WiFi Network Config for Weebles (Simple - sorta)

[mvweebles]

A bit of a repeat from the Starlink thread I just posted to, but I thought this warranted its own thread.

First, why bother with a dedicated WiFi network aboard? For me, the best reason is I can have all onboard devices connected to a single router (the Pepwave in this case). They will always be connected to Weebles' WiFi network - always. What will change is what signal the Router is connected to. I have phones, PCs, tablets, Simrad, and god knows what else - they are all now connected to Weebles WiFi. When the WiFi source changes - say, move from one marina WiFi network to another, rather than changing 10 passwords, I change one - the one the router uses to connect to the network. Awesome!!

I purchased much of my kit from 5GStore.com but eventually found Doug at Onboard Wireless (HERE). I I wish had found him earlier as he seemed genuinely knowledgeable about systems and would take the time to make solid recommendations. I did okay with the selections I made, but he might have had a better suggestion had I found him before buying much of the stuff.

In some ways, I'm pretty technical. But in other ways, I am a 4-year old. I've worked on the periphery of networking/tech for 25-years - even held a Cisco certification at one point. But I have zero talent. When I started my research journey for how to build a wifi network for Weebles, I kept encountering information that made zero sense to me - it was as if I walked into a movie halfway through - all sorts of terms (MiMo???) were bandied about that I had no context to ingest. So I thought I would post where I ended up with some specifics and hopefully save another person or two some brain damage. Not saying this is the right solution for others, not even saying it's what I would do if I started from scratch today. But I offer it as a base template for those who too feel like they can't get an answer they understand.

A picture is worth a thousand words. See attached. It's about $1700 worth of kit in current pricing.

Schematic of my system (same as I posted to recent Starlink thread):


Peplnk BR1 5G Router (HERE) is mounted in a cowling beneath the hard top. In my research, there were many mentions to keep the cables from antenae to router as short as possible. Plus, not a bad place to mount. NOTE - take a picture of the back of the router before mounting - it has password information unique to the individual router. There is a small port that takes up to two SIM cards for cellular use (T-Mobile and ATT seem to be the favorite). Important to mount the router in a way that you can access this port.


Close-up of the Pepwave router. This comes with size pencil-sized post antennae. These are replaced with cables to an external antenna(e). The four on the right are for cellular (plus a GPS feed internal to the antenna). Two on the left for WiFi reception/amplification. On the left are also the connections for power, two LAN ports and a WAN port.


Access Point (AP). (HERE) The router itself has WiFi broadcast capabilities, but most applications will probably require at least one Access Point (AP) to extend the signal. For my small boat, a single AP in the saloon is fine. This connects to one of the two LAN ports on the router. It also needs power. This AP is 12VDC but comes with an adapter plug for 120VAC. Better would be to run what is called a "PoE Injector." This device goes inline with the Ethernet cable with a power connection that is provided remotely. The benefit is that instead of having two connections as I do, only the Ethernet cable is visible. Minor item - was supposed to have PoE but was installed without.


Antennae - OLD/Removed. I started this journey before Starlink became commercially viable so I wanted a very robust reception schema. I chose to go with two antennae - a Peplink 40G for cellular (HERE); and a Peplink 20G for WiFi (HERE). As you can tell from the prices - 4.5x what I paid for the final (next paragraph), they are likely far superior antennae. But they looked pretty awkward on Weebles. Since I opted for Starlink, cell comms are further as backup. So I opted for aesthetics.


Antenna - final solution - Peplink 42g HERE. A few months ago it became pretty apparent that Starlink was crowding out cell/wifi solutions. While all the wiring was apart and I had access to folks who could neatly run cabling, I installed Starlink and opted to down-size my bulky twin antennae (40g/20g mentioned) and get a combined flush-mount 42g antenna. You can see the post for my Starlink antenna in the backgound.


I finally got around to configuring the system yesterday which was only mildly frustrating. It took me a while of Google searching to figure out I needed a password that was on label on the back of the router. From there, it was pretty straightforward to run the configuration app, but it's something I have done before just not enough to know it by heart.

FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS:

1. Starlink - this will go into the WAN port of the Peplink router. Because Starlink uses proprietary connectors, I need an adapter from Starlink. Should have it this week. Right now, I connect via the Starlink router but in the future, I will connect via the Weebles Wifi network (Peplink router).

2. NEMO N2K Gateway (HERE). This will hang off the last open LAN port on the Peplink router. This allows all sorts of AIS data to integrate with Coastal Explorer, the PC-based nav app I use. This isn't required - I am firmly committed to Simrad MFD as a system-of-record to drive the boat. But I find CE easier to build routes on a PC, then upload.

Hope this helps someone -

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

Other than I would have kept the big antennas, your setup is exactly what I'd buy if I were installing my setup right now.

 

[mvweebles]

Other than I would have kept the big antennas, your setup is exactly what I'd buy if I were installing my setup right now.

Definitely a form-over-function decision to nix the larger antennae. That said, I was surprised at how well I was able to bring-in the marina wifi. It was useless before - latency especially was off the charts bad. It's now very good - latency <30ms with around 25mbps/25mbps up/down. I just ran the attached SpeedTest which shows even better. My Starlink RV subscription will go into <PAUSE> state on next billing cycle.

Peter

 

[twistedtree]

That's a nice setup. Mine is very much the same, though there is a bigger network on the boat itself.


One suggestion I would have is rather than fishing a wire from Nemo to the Peplink, run that Peplink wire to a network switch somewhere centrally located inside the main part of the boat, probably at or near the helm. The switch can be as small as a 5 port Netgear, and if you check the specs carefully, many of them are 12V powered so you can wire directly to your boat's 12V system. Now plug the Nemo into the switch. This will give you a bunch of extra wired ethernet ports for the inevitable expansion that lies ahead. And if you run out of ports, you can add another switch, or replace with a larger switch.


My strong preference is to have every device that is a fixture on the boat hardwired to the network rather than using wifi. This is especially true for navigation equipment, but I do it for cameras, AppleTV, Harmony remote control, Victron GX device, Maretron IPG100, Coastal Explorer computer, and even you Simrad network. In my experience wifi is ALWAY flakey SOME of the time. That's OK for casual use of a laptop, phone, or tablet, but not OK for other stuff. Or at least it's not necessary to put up with it for other stuff. So if it doesn't NEED to be portable, I hard wire it.



Another benefit of this approach is that you can get switches that have some number of POE ports that can be used to power things like your PepWave AP, cameras, etc. My access points and cameras are all POE.

 

[rslifkin]

That's a nice setup. Mine is very much the same, though there is a bigger network on the boat itself.


One suggestion I would have is rather than fishing a wire from Nemo to the Peplink, run that Peplink wire to a network switch somewhere centrally located inside the main part of the boat, probably at or near the helm. The switch can be as small as a 5 port Netgear, and if you check the specs carefully, many of them are 12V powered so you can wire directly to your boat's 12V system. Now plug the Nemo into the switch. This will give you a bunch of extra wired ethernet ports for the inevitable expansion that lies ahead. And if you run out of ports, you can add another switch, or replace with a larger switch.


My strong preference is to have every device that is a fixture on the boat hardwired to the network rather than using wifi. This is especially true for navigation equipment, but I do it for cameras, AppleTV, Harmony remote control, Victron GX device, Maretron IPG100, Coastal Explorer computer, and even you Simrad network. In my experience wifi is ALWAY flakey SOME of the time. That's OK for casual use of a laptop, phone, or tablet, but not OK for other stuff. Or at least it's not necessary to put up with it for other stuff. So if it doesn't NEED to be portable, I hard wire it.



Another benefit of this approach is that you can get switches that have some number of POE ports that can be used to power things like your PepWave AP, cameras, etc. My access points and cameras are all POE.

I generally follow the same "hardwire everything" approach, although I haven't run a cable across the boat to hardwire the Cerbo GX. So far, it's worked for ~2 years on wifi without a single hiccup, so the longer it goes on, the less inclined I am to worry about it until I'm pulling network cable for something else.

 

[mvweebles]

My friend's hi-end Horizon PC52 has a server rack of stuff. Boat was built in 2014, he bought it in 2018. Like a lot of hi-end boats, the original owner checked all the boxes with goodies - power blinds, five TVs, separate sound system for each cabin, and god knows what else. Everything can be controlled via an iPad. Or could be for several years until the iPad aged-out. Until you try to add something. Until the UPS failed. You get the idea. I could see three routers but could only find two - somewhere in that beautiful mass of boat is a third router. Greatly influenced my design decisions to avoid wireless connections. That and the failure of his YachtMaster controller due to leaking battery pack which tells me to avoid battery-powered stuff where reasonable.

The Pepwave gear is used in commercial applications. The company I last worked for when I quit last year - BP Exploration - has dozens of sites in the middle of West Texas and similarly impossible to reach locations. Peplink routers were figuring prominantly into their remote location WAN connections and were pretty dang reliable.

I plan to build a small enclosure in the flybridge cowling beneath the upper helm to house the NEMO and whatever else I end up with. Starlink router is already up there (at this point, I do not plan to run the antenna direct - the PoE modification seems a bit worriesome for my skills - not sure why someone doesn't sell a pre-fab'd cable is beyond me). I have a N2K backbone and 12VDC nearby so connecting is easy.

Peter

 

[marcs]

1. Starlink - this will go into the WAN port of the Peplink router. Because Starlink uses proprietary connectors, I need an adapter from Starlink. Should have it this week. Right now, I connect via the Starlink router but in the future, I will connect via the Weebles Wifi network (Peplink router).

If you haven't already come across this, be warned there are compatibility issues between at least some Peplink devices and the Starlink ethernet adapter that lead to very poor inconsistent speeds. You can work around that by putting a switch between them.

See https://forum.peplink.com/t/through...arlink-gen-2-router/62cba0d0e3d5c2aca578eb69/

 

[mvweebles]

Looks like it's a compatibility issue with earlier versions if Pepwave routers. My newer BR1 5G is not on their list of affected routers.

For others who may read this thread, here is the language from the Pepwave tech support forum:

Technical Details and Affected Models During our investigation, we have identified that the following models, which carries the AR8033 WAN/LAN ETH chipset, could potentially encounter the same problem:

Balance One / Balance One Core (All HW)

Balance 30 LTE (HW3)

Balance 30 Pro (All HW)

Balance 210 (HW4 / HW5)

Balance 310 (HW4)

MAX700 (HW3 / HW4)

MAX HD2 (HW5 / HW6)

MAX Transit / Transit Duo / Transit Core (All HW)

MAX Transit Pro E (HW1)

 

[twistedtree]

Looks like it's a compatibility issue with earlier versions if Pepwave routers. My newer BR1 5G is not on their list of affected routers.

For others who may read this thread, here is the language from the Pepwave tech support forum:

Technical Details and Affected Models During our investigation, we have identified that the following models, which carries the AR8033 WAN/LAN ETH chipset, could potentially encounter the same problem:

Balance One / Balance One Core (All HW)

Balance 30 LTE (HW3)

Balance 30 Pro (All HW)

Balance 210 (HW4 / HW5)

Balance 310 (HW4)

MAX700 (HW3 / HW4)

MAX HD2 (HW5 / HW6)

MAX Transit / Transit Duo / Transit Core (All HW)

MAX Transit Pro E (HW1)

Excellent. My max transit is on the list.

They just released new FW. Anyone know if it fixes it?

 

[marcs]

Excellent. My max transit is on the list.

They just released new FW. Anyone know if it fixes it?

I'm fairly sure it doesn't, at least not that is called out in the release notes or peplink forums that I've seen.

I'd love to be wrong so I could get rid of the extra switch, not that a little switch draws much power or costs much, just another thing.

The sweet feature for me in the 8.3.0 release is Virtual WAN on VLAN which (untested) should let me have a second hardwired WAN link, but there are a number of good additions.

 

[pjtemplin]

I do computer networking by day. My thoughts, in no particular order:


If you have one and only one Internet feed (cell connection such as a mobile <thingy, I hate that they're called routers> with a cell feed and a LAN port, OR Starlink, OR KVH satellite data, OR <fill in the blank>), you're better off without a separate router IF your Internet feed can provide you with a LAN subnet that's big enough for all of your devices (and I mean all). Otherwise, a separate router gives you a lot more flexibility to switch feeds without massive disruption to the whole LAN, albeit at the "expense" of (most likely) having two devices performing NAT which can occasionally cause trouble.


I absolutely abhor that the general public thinks a router is the thing they buy at <fill in the blank> that they slap between their DSL port or cable modem and their LAN/WLAN. The box they bought is actually doing three separate functions, maybe five depending on how you count. It's a router, acting as a gateway between WAN port and LAN. It's usually a small LAN switch, giving you 1-5 wired LAN ports. It's usually a wireless access point, giving you some combination of 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and I think there's a new-fangled 6GHz Wifi standard as well. It's almost always acting as a DHCP server on the LAN, assigning IP addresses to devices that request them as well as the subnet mask and default gateway. It's almost definitely providing Network Address Translation (NAT), rewriting your outbound packets to have the IP address assigned by the ISP rather than the actual widget sending the packet, and then "unrewriting" the response packets so they get to where they belong. Ideally, you could access and/or disable these features one by one.


If you're going to have multiple wireless access points in the 2.4GHz band, set them to channels 1, 6, and 13. If somehow you have four or more, you'll have to reuse channels, so do your best to keep the duplicates as far away from each other as possible. I think the 5GHz band is not as desperate for separation. If anyone really wants to know why 1/6/13, ask and I'll go further into it.


I THINK you can set up multiple wireless access points with the same SSID name and the same password, and seamlessly roam from one to the next as long as they're fed from the same LAN. Note that I said same LAN; you can't stick a router in the middle and break it into separate subnets then expect it to work.


I really hate that Garmin and others think it's good to have their MFDs/gadgets be able to create their own wireless SSID for you to join so you can remotely operate their MFD and/or perform software upgrades. I understand their perspective of wanting to narrow the support scope by taking control of things, but IP networking has been around for decades. It's not that hard to make a functional stack that could and should live/play well with others (even if you still want to be proprietary about your radar only feeding your MFDs, etc.).



If you end up with a scenario where you really need to establish two (or more) separated LANs for different purposes, there are ways to carry that traffic in a separated manner between LAN switches. Probably doesn't work on the cheapest of switches, but if you see "trunk port" as a listed feature on your switches, it can be done.



If you have a desire/need to use two or more Ethernet switches on your boat, and your switches support "Spanning Tree Protocol", you can intentionally create a loop for redundancy purposes and the network will purposefully block out a port to prevent the network from melting down. With legacy STP, the recovery takes ~40 seconds. If your switches can support Rapid STP, the recovery can be near-instant.


You really don't want two DHCP servers on the same LAN. You can probably get away with it if you overlap it properly: a large-enough subnet mask for like double the number of devices you'll have, and then set up the DHCP pools so they don't actually overlap. Many newer DHCP server services will ping the address they intend to lease out before actually giving it out, so you could fully/partially overlap the pools. There's nothing wrong with having a subnet be massively bigger than it needs to be (as set by the subnet mask) - IP doesn't care.



If there's other knowledge I can share and be helpful, don't hesitate to ask.

 

[Iggy]

I do computer networking by day. My thoughts, in no particular order:


If you have one and only one Internet feed (cell connection such as a mobile <thingy, I hate that they're called routers> with a cell feed and a LAN port, OR Starlink, OR KVH satellite data, OR <fill in the blank>), you're better off without a separate router IF your Internet feed can provide you with a LAN subnet that's big enough for all of your devices (and I mean all). Otherwise, a separate router gives you a lot more flexibility to switch feeds without massive disruption to the whole LAN, albeit at the "expense" of (most likely) having two devices performing NAT which can occasionally cause trouble.


I absolutely abhor that the general public thinks a router is the thing they buy at <fill in the blank> that they slap between their DSL port or cable modem and their LAN/WLAN. The box they bought is actually doing three separate functions, maybe five depending on how you count. It's a router, acting as a gateway between WAN port and LAN. It's usually a small LAN switch, giving you 1-5 wired LAN ports. It's usually a wireless access point, giving you some combination of 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and I think there's a new-fangled 6GHz Wifi standard as well. It's almost always acting as a DHCP server on the LAN, assigning IP addresses to devices that request them as well as the subnet mask and default gateway. It's almost definitely providing Network Address Translation (NAT), rewriting your outbound packets to have the IP address assigned by the ISP rather than the actual widget sending the packet, and then "unrewriting" the response packets so they get to where they belong. Ideally, you could access and/or disable these features one by one.


If you're going to have multiple wireless access points in the 2.4GHz band, set them to channels 1, 6, and 13. If somehow you have four or more, you'll have to reuse channels, so do your best to keep the duplicates as far away from each other as possible. I think the 5GHz band is not as desperate for separation. If anyone really wants to know why 1/6/13, ask and I'll go further into it.


I THINK you can set up multiple wireless access points with the same SSID name and the same password, and seamlessly roam from one to the next as long as they're fed from the same LAN. Note that I said same LAN; you can't stick a router in the middle and break it into separate subnets then expect it to work.


I really hate that Garmin and others think it's good to have their MFDs/gadgets be able to create their own wireless SSID for you to join so you can remotely operate their MFD and/or perform software upgrades. I understand their perspective of wanting to narrow the support scope by taking control of things, but IP networking has been around for decades. It's not that hard to make a functional stack that could and should live/play well with others (even if you still want to be proprietary about your radar only feeding your MFDs, etc.). ............

If there's other knowledge I can share and be helpful, don't hesitate to ask.

I never heard it put that way, but I have to agree with you.

I am not in your league, but I do setup small networks. I work a lot with Unifi and like their hardware.

For the benefit of others and I little off topic. If you setup a Unifi network with cameras there is no subscription fees. As long as you have power and internet you can web into your network.

 

[rslifkin]

Good info PJ. I'm also one of those networking nuts with a handful of access points in the house, a server rack in the basement, and no consumer grade networking gear in sight. And fiber pulled to one room in the house so my desktop can have 10gbit for faster file server access.

But on the boat I've kept it simple. Currently we've got a Pepwave Max Transit (the CAT 18 LTE version) to handle cell data, routing and broadcast onboard wifi. Pulling in marina wifi is done with a Mikrotik Groove. This was the budget setup at the time, as adding an access point, external antenna, and then using the Pepwave to pull in marina wifi would have been significantly more expensive for a small performance gain and better UI. Starlink wasn't becoming a big player yet when I did the install, so the thought of keeping the WAN port free wasn't a big concern. No Starlink for us at this point, but I'm definitely watching to decide if it becomes worthwhile for us vs potentially needing a second cell plan for more data (I'd keep one for backup even with Starlink).

Doing it again now, the setup on Weebles is almost certainly what I'd do unless budget allowed and I decided to go for one of the higher end Pepwave units with more capability (like dual cell modems and dual WAN ports).

 

[heysteve]

Whoa... this got geeky fast! Before the less technologically savvy boaters run screaming from the room, note that you can have a very nice setup just using the Starlink router. For most coastal cruisers, this will be a simple setup that is reliable enough for average use cases. It can support over a hundred wifi devices but does require a 120 VAC and thus a quality inverter. You can also configure it to automatically sleep at night if you want to save energy.

To me, an average coastal cruiser that does not require a high availability network, the compelling reason for a more sophisticated network would be to avoid poor performance when in urban areas where a solid cellular data network is available. This is where the Peplink device and associated additional complexity may be worth it.

Being in Mexico, I've not experience this myself but I have read it can be an issue when surrounded by a lot of other Starlink devices. Of course, this is a limited use case as the alternative only works if you have a good cellular data signal and a data plan that makes sense. It may also only be a problem for a limited time as SpaceX keeps lofting new satellites and thus increasing network capacity.

I have two wifi networks on my boat: one for the internet and one for NMEA 2000 data (via a Navlink2). Yes it requires manually changing a device to access one or the other but I find I don't do it often and when I do it's very easy (devices remember passwords so they only get entered once).

If I had started my network a few years ago, it'd probably look just like Weebles. But I was able to start with a clean slate so just trying to keep it simple now

 

[mvweebles]

If there's other knowledge I can share and be helpful, don't hesitate to ask.

Thanks for the description, but I will take you up on your offer for more help

As mentioned, I plan to land my NEMO N2K Gateway (HERE) on the last LAN port of my Pepwave BR1 5G router. What I can't wrap my head around is how will I access this data? Main reason for it is to run a PC-based navigation program (Coastal Explorer in this case) using the AIS/GPS/Radar information from the N2K sensors. Will I need to configure anything, or is it just plug-and-play?

I think my use-case is fairly common for cruisers: Weather is #1; Data/Email Comms #2; Internet browsing #3. Marina-based WiFi is becoming less relevant but given its free, is not irrelevant. Starlink solves a lot of problems, but at around $150/mo these days, usage is episodic. My hunch is Cell/SIM plans will remain viable for a while, especially given there is increased competition in the cellular space, not so much with Starlink yet. I doubt I'll ever use a second SIM card, so while it's handy, not necessary.

Given your obvious expertise, can you recommend any alternatives or enhancements to the Pepwave-based system I built? The Pepwave BR1 5G is $1k; 42g antenna is $300. Maybe a more economical system? Pictures are always great.

Thanks in advance - Peter

 

[angus99]

Peter, very nice setup and explanation.

My head hurts when I try to dig into network jargon! I definitely appreciate the expertise in this thread because, for whatever reason, networks seem to have a steeper learning curve than anything else I’ve dealt with on the boat.

I installed a Pepwave Max Transit Duo on the flybridge and Poynting antennas for both WiFi and cell reception on the radar arch. (I’m holding off on STARLINK for now.) I was surprised to find that with this setup the WiFi signal is weak down in the aft cabin (44-ft vessel), sometimes dropping out altogether. I bought a no-name WiFi extender for the saloon, but haven’t had time to hook it up yet. I’d like to eliminate the 110-V supply to the extender so looking for alternatives.

Questions for the brain trust (and apologies if these are too obvious):

—Would a PoE access point (fed by an Ethernet cable from the Pepwave) serve the same purpose as the Wifi extender?

—Might I expect a stronger signal throughout the boat with an extender/AP nearer the boat’s midpoint in the saloon?

—Does the AP coverage suffer much if it’s behind a console or should it be entirely unobscured?

Thanks in advance.

 

[rslifkin]

Peter, very nice setup and explanation.

My head hurts when I try to dig into network jargon! I definitely appreciate the expertise in this thread because, for whatever reason, networks seem to have a steeper learning curve than anything else I’ve dealt with on the boat.

I installed a Pepwave Max Transit Duo on the flybridge and Poynting antennas for both WiFi and cell reception on the radar arch. (I’m holding off on STARLINK for now.) I was surprised to find that with this setup the WiFi signal is weak down in the aft cabin (44-ft vessel), sometimes dropping out altogether. I bought a no-name WiFi extender for the saloon, but haven’t had time to hook it up yet. I’d like to eliminate the 110-V supply to the extender so looking for alternatives.

Questions for the brain trust (and apologies if these are too obvious):

—Would a PoE access point (fed by an Ethernet cable from the Pepwave) serve the same purpose as the Wifi extender?

—Might I expect a stronger signal throughout the boat with an extender/AP nearer the boat’s midpoint in the saloon?

—Does the AP coverage suffer much if it’s behind a console or should it be entirely unobscured?

Thanks in advance.

To the 3 questions, yes/yes/yes. I'd rather use an AP than an extender. As far as obstructions to the signal, anything in the way will cause some degradation, but depending on distance, some amount can be tolerated.

 

[twistedtree]

While talking about wifi access points (APs), I just installed a Netgear "business" AP that is dual band 2.4G and 5G. It works fine if I only use 2.4G. But if I turn on 5G, either in combination with 2.4G or by itself, performance goes to hell and it barely works.


My presumption is that I have some sort of interference or reflection thing going on, but don't have any good way to diagnose what's happening.


Anyone have any suggestion on tools or techniques to figure out what's going wrong sort of guessing and experimenting?

 

[rslifkin]

While talking about wifi access points (APs), I just installed a Netgear "business" AP that is dual band 2.4G and 5G. It works fine if I only use 2.4G. But if I turn on 5G, either in combination with 2.4G or by itself, performance goes to hell and it barely works.


My presumption is that I have some sort of interference or reflection thing going on, but don't have any good way to diagnose what's happening.


Anyone have any suggestion on tools or techniques to figure out what's going wrong sort of guessing and experimenting?

If performance goes to hell with the 5G band enabled, try setting a client device to 2.4 only and see if the 2.4 band is still performing fine. If it is, then it could be a signal or interference issue (in which case changing the 5G channel might help). If it's performing badly on the 2.4 band, then I'd return the AP and get something else, as it's likely an issue with performance of the AP itself.

 

[Iggy]

Well, I think a little networking and boating go hand in hand.

We now use ethernet and NMEA networks on our boats. A simple example, I have 3 MFDs and one radar and sonar units. Oh and a Victron Cerbo that all use ethernet. I had to install a network switch in order for all MFDs to see all the ethernet devices.

Back to the topic!! I have 2 old cell antennas on my mast. I have been thinking of replacing them with a 4/5G one. My big problem is running the wires. Some chases are so full to get one more wire though is almost impossible.

I even tried to tone the wires out but it so tight it hard to find the right one. If I cut the wrong one. Well you know??

I left out, with Unifi you must use there cameras to web into it with their app for free.

 

[Iggy]

Thanks for the description, but I will take you up on your offer for more help

As mentioned, I plan to land my NEMO N2K Gateway (HERE) on the last LAN port of my Pepwave BR1 5G router. What I can't wrap my head around is how will I access this data? Main reason for it is to run a PC-based navigation program (Coastal Explorer in this case) using the AIS/GPS/Radar information from the N2K sensors. Will I need to configure anything, or is it just plug-and-play?

I think my use-case is fairly common for cruisers: Weather is #1; Data/Email Comms #2; Internet browsing #3. Marina-based WiFi is becoming less relevant but given its free, is not irrelevant. Starlink solves a lot of problems, but at around $150/mo these days, usage is episodic. My hunch is Cell/SIM plans will remain viable for a while, especially given there is increased competition in the cellular space, not so much with Starlink yet. I doubt I'll ever use a second SIM card, so while it's handy, not necessary.

Given your obvious expertise, can you recommend any alternatives or enhancements to the Pepwave-based system I built? The Pepwave BR1 5G is $1k; 42g antenna is $300. Maybe a more economical system? Pictures are always great.

Thanks in advance - Peter

Unless I am missing understanding you. You don't need the Pepwave to run a Nav chart program. I use TZ on my laptop with out data from my Pepwave. I installed Yacht Devices NMEA2k to Wi-Fi gateway. So my laptop and any Wi-Fi device can use the data on the NMEA2k network.

 

[twistedtree]

If performance goes to hell with the 5G band enabled, try setting a client device to 2.4 only and see if the 2.4 band is still performing fine. If it is, then it could be a signal or interference issue (in which case changing the 5G channel might help). If it's performing badly on the 2.4 band, then I'd return the AP and get something else, as it's likely an issue with performance of the AP itself.

OK, thanks. That's a good experiment to try.
For what it's worth, I'm using the same APs at home and they seem to work fine.

Do you happen to know how to force a Mac or iPhone to only use 2.4G?


Another possible cause is that I installed the APs above the ceiling panels. I know that's not ideal, but in at least one of the locations there isn't enough headroom to mount it to the panels. Plus I hate drilling holes in the panels, and having stuff mounted to them just makes them harder to remove and reinstall. But I wonder if I might not have a reflection that just happens to cancel out or otherwise interfere with the 5g signal. I suppose I could test that theory by simply removing the ceiling panel so the AP is no longer blocked. That would be pretty easy to do.

 

[Iggy]

If performance goes to hell with the 5G band enabled, try setting a client device to 2.4 only and see if the 2.4 band is still performing fine. If it is, then it could be a signal or interference issue (in which case changing the 5G channel might help). If it's performing badly on the 2.4 band, then I'd return the AP and get something else, as it's likely an issue with performance of the AP itself.

Another thing to try and I would do this first. Is changing channel that your 2.5 or 5 band is using. There are many apps that can tell you what the busiest channels are and move way from them.

Keep in mind that fiberglass is denser than wood. So if your AP claims X amount if feet, don't expect it.

 

[twistedtree]

Another thing to try and I would do this first. Is changing channel that your 2.5 or 5 band is using. There are many apps that can tell you what the busiest channels are and move way from them.

Keep in mind that fiberglass is denser than wood. So if your AP claims X amount if feet, don't expect it.

On this particular AP I can't directly control the channel. But I did observe it using different channels since I can see which one I'm connect on from my laptop.


How good an indicator of signal strength is the signal strength indication? Seems like a silly question, but I always wonder how accurate they really are both for wifi and cellular. My mac was reporting connections in the 50db range with a good sn ratio, so I'm interpreting that as a good strong signal, and that simple attenuation isn't the issue. This is what makes me think it's some sort of reflective interference

 

[Iggy]

I would say -50db is a fair signal. Not great but not bad.

Try downloading to your phone "WiFiman" & "WiFi Analyzer". Between them both, they will give you signal strength and show you the over lapping channels.

If you can't change the default channel I would add one or more APs. The thing with your boat TT, its more like a faraday cage. Our pal with his 55' one day was telling me that he could not receive the Clubs WiFi. I went to his boat and on the swimming planform I was getting a fair signal. As soon as I stepped into the cabin, I lost the signal. It was surprised!

 

[bkcorwin]

Really you cant manually set the channel the AP uses on the netgear APs? Manually choosing channels has made a big difference on my home network and the boat network. It helped the spotty wifi connectivity with my cerbo GX (not completely fixed did hardwire it eventually). I have also definitely seen that fiberglass attenuates signals well. So location in boat could certainly play a factor

Also, I know the br1 pro 5g isn't listed as effected in the peplink forum post but I had massive troubles with my br1pro5g and the hardwire ethernet adapter that came with my square dishy. I did the proposed fix of putting a small switch in between the starlink ethernet adapter and my br1 pro and the change is dramatic. My connection used to drop out basically daily. It is rock solid now.

 

[marcs]

As mentioned, I plan to land my NEMO N2K Gateway (HERE) on the last LAN port of my Pepwave BR1 5G router. What I can't wrap my head around is how will I access this data? Main reason for it is to run a PC-based navigation program (Coastal Explorer in this case) using the AIS/GPS/Radar information from the N2K sensors. Will I need to configure anything, or is it just plug-and-play?

As long as the NEMO is on the same network as CE it should just show up in CE automatically, and then allow you to further configure it in CE to configure all the ports. Then devices on either the wifi network generated by the Pepwave or plugged into it directly or via a switch should all have the same access to the NEMO.

It should also show up in the Navionics app on any phones or tablets connected to the same network, that may require configuration of the IP and port of the NEMO in the Navionics app. Navionics can get (at least) position, depth and AIS data from it. If you haven't run into it yet, be sure to turn the Navionics AIS alarm off, the default setting is piercingly terrible and hard to find the source of if you don't already know. This also allows you to record sonar tracks on Navionics.

I use CE, a NEMO, Starlink, and a Pepwave router and AP together on my boat and probably have a good 3 months of total nights spent on the boat with all those together.

 

[marcs]

If performance goes to hell with the 5G band enabled, try setting a client device to 2.4 only and see if the 2.4 band is still performing fine. If it is, then it could be a signal or interference issue (in which case changing the 5G channel might help). If it's performing badly on the 2.4 band, then I'd return the AP and get something else, as it's likely an issue with performance of the AP itself.

This is good advice, along with the other advice received, but to restate it another way ... 2.4Ghz fundamentally has better signal propagation than 5Ghz so it is completely expected you'll get better signal propagation with 2.4Ghz. But you get more interference in congested areas (ie. marinas) with 2.4Ghz partially because of that better propagation. So just keep in mind it is 100% expected to need more access points to cover the boat in strong 5Ghz wifi than it is 2.4Ghz wifi. Your symptoms still sound like something else may be going on though.



This is why higher end systems have more control over what devices use what band and when and how things are handed off. They are far from perfect because the standards are lacking on the client side, but they put a lot of effort into trying to do what they can.



One other test is see if having the boat away from the dock and away from any other boats changes it, assuming this testing is in a denser area.

 

[angus99]

Perhaps related to this discussion, Pepwave just released a new firmware update, 8.3. This video mentions managing the 2.4 and 5 Ghz bands at 00:03:30.

https://youtu.be/z8U5WpC07nY

OK, slinking back to my corner now.

 

[Iggy]

This is good advice, along with the other advice received, but to restate it another way ... 2.4Ghz fundamentally has better signal propagation than 5Ghz so it is completely expected you'll get better signal propagation with 2.4Ghz. But you get more interference in congested areas (ie. marinas) with 2.4Ghz partially because of that better propagation. So just keep in mind it is 100% expected to need more access points to cover the boat in strong 5Ghz wifi than it is 2.4Ghz wifi. Your symptoms still sound like something else may be going on though.


Yes, you are 100% right. 2.5G band goes rather and has more interference than the 5g band. But we are talking about a boat, not a house. I would stay with the 5G band if I could.

The 5G band will give you more bandwidth and less interference. More so if you monitor the channels. Yes, some APs you can not make that change. If needed, yes add another AP, give me the bandwidth.

If I was a liveaboard and/or a boat like TT. I would go with Unifi, yes a home system but you could make all the necessary adjustments, more security and more room for expansion. Peplink or Starlink could easily be connected to it. Now that would be a network!

Plus a system you can bring up its web page up from anywhere at no cost. I know I sound like a salesmen.... But it works for me.