somehow and control it all via the ap ..
I mean I have learned a lot by just browsing around .. and your suggestions .. so .. my options are:
1. replace the sky hub with something that will do the same job but is controllable via app/software
2. keep the sky hub and buy a new replacement for the TP link that gives wifi and control that via app/software
can I ask .. if I went to fibre in the future, do they have the same connections to the router/modem? The same plugs? If I bought a new replacement for the Sky router, can it still be used with fibre?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
For acting as the modem and dhcp server, the sky hub is perfectly fine.
My suggestion of the access point to tag on to it would effectively replace the wireless function of the sky hub, but still connect to it.
The reason for this suggestion rather than recommending a higher-end consumer router is that the access point has significantly better wifi performance... those £400 routers you mention won't come close to the performance of a Ruckus AP on the WiFi front.
Ubiquiti are ok, but even they are terrible in comparison to a Ruckus unit.
Normally you wouldn't be able to compare them because the Ruckus RRP is in the £600-800 range... but because the R500 is end of life, you can get brand new ones on ebay for £200 easily.
Another benefit is that if/when you change service, you can continue to use the same IP with the same extended functionality that you won't find in most consumer grade kit by just plugging it into the new router/modem.
One thing to note if you did consider that... the Ruckus R500 is a PoE powered device and doesn't come with the power adapter - so you would need either a PoE switch, PoE injector or there is a Ruckus power supply for about £10-15 as well.
My suggestion of the access point to tag on to it would effectively replace the wireless function of the sky hub, but still connect to it.
The reason for this suggestion rather than recommending a higher-end consumer router is that the access point has significantly better wifi performance... those £400 routers you mention won't come close to the performance of a Ruckus AP on the WiFi front.
Ubiquiti are ok, but even they are terrible in comparison to a Ruckus unit.
Normally you wouldn't be able to compare them because the Ruckus RRP is in the £600-800 range... but because the R500 is end of life, you can get brand new ones on ebay for £200 easily.
Another benefit is that if/when you change service, you can continue to use the same IP with the same extended functionality that you won't find in most consumer grade kit by just plugging it into the new router/modem.
One thing to note if you did consider that... the Ruckus R500 is a PoE powered device and doesn't come with the power adapter - so you would need either a PoE switch, PoE injector or there is a Ruckus power supply for about £10-15 as well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 12,082
How would chrinkleshoes's suggestion address your issue in the OP?
You aren't complaining about poor wireless, but rather an absence of any QoS settings.
The best that adding an access point to the existing router will do is improve the wireless and you'll still have your original problem.
You aren't complaining about poor wireless, but rather an absence of any QoS settings.
The best that adding an access point to the existing router will do is improve the wireless and you'll still have your original problem.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
no switch... "access point"
It is effectively a wireless switch, just no-one calls it that
Search ebay for "Ruckus R500" and you'll find the one I would recommend.
You can do the same with R300 / R400 / R600 / R700 but the 500 has a bit of an edge over the 300 and 400 and is usually cheaper than the 600 and 700 while performing as well as the 600 and almost as well as the 700.
It is effectively a wireless switch, just no-one calls it that
Search ebay for "Ruckus R500" and you'll find the one I would recommend.
You can do the same with R300 / R400 / R600 / R700 but the 500 has a bit of an edge over the 300 and 400 and is usually cheaper than the 600 and 700 while performing as well as the 600 and almost as well as the 700.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
I did post screenshots of mine a few posts back.
The clients he's competing with are connected wirelessly, this solution has per-SSID and per-client rate limiting so he can reserve a portion of bandwidth for himself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 12,082
Sorry missed that. It should work, although I'd prefer router based QoS.
Earlier the OP states:-
If the OP can get fibre then that would be a better fix (even if an ISP change was required) than dropping £200+ on an access point (however good it is).
Earlier the OP states:-
If the OP can get fibre then that would be a better fix (even if an ISP change was required) than dropping £200+ on an access point (however good it is).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
£200 on an AP is cheaper than £1000+ on something to perform QoS 
When reading that comment I assumed the OP meant real fibre (ie £300/month)... FTTC is usually cheaper than ADSL2+
When reading that comment I assumed the OP meant real fibre (ie £300/month)... FTTC is usually cheaper than ADSL2+
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 12,082
£200 is still much more than you'd pay for a UniFi-AC-Lite which you can also rate limit if you want to go down that route.
Even if a 'Ruckus R500' is much better than the UniFi (I have no opinion on this) the OP isn't complaining about the wireless signal. If the Sky router's wireless is good enough then an UniFi-AC-Lite is going to be fine.
Even if a 'Ruckus R500' is much better than the UniFi (I have no opinion on this) the OP isn't complaining about the wireless signal. If the Sky router's wireless is good enough then an UniFi-AC-Lite is going to be fine.