ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
DoubleU writes in another thread:
"If you look at the drawings of every NL-product, you can see that in all scenario’s, B&O uses a 2nd router. A network link router, on top of the ISP router. This is an approved router that B&O recommends for a trouble free subnetwork.
I think lots of problems that were reported here could be prevented if that advice was taken more serious."
This gives me the opportunity to ask a question, that I wanted for quite a while:
How many of you - especially those who have one or more NL-product(s) - have a second 'Network router' in addition to the 'ISP-router'?
If you have - how are your expriences in terms of stability etc with a seperate router for the B&O network?
Greetings Millemissen
There is a tv - and there is a BV
As an IT guy I think it sounds like complete madness. And I'm not really surprised since they recommended people to buy certain Cisco routers to cope with problems with buggy airplay-enabled devices and such in the past. Use just ONE router on your network. The NL-network is supposed to be on the same network as your other equipment. If you need a better router then replace the old one (if you need the ISP router because it contains the modem or anything else - then change it to bridge mode so the other router can take over the routing feature and so on).
Beolab 50, Beolab 8000 x 2, Beolab 4000 x 2, BeoSound Core, BeoSound 9000, BeoSound Century, BeoLit 15, BeoPlay A1, BeoPlay P2, BeoPlay H9 3rd Gen, BeoPlay H6, EarSet 3i, BeoVision Eclipse Gen 2 55", BeoPlay V1-40, BeoCom 6000 and so much else :)
Reason why B&O wants you to use certain routers sounds very obvious to me. You simply can’t guarantee a stable and good working product depending on all those different routers out there. Specially the ones from certain providers. My ISP router/modem is also in bridge mode for several reasons. In most environments one router should do the trick.
In my experience the quality and stability of different wireless routers and even wireless network cards for computers varies widely, so I can see why they would recommend use of a specific router(s). One thing I don't quite understand is why the PM is limited to only the 2.4 GHz band given that this is a crowded band and a lot of the market is moving to 5 GHz.
Ive never gotten a wireless router from my ISP, I have only gotten the cable modem from them and handled the wireless myself.
A standing joke around here is if you want to freak out your neighbors name your wireless network "NSA Surveillance Van #3"...
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
Of course there is a lot of different routers out there but I don't think that recommending a Cisco router because of problems in the tv/audio hardware/software is a good idea in the first place. Anyway, you should only have one router connected. And if you need to keep your ISP router then put it in bridge mode so that the other router can take care of it properly. Using several routers will not only make your units on the different networks unable to communicate with each other easily, it will also impact network performance.
I'm preparing to setup my NL with an NL/ML converter to my current ML network and was curious if people have more input for this thread.
I currently have my ISP router in bridge mode connected to an Airport Extreme in the den as my router. I have additional Airport Extremes or Airport Express devices thought the home to extend the wi-fi. My thought is to wire a Cat7 cable from the Airport Extreme router in the den to the living room where I would connect the Cat7 cable to the NL/ML converter. The NL/ML converter would have a ML connection to a ML distributor box, to which the BeoSound 5 would also be connected by ML. Another ML cable is already connected to the ML distributor box to connect to the rest of the ML around the home.
My BeoSound 1 in the kitchen is currently connected wirelessly to the wi-fi. For a more secure connection, I could add a network switch to the Cat7 cable in the living room and then connect both the NL/ML converter and the BeoSound 1 by Cat7 cables to that network switch in the living room.
Am I headed in the right direction? Thoughts?
Hi,
This is true B&O recommend to have two separate router to have the right setup.
We all know that having a network at home, with Wifi, require some skills to make this running the right way. Many people have trouble with such a setup. To my mind, B&O have done a mistake to change to a NL system, where the NL is running at the same network as your ordinary network. I do understand why, as the workload to install new cables in your house is a major bottleneck for many people.So it is much easier to use the existing network.
The NL is of course a good solution in terms of cables and connectors and standards, but maybe this should have been a closed loop of network to secure the Quality of Service in the network.
I have tried the recommended way with two routers and this works of course, but gives you many disadvantages on the top. One is, that you neat to switch wifi network all the time, as controlling the B&O products is one and when I, as an example, want to control my IHC system I have to change network again etc.
Here is my suggestion.The main issue is not to have two networks, but more the quality of the network. You need to have a high speed switch network than can be used both to run audio and video over the network to and between the B&O products and at the same time, have your computers and iPhones and all other stuff at the same network.This requires a network more and better than a traditionel network and even better than the products suggested by B&O. The suggestion in former days said Cisco...or more precise Linksys (owned ny Cisco) routers. This is, to my mind, not the best solution. You can, to support my argument, also see B&O have updated there recommendation to another system now. Probably not because I say so, but because they have also seen this as a problem.
The recommendation now is Cisco Meraki - with only one problem - this is so expensive to install. The routers and switches are very expensive in terms of hardware but even more on software - that comes every years as a subscription. But Meraki er really a nice product.
I have choose Ubiquiti - a product from US.I see above that people talks fast routers, but this is not what needed. First of all you must disable the router provided by the ISP, a cable modem or a router - those products are discount products not capable of doing the job. Add a new router with a firewall. Then add switches - the quality of the switches are the most important, as they - and not the router - handle the traffic.
This works very well for me and I have not problems in the network - I can download heavy files and no quality problems on the B&O products.
When I have more time, I will do some test using VLAN as this can separate the traffic in virtual segments. I will also look at setting up Qos (Quality of Service) for each product etc.
Best regards Rudi
When I went to buy cabling, Cat7 was not available for the lengths that I needed. Therefore, I temporarily am using Cat6. Since my condo is a New York loft style, the cabling is quite easy to replace when needed. I was told that fibre optic networks will be the next big standard, but they are quite expensive right now. Later this year, my building is being wired for fiber optic internet. I suppose that this will bring with it the need for updated routers anyway.
Advising customers to have 2 routers is complete madness and a recipe for trouble. I have a hard time figuring out why B&O don't just say what the real problem is: consumer grade routers are garbage.
The sort of router you get from your ISP or from PC world is made down to a price. The hardware is crap, the software is crap. So many corners have been cut that it doesn't really comply with standards, etc.
You need to get yourself something enterprise grade. Something that will run 24/7 without any hiccups. I would think that's why they recommend Cisco, which also make enterprise grade stuff.
Rudi is right in recommending Ubiquiti. Their stuff is bullet proof, and it's fast.
Michael:Anyway, you should only have one router connected. And if you need to keep your ISP router then put it in bridge mode so that the other router can take care of it properly. Using several routers will not only make your units on the different networks unable to communicate with each other easily, it will also impact network performance.
Rudi Pedersen:Hi, This is true B&O recommend to have two separate router to have the right setup. We all know that having a network at home, with Wifi, require some skills to make this running the right way. Many people have trouble with such a setup. To my mind, B&O have done a mistake to change to a NL system, where the NL is running at the same network as your ordinary network. I do understand why, as the workload to install new cables in your house is a major bottleneck for many people.So it is much easier to use the existing network. The NL is of course a good solution in terms of cables and connectors and standards, but maybe this should have been a closed loop of network to secure the Quality of Service in the network. I have tried the recommended way with two routers and this works of course, but gives you many disadvantages on the top. One is, that you neat to switch wifi network all the time, as controlling the B&O products is one and when I, as an example, want to control my IHC system I have to change network again etc. Here is my suggestion. The main issue is not to have two networks, but more the quality of the network. You need to have a high speed switch network than can be used both to run audio and video over the network to and between the B&O products and at the same time, have your computers and iPhones and all other stuff at the same network. This requires a network more and better than a traditionel network and even better than the products suggested by B&O. The suggestion in former days said Cisco...or more precise Linksys (owned ny Cisco) routers. This is, to my mind, not the best solution. You can, to support my argument, also see B&O have updated there recommendation to another system now. Probably not because I say so, but because they have also seen this as a problem. The recommendation now is Cisco Meraki - with only one problem - this is so expensive to install. The routers and switches are very expensive in terms of hardware but even more on software - that comes every years as a subscription. But Meraki er really a nice product. I have choose Ubiquiti - a product from US. I see above that people talks fast routers, but this is not what needed. First of all you must disable the router provided by the ISP, a cable modem or a router - those products are discount products not capable of doing the job. Add a new router with a firewall. Then add switches - the quality of the switches are the most important, as they - and not the router - handle the traffic. This works very well for me and I have not problems in the network - I can download heavy files and no quality problems on the B&O products. When I have more time, I will do some test using VLAN as this can separate the traffic in virtual segments. I will also look at setting up Qos (Quality of Service) for each product etc. Best regards Rudi
BS Moment, BS Core, BG 4002, BC 4500, BS1, BL18, BL19, BL8000 + RCV1, A6, M5, M3, A1, P6 (tks Botty), H5, TR1
Hi
I think many B&O users have relative simple networks like 1-2 products and few products beside that, like iPhone, iPad. If you have a small flat, one combined router/wifi/switch provided by the ISP can be an ok solution for you.
I am not saying a Linksys product like the EA4500 suggested by B&O cannot be used. This depends much about your network size and building size.
Remember that, as an example, a Linksys EA4500 is a box with both a Firewall, Router, Switch and Wifi antenne. Dual core...as you say...is just the "computer" running the box. As I remember this box is not dual-core but dual band, i.e. two wifi bands.The throughput on the EA4500 is low, I have not been able to get more than 0.4 Gbytes out of this box.
My network at home is equipped with 32 wired cables for Essence, Moment, TV's and a Auralic streamning for my BL5. All audio gets flac format from a NAS and video get films from another NAS, On top of this runs computers, iPhone, iPads and IHC systems (for controlling lights, heating etc) and Somfy for indoor and outdoor screens.One simple combined box is not able to handle this without congestions in the network.
It is true the network is a mesh network, but the switches from Ubiquiti can switch up to 36 Gbps and deliver more per port than needed to any device.
I have 32 port wires, 3 AP in the house and between 40-50 clients like B&O and Apple products getting access.The router/firewall is a Zyxell.Remember the router is mostly needed handling traffic to and from the Internet. Most of my traffic (with high bandwith) is internal. From the internet typically music from Deezer in low format like 320kbps.
As said before, I have no problems at the moment, but setting up VLAN for B&O and a VLAN for other traffic will probably make this even better and on top of that you can make a priory's to the traffic by QoS per user/port.
And one example, in the old network I had with a EA4500, I had problems all the time with the B&O Moment as the Jukebox connect by wifi to the EA4500. This connection was lost many time. If the software was good then the Moment would have re-connected again the right way, but the old Moment software was bad, so I had to reset the Moment (Soundhart) to get it up running. The problem is of course the Moment, but also the bad coverage from the EA4500, as the antenne was not as good as a stand-alone AP.
This is only the way I look at this comparison, I am sure others have another view.
BR Rudi
Eclipse 65V1-32Beosound M5Essence MK2BLI