Question New WiFi 6 Router with Frontier Fios G1100

[JBHapgood]

I'm currently using the Frontier Fios G1100 with its built-in WiFi. I'm looking to update the wireless capability to WiFi 6 with a TP-Link Archer AX21 router that would replace the built-in WiFi. The G1100 would then serve only as a modem for the new router, and continue to provide Internet access for set-top TV boxes.

I thought I could just disable the G1100's radio, plug the new router into one of the LAN Ethernet sockets, and configure the TP-Link as a normal WiFi router. But although I can't find a description of this kind of scenario, it looks like it won't be that simple. I'm now thoroughly confused.

I'd appreciate some guidance about the steps I actually need to take to get the G1100 and the TP-Link router working as I described.

Thanks in advance.

 

[helpstar]

get into the web interface of the G1100 and then to the tab wireless settings, then to the site "basic security settings". There you can set the 2.4 and 5GHz network to "OFF".

configure the tp link router as access point, plug in a lan cable from one of the G1100 lan ports into its TP-Link´s wan port

"1. Visit http://tplinkwifi.net, and log in with your TP-Link ID or the password you set for the router.
2. Go to Advanced > System > Operation Mode, select Access Point and click SAVE. The router will reboot and switch to Access Point mode.
3. After rebooting, connect the TP-Link WAN port to your existing wired router’s LAN port via an Ethernet cable.
4. Log in again to the web management page http://tplinkwifi.net, and go to Advanced> Quick Setup.
5. Configure your wireless settings and click NEXT.
6. Confirm the information and click SAVE. Now, you can enjoy Wi-Fi."

 

[JBHapgood]

configure the tp link router as access point, plug in a lan cable from one of the G1100 lan ports into its TP-Link´s wan port

After much Googling (and hair-tearing), this does look like the easiest approach, as it essentially replaces the G1100's radio with the TP-Link.

But do I still need to manually disable the TP-Link's DHCP server (the G1100 is doing that) and change the TP-Link's IP address? The G1100 uses the 192.168.1.xxx range, while the TP-Link's default is 192.168.0.xxx Or does setting the TP-Link to "Access Point" do this automatically? The only devices using the G1100 besides the TP-Link are the TV boxes. Everything else would be accessed via the TP-Link WiFi.

The other (seemingly) simple option is to use DMZ host on the G1100. Then the TP-Link in Router mode would take over the firewall, DHCP, and NAT using its own private network. I would presumably need to reserve a static IP address for the TP-Link's MAC address. Would this be a better option, assuming the TP-Link's firewall is newer and better than the G1100?

 

[bill001g]

My guess is that setting it to AP mode also turns off the DHCP server. You would want to change the LAN IP to say 192.168.1.250. You can leave it default since it does not duplicate the g1000 but it is messy to get access to it. It is unlikely you are every going to make any changes to the tplink after you set it up any way. It is only the wifi name and password pretty much everything else is not used.

Why do you need a firewall. If you don't know then you likely don't actually need it.

The bad news is you are likely not going to see any difference. There are 2 features that make wifi6 faster than wifi5 (802.11ac).
The most important is the use of 160mhz radio bands but the ax21 only supports 80mhz like wifi5. The second feature is the use of QAM1024 encoding. This unfortunately only works well very close..like in the same room as the router. It will likely drop back to qam256. You now pretty much have what you currently have on the g1100...the g1100 support 3x3 mimo so it could actually be faster in some cases.

Now you could look for a wifi6 router that supports 160mhz but the second problem is most wifi6 end device also only support 80mhz. There is all kinds of messy rule about avoiding stuff like weather radar when you use 160mhz so a lot of device just don't support it.

If you really want to upgrade look at wifi6e. That has lots of 160mhz radio blocks in the 6ghz radio band. If you have devices that can use wifi6e then it will likely be faster. It also supports all the older wifi6 and wifi5 devices. These are still rather expensive devices.

 

[JBHapgood]

My guess is that setting it to AP mode also turns off the DHCP server. You would want to change the LAN IP to say 192.168.1.250. You can leave it default since it does not duplicate the g1000 but it is messy to get access to it. It is unlikely you are every going to make any changes to the tplink after you set it up any way. It is only the wifi name and password pretty much everything else is not used.

Apparently the AP setting does turn off the DHCP server, although I'm not sure what it does with the IP address. TP-Link doesn't document any of that, but someone on a different forum discovered it by trial and error. I suppose I could reserve a static IP on the G1100 for the TP-Link based on its MAC address, set the TP-Link to that address, and use it for administrative access if I need it.

Why do you need a firewall. If you don't know then you likely don't actually need it.

The G1100 already has a firewall that seems effective in Gibson "shields up" testing. I'm just wondering whether the TP-Link might have a better one. Or whether it would make any difference.

The bad news is you are likely not going to see any difference. There are 2
features that make wifi6 faster than wifi5 (802.11ac).
The most important is the use of 160mhz radio bands but the ax21 only supports 80mhz like wifi5. The second feature is the use of QAM1024 encoding. This unfortunately only works well very close..like in the same room as the router. It will likely drop back to qam256. You now pretty much have what you currently have on the g1100...the g1100 support 3x3 mimo so it could actually be faster in some cases.

Since I'm using WiFi only to access the Internet, and speed testing shows that my Internet connection tops out at around 80Mbps, 160MHz channels would just waste bandwidth and possibly interfere with my neighbors' WiFi. My relatively new computer's motherboard has built-in WiFi 6, so I'm hoping that the improved beam-forming might give me a more reliable signal and more options for antenna placement.

The other improvement I'm hoping for is a stronger signal in other parts of the house. The G1100 has a bunch of tiny little antennas that probably aren't efficient. The TP-Link has larger antennas closer to the actual (half) wavelength of the frequencies in use, particularly 2.4GHz, which might (or might not) yield a stronger signal. Separating the router and the radio also offers more options for placing the TP-Link.

Since I got a good price on the TP-Link, I view this as a fun project that may or may not be an overall benefit. As the network speed is limited by my Internet connection (which is more than fast enough), I was never looking for improvement in that area.

Now you could look for a wifi6 router that supports 160mhz but the second problem is most wifi6 end device also only support 80mhz. There is all kinds of messy rule about avoiding stuff like weather radar when you use 160mhz so a lot of device just don't support it.

The built-in WiFi on my Asus motherboard is an Intel module. I can't find specs on what bandwidth it actually supports.

If you really want to upgrade look at wifi6e. That has lots of 160mhz radio blocks in the 6ghz radio band. If you have devices that can use wifi6e then it will likely be faster. It also supports all the older wifi6 and wifi5 devices. These are still rather expensive devices.

I would also need a separate USB WiFi adapter that supported 6E. Maybe if and when I get a NAS to store media files, 6E would make sense. By then the price of a 6E router would come down, and WiFi 7 or 8 would be the new moving target. I think it best not to be an early adopter of cutting-edge technology, even if it fulfills a genuine need.

 

[bill001g]

I guess I thought you had not purchased it yet so you might as well use it. I would still not expect much difference. The distance the signals go is based on the transmit power and almost every device transmits at maximum legal power. When they use beam forming the limit it actually slightly less. Beam forming is mostly marketing hype. Wifi signal used in a house bounce off walls etc and may take a longer path but it can be faster than trying to blast the signal through a wall.
Doesn't hurt to try but don't expect much.

Firewall stuff on consumer routers is also almost all marketing. You can't even use the feature if you have a high speed internet..like over 300mbps. They need to turn off the hardware nat assist so the cpu chip can see the traffic but now the cpu chip must do all the NAT and the firewall function.

The biggest reason a firewall on a consumer router is silly is the NAT function already prevents all unknown traffic from coming into your house purely because the NAT does not know which machine to give it to. You would only use a firewall if you were running a server but these consumer models lack many features. I guess if you wanted to prevent machine inside your house form accessing certain web sites it might be a valid home use.

What is really surprising wifi6e and wifi6 nic cards used in a pc are pretty much the same price already. Pretty much it a small change that lets the one wifi radio run at 6ghz as well as 5 and 2.4g. A router though is more expensive since it now has a extra 6ghz radio chip. Wifi7 is doing lots of stupid stuff to get faster results. I attempts to use 2.4,5 &6 all at the same time so end device now must have 3 radios like routers. I bet most device like cellphone won't support it because of the added space it takes.

 

[JBHapgood]

The TP-Link Archer AX21 arrived today, and I have it up and running. As expected, there's no speed difference with 5GHz WiFi 6 on my main desktop computer. The speed is limited by the Internet connection rather than the router or protocol. But the TP-Link does have a greater range than the G1100, and it puts a stronger signal into distant parts of the house. That's what I really was looking for, so I'm happy. It's also able to use a 40MHz bandwidth on 2.4GHz (the G1100 is limited to 20MHz), which along with the stronger signal gives my dad's computer a faster connection. A bonus.

There were some glitches and quirks in setting the thing up. I decided to configure the G1100 to reserve a static address for the TP-Link, using the MAC address shown on the sticker on the bottom of the router. That way I could access the TP-Link's configuration system using that address. When I first set up the TP-Link using the simple setup wizard, it refused to let me change from Router mode to Access Point mode. It gave me an error message "mode change failed." I was able to change it from the "Advanced" menu, after which it correctly rebooted in AP mode.

Now that the router was in AP mode, I couldn't access the TP-Link's configuration system using the static address I set up. A look at the G1100's configuration showed that the TP-Link was there, but with a different (dynamic) IP address. A closer look revealed that the router has a different MAC address in AP mode, something that isn't documented. I deleted the original static IP for the Router mode IP address and set the AP connection to static. Back in the TP-Link's configuration system, I found that the IP address was set to "Dynamic" (though the G1100 should always give it the same static IP address I set) and the DHCP server was set to "Auto." This setting was apparently added to firmware newer than the available documentation, which only shows an "Enable" tick box. I'm guessing it automatically recognizes when the server should be enabled.

In the box was a little piece of paper with an ominous warning that some older devices can't connect to a WiFi 6 device. That was indeed the case with my 2012-vintage iPod Touch that I now use as an Internet radio. I solved that problem by setting the wireless security to WPA2 for the 2.4GHz band. I originally had both bands set to WPA2/WPA3-Personal, which is supposed to use WPA3 for devices that support it and WPA2 for those that don't. The ancient iPod evidently couldn't understand whatever the router uses to determine which protocol to use.

I hope the foregoing is useful for someone looking to do what I did.