Apple Now Selling Linksys Velop Mesh Wi-Fi System But Will Continue Offering AirPort Line

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

What do you mean by "hardcode the IP to wireless devices" - you mean no NAT, just have public-internet-addressable addresses for every device in your house?

Because DHCP and NAT are two separate things, you seem to be describing "not using DHCP."

NAT is when your internal network uses a non-publicly-routable set of addresses like 10.x.y.z, 192.168.y.z, or 172.x.y.z. Unless you're on an IPv6-only network (which is extremely unlikely, since many public websites are still IPv4 only, so wouldn't load,) you are almost certainly using NAT with an internal non-routable address space. So your DSL/cable/fiber modem/router would have a public internet address of 256.128.64.32, (fake address, not even possible, but using an example that won't be someone's actual address.) Then your router takes all incoming/outgoing connections to/from the computers inside your network, and gives the internal computers a non-routable address that is only good inside your network. Let's say 10.0.0.2 for your main PC, 10.0.0.3 for your laptop, 10.0.0.4 for your mobile phone, etc. Since you only have one "public" internet address, assigned to the router, the router has to do Network Address Translation to deal with internet traffic to/from your network. That is how all home internet routers work. So if you want to reach Google's DNS servers, at the public-internet-address 8.8.8.8 (its real address,) your router says "okay PC 10.0.0.2, you're asking to connect to 8.8.8.8. I'm going to send the request out to Google now with a tag of 'A'." Google says "I got a request from 256.128.64.32 with a tag of 'A', I'm going to reply to 256.128.64.32 with the data requested, with the tag 'A'." Your router added that tag so when the return request comes back, the router will know which internal computer to send it to. "Okay, I got the result from 256.128.64.32 with tag 'A', that's for the internal computer I call 10.0.0.2." That's NAT.

DHCP is the act of automatically-assigning those addresses when a device connects. Not using that would be "hardcoding the IP" per device, as you describe. Because 10.x.y.z, 192.168.y.z, and 172.x.y.z are "non routable" it means there are no computers on the public internet with those addresses (only part of the 'x' for 172 is non-routable, there are some public internet computers that start with 172.) That's how my home network can have a 10.0.0.2, my work's network can have a 10.0.0.2, the coffee shop down the block can have a 10.0.0.2, and your house can have a 10.0.0.2. Because they all have different PUBLIC internet addresses (like my fake 256.128.64.32, or Google's real 8.8.8.8, or Level 3 communications' 4.4.2.2, or 23.47.169.85 (one of the many servers that responds to "www.microsoft.com")) All the home/work/coffee shop networks have routers that translate a single public IP address in to many non-routable "private" addresses.

Only DHCP only takes any form of performance hit the very first time a device connects to a network, as the device has to find out what address it should take.

NAT is what basically every network on the planet uses, since there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to go around. If you aren't using NAT, then you only have one computer at home, and it doesn't have good internet security. Yes, it does have a slight performance hit over direct-connection where you have a public internet address

I worked for both Time Warner and Comcast in their NOC. I just might know how all this works, so I'm gonna skip all you wrote.

NAT takes place with DHCP. My comment was that by disabling DHCP and assigning static IPs (addresses are generally dynamically assigned with DHCP), less work needs to be done by the router and you'll see improvement in speeds within your network.

You're still assigning internal addresses.

 

[Vjosullivan]

We love our Airport. Works a charm and is easy for everyone to use.

I hope Apple don't leave it to die.

It's been dead for over a year already.

November 2016: http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-disbands-wireless-router-team-reassigns-engineers-report/

 

[Edsel]

Ya had me until Wonky set up.....what really is the best option? My son is a gamer and relies on the fast Wifi but my XFinity router (the newest one) is not reaching his room and I am not sure why. Getting download of only 28gb and it should be way faster then that. Looking for some answers so I can upgrade to something that works. Thanks,
CB

By "Wonky" I mean the setup process attempts to hand-hold the user through the setup process. I'm familiar with networking and accustomed to directly assigning network parameters without vendor software assistance.

Your gamer son really needs a hardwire cat 6+network connection through a network switch. No matter how fast your broadband/fiber internet connection, local WiFi can slow down with all sorts of crazy packet traffic from print jobs, video streaming, remote backups, etc.

 

[kingtj]

Well, right off the bat, the "deal breaker" for me buying a Velop was the fact that the primary router doesn't provide 4 ethernet ports on the back. I need to be able to plug in a couple of ethernet cables in the back of mine that run to the basement and office, to wired switches, so I can attach a number of wired devices.

Here's to hoping that the Velop is to Apple's router line what LG's underwhelming 4K "Apple centric" display was to Apple's display.

 

[9081094]

Apple has the highest market capitalization of any company in the world. What the hell is Apple spending all its money on? Face ID and the Apple Watch??????

Don’t ask me. I think they’re spending on stores. They’re targeting the novice tech and tech dummies these days that’s for sure. The pro tech elite and the creatives already abandoned ship.

 

[TTTedP]

Dropped my Airport Extremes for Google Wifi in December. I do have them hardwired so no mesh, but they are working fine. Even as AP's only, the WiFi improvement as compared to Airports has been noticeable.

The worst part of all this is how much ground Apple is giving up to the competition. I've been 100% Apple since 2007. Cinema Display, Airports, Mac mini, etc. These were all hooks to the Apple Ecosystem. Once I dismantle my walled garden, I'm not rebuilding it with them. I guess they are getting enough growth from new customers still to not have to worry about the churn of old loyalists.

 

[PickUrPoison]

It's been dead for over a year already.

November 2016: http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-disbands-wireless-router-team-reassigns-engineers-report/

Like all rumors, it may or may not be true. It’s certainly been a long time since new hardware has been released.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

I worked for both Time Warner and Comcast in their NOC. I just might know how all this works, so I'm gonna skip all you wrote.

NAT takes place with DHCP. My comment was that by disabling DHCP and assigning static IPs (addresses are generally dynamically assigned with DHCP), less work needs to be done by the router and you'll see improvement in speeds within your network.

You're still assigning internal addresses.

NAT and DCHP are still separate things. Saying "NAT slows down" is massively inaccurate, especially when you meant "DHCP" and DHCP still only has a penalty at first - once your address is assigned, it doesn't take any extra time over a static address.

You working in a TW and Comcast NOC without knowing that worries me about TW and Comcast. I have a feeling you don't actually know how networking works.

 

[pyrrh0]

I worked for both Time Warner and Comcast in their NOC. I just might know how all this works [...] NAT takes place with DHCP [...] by disabling DHCP and assigning static IPs (addresses are generally dynamically assigned with DHCP), less work needs to be done by the router and you'll see improvement in speeds within your network.

NAT & DHCP are separate protocols. DHCP occurs before NAT is involved as NAT requires there to be an IP address for it to route (NAT modifies the IP header).

DHCP operates via four UDP packets between the client and DHCP server. Discovery (client asking network for a DHCP address and other network info like subnet, gateway, DNS, time, etc), Offer (server identifying itself and offering client an address), Request (client saying OK, I'd like that address), and Acknowledge (server confirms client is assigned to that IP). Once that happens, until the lease expires and requires renewal (usually hours if not days later), there's no other traffic (ie, overhead) involved.

So what are you referring to, specifically, when you say we'll see improvement in speeds if we statically assign IPs?

 

[jacksmith21006]

I replaced my Apple Airport wifi system with Google mesh Wifi. I have another media machine /mac mini) connected to the network which is waked on network activity. I connected a HDD to it for the purpose of Time Machine backup from all my other macs in the house wirelessly, it worked fine... So, TimeCapsule is not needed, as long as you have some location on the nework you can connect a HDD which the Wifi can access.

Did the same replacing our Airport extremes with the Google WiFi and could not be happier. Love the GW app.
[doublepost=1515865004][/doublepost]

I have to wonder why Google got into the router game, when so many others were already doing it. It would be like Facebook offering routers.

To make money I suspect. Google WiFi has been the #1 or #2 of all routers sold on Amazon since it came out. We replace our airport extremes and could not be happier.

Plus Google found Meltdown, Spectre, Broadpwn, Cloudbleed, Heartbleed among other vulnerabilities and is just going to give a more secure network than any other company.

Saw that Eero has a big layoff and suspect will not be around long as Google solution being so much better drives others out of the market.

Google does a decent amount of hardware and growing pretty fast. They shared selling 10s of millions of hardware devices for the home in 2017 and suspect that willl grow and fast.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

NAT & DHCP are separate protocols. DHCP occurs before NAT is involved as NAT requires there to be an IP address for it to route (NAT modifies the IP header).

DHCP operates via four UDP packets between the client and DHCP server. Discovery (client asking network for a DHCP address and other network info like subnet, gateway, DNS, time, etc), Offer (server identifying itself and offering client an address), Request (client saying OK, I'd like that address), and Acknowledge (server confirms client is assigned to that IP). Once that happens, until the lease expires and requires renewal (usually hours if not days later), there's no other traffic (ie, overhead) involved.

So what are you referring to, specifically, when you say we'll see improvement in speeds if we statically assign IPs?

Enabling DHCP on most home routers will slow traffic. This is only noticeable on very high speed connections. We saw it across numerous consumer routers, including those built into the cable modem, when testing DOCSIS 3.0 at speeds of +250Mbit.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

I recently went from 100Mbps to 1Gig fiber at my home and my only issue is that with an AirPort Extreme Tower connected to my CenturyLink router and the CL router WiFi disabled I am not realising the speed. I get better results with the CL router as my network though the downside is my network setup is not ideal and I have devices I can’t properly connect.

Just curious -- on your 1Gbps connection, using the CL Router -- How fast are internal transfers on your network (maximum). For instance say you want to wirelessly transfer a file from a MacBook (wifi) connected to an iMac (wifi/ethernet)? What about streaming to something like a Roku (or Apple TV) -- how does the router do with data-heavy streaming video at high-resolutions?

I have the 6 year old Airport Extreme (the N version, from 2012). I never upgraded to the AC Airport Extreme because I read that it was not really any faster than the -N version at file transfers or data streaming. While my AE N-version is still going strong...I would like to upgrade to an AC router now that all of my devices have AC wifi capabilities. And in the hope that my Hulu/Nexflix/Amazon streaming via my Roku (from the AE) will be more robust.

And as someone further up the discussion queue said, I don't want some Netgear or similar multi-antennae monstrosity to replace the simple AE.

 

[pyrrh0]

Enabling DHCP on most home routers will slow traffic. This is only noticeable on very high speed connections. We saw it across numerous consumer routers, including those built into the cable modem, when testing DOCSIS 3.0 at speeds of +250Mbit.

That's a CPU limitation (and occasionally bad firmware) of using cheap hardware, not a limitation or side-effect of using DHCP.

A $50 EdgeRouter X can handle nearly line-level routing, DHCP, and NAT but how may home users are going to know, care, or be able to use one. Configure the modem for bridged mode and then never touch it again.

 

[Sill]

To make money I suspect. Google WiFi has been the #1 or #2 of all routers sold on Amazon since it came out. We replace our airport extremes and could not be happier.

Plus Google found Meltdown, Spectre, Broadpwn, Cloudbleed, Heartbleed among other vulnerabilities and is just going to give a more secure network than any other company.

Money is great, but power is everything.

Google only does things that give it more access to people's lives, and by extension, gives them more information about those people. Until these routers came out, they only had access to information gleaned from your use of their services, and by whatever cookies you hadn't blocked. With the addition of Google WiFi - which you have to sign into using their cloud - they now have access to every bit going through your home network.

 

[Tech198]

This is good, but i wonder which direction Apple is actually going... with wireless..

Everything seems to just die down, then some new product just pops-up out of no-where in the Apple Store.

What is the long term goal?

 

[PastaPrimav]

Sure, in a perfect world.

Regardless of the weaknesses of using RF to substitute for hard wires, the convenience and overall lower cost of deploying wireless makes it an essentially unstoppable phenomenon. This is true for both commercial and residential installations. The cost of pulling (or even surface-mounting) CAT 5 through an existing structure is high enough to make it cost-prohibitive for a large number of potential users. That's a barrier to the adoption of new technologies, rather than an enabler.

Yeah but even in my basic house/home office scenario...I have 2 routers on either end of the house, and they are easily connected via an Ethernet run that goes through the attic and drops down in the relevant rooms. This isn't hard, or complicated, for anyone. It is much easier and faster than dealing with wireless range extenders that leave you wondering if what you did made any difference, when in truth all it did was decrease overall throughput and increase latency...but hey you've got 5 WiFi bars so it must be good.

 

[bozzykid]

Money is great, but power is everything.

Google only does things that give it more access to people's lives, and by extension, gives them more information about those people. Until these routers came out, they only had access to information gleaned from your use of their services, and by whatever cookies you hadn't blocked. With the addition of Google WiFi - which you have to sign into using their cloud - they now have access to every bit going through your home network.

Google does not collect data on websites you visit or info on any of the traffic that goes through Google Wifi. But good job spreading the FUD.

 

[TTTedP]

Money is great, but power is everything.

Google only does things that give it more access to people's lives, and by extension, gives them more information about those people. Until these routers came out, they only had access to information gleaned from your use of their services, and by whatever cookies you hadn't blocked. With the addition of Google WiFi - which you have to sign into using their cloud - they now have access to every bit going through your home network.

Relax with the FUD. I have been 100% Apple for years and now have G Wifi. I had the same concerns in the beginning but actually read their privacy statement on the product. Have you? They do collect info on what types of devices you have connected to your network (MAC ID, # of connections, etc - but with the intent to understand what all is in a typical connected home) > and I would suspect the info is for greater compatibility / FW updates. They are not reading your each and every email or search history for pink fuzzy slippers. I have yet to see an ad for pink fuzzy slippers based on my search history with DuckDuckGo but using Google's router.

Honest question, do you use Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter with your iDevices? Any Android devices in the house? You have way more to fear with those than using Google's HW.

Now if something comes out that directly links a security / privacy breach with Google's HW... I think we all know that would be really dumb on Google's part.

 

[Sill]

Relax with the FUD. I have been 100% Apple for years and now have G Wifi. I had the same concerns in the beginning but actually read their privacy statement on the product. Have you? They do collect info on what types of devices you have connected to your network (MAC ID, # of connections, etc - but with the intent to understand what all is in a typical connected home) > and I would suspect the info is for greater compatibility / FW updates. They are not reading your each and every email or search history for pink fuzzy slippers. I have yet to see an ad for pink fuzzy slippers based on my search history with DuckDuckGo but using Google's router.

Honest question, do you use Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter with your iDevices? Any Android devices in the house? You have way more to fear with those than using Google's HW.

Now if something comes out that directly links a security / privacy breach with Google's HW... I think we all know that would be really dumb on Google's part.

I'm really sorry I never got around to answering your question. I must have accidentally thrown out the notification that you posted in the thread. I was just looking for one of my old posts about Wifi mesh networks and saw your question hanging.

First, I've found little reason to trust Google in anything that they say in their privacy statements. Their very public-facing statements regarding privacy have continually proven to be misleading or even outright lies. I've done a lengthy writeup elsewhere here regarding multiple articles on their shenanigans along with cites. As a result of this, I refuse to give them any information or any access to my information.

The information they want is an order of magnitude higher than just "what you're looking at". They find out how often, how long, where you're looking, and how soon those looks come in relation to a long list of behavioral markers that would just amaze you if you grasped it. Metadata.There is a security researcher by the name of Daniel Suarez who has done some amazing work in establishing what these services are gathering on people, and he's also done some pretty amazing fictional writing that shows some possibilities on where these things are going.

The honest answer to your honest question is: no, I have never used any of those services, if by "used" you mean "have an account". I of course have clicked on links to those services when a publication has included links that interest me. I use a security-maxed browser with a private window when I do, because I'm aware of the dangers of shadow-profiling.

Finally, regarding your statement that Google would be in trouble if they violated privacy and it became publicly known, I have to say "when would that happen?" They've been caught numerous times violating privacy restrictions - most notable, and creepily where kids are concerned - and they've not received even a slap on the wrist. Perhaps that will change soon, with the current administration starting to focus on the perceived monopoly in search and advertising. I won't hold my breath. I'd personally like to see a simple service offered by these companies where I could drop my email address in, click on a confirmation email, and then be guaranteed all of the information related to my email would be deleted.

 

[TTTedP]

I'm really sorry I never got around to answering your question. I must have accidentally thrown out the notification that you posted in the thread. I was just looking for one of my old posts about Wifi mesh networks and saw your question hanging.

First, I've found little reason to trust Google in anything that they say in their privacy statements. Their very public-facing statements regarding privacy have continually proven to be misleading or even outright lies. I've done a lengthy writeup elsewhere here regarding multiple articles on their shenanigans along with cites. As a result of this, I refuse to give them any information or any access to my information.

The information they want is an order of magnitude higher than just "what you're looking at". They find out how often, how long, where you're looking, and how soon those looks come in relation to a long list of behavioral markers that would just amaze you if you grasped it. Metadata.There is a security researcher by the name of Daniel Suarez who has done some amazing work in establishing what these services are gathering on people, and he's also done some pretty amazing fictional writing that shows some possibilities on where these things are going.

The honest answer to your honest question is: no, I have never used any of those services, if by "used" you mean "have an account". I of course have clicked on links to those services when a publication has included links that interest me. I use a security-maxed browser with a private window when I do, because I'm aware of the dangers of shadow-profiling.

Finally, regarding your statement that Google would be in trouble if they violated privacy and it became publicly known, I have to say "when would that happen?" They've been caught numerous times violating privacy restrictions - most notable, and creepily where kids are concerned - and they've not received even a slap on the wrist. Perhaps that will change soon, with the current administration starting to focus on the perceived monopoly in search and advertising. I won't hold my breath. I'd personally like to see a simple service offered by these companies where I could drop my email address in, click on a confirmation email, and then be guaranteed all of the information related to my email would be deleted.

great reply, thanks for that. I kind of cringed when I read my response to you for the tone I used. I apologize. A lot of information has come out since that post supporting what you say; that especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that companies continuously ignore and violate your, let's say anonymity vs privacy, and yet no one cares. So... yeah there doesn't seem to be much repercussion for the Google's or Facebooks of the world. Today's announcements from Apple added a little twist. I know they aren't perfect but view them as the lesser of all evils.

I since dropped the Google pucks and went with a Ubiquiti Unifi system. Mostly for fun, to tweak and learn but also because I couldn't shake the nagging feeling that Google was watching. We dont use any social media either and its amazing how many packets are being logged to Facebook, Instagram, etc. - I may consider a Pi Hole next.

 

[upandown]

What's the issue with the current AirPort Extreme? Offers the current speeds. Works better than most sub-$100 routers too.

I agree 100% as I still use mine. But I will say one thing I wish it did better was read/writes to an external drive via USB. There’s no other word for it other than extremely slow.

 

[k1121j]

Well of course if you have a wired CAT6 backbone you have the ideal situation... and almost anything (including the five year old extreme ) will work okay. My situation is far from ideal. I actually have two side by side two story duplexes that I am supporting (think big 60 ft x 40ft rectangle, 14 rooms, two stories, and basements...FIOS comes in on one far side, no further wired backbone. I had an airport extreme and 2 expresses and I could not find physical locations that did not mean dropouts, slow speed, and total blind spots.

With three Velops, not wired together but meshed, I have no dropouts, can walk around fine streaming 4k, speeds everywhere > 120 Mbps (with some devices much higher, the exception is one bathroom lol where its only 75), so yes, for my situation the Velops far exceed what I could do with the Airport system. and cost the same (I got the velops on sale). I lost wireless time machine capability true, but solved that with my media server that I run 100% of the time (granted not everyone can do that). Oh, and with the Velop I gained more control on what devices got served. Makes enforcing curfew easy (though in practice I only cut off the kids wifi when they are really misbehaving).

Yes, the Velops required more effort on my part to set up. I do wish Apple would re-enter the scene. But, got to deal with what I have today.

https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wir...wi-fi-roaming-secrets-revealed-part-4?start=2

I did some research here to decide that netgear orbi is better at roaming with iOS devices and others that support it

 

[Sill]

great reply, thanks for that. I kind of cringed when I read my response to you for the tone I used. I apologize.

No need to apologize. I understood where you were coming from and didn't take offense. I have to temper my posts with the knowledge that not everyone sees a problem where I see one. Sometimes I can offer enough information to make people question the situation. And thats all I really want, for people to be open minded about the possible threats to their privacy. Based on the rest of your post, you definitely have questions and I'm glad to hear that.

A lot of information has come out since that post supporting what you say; that especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that companies continuously ignore and violate your, let's say anonymity vs privacy, and yet no one cares. So... yeah there doesn't seem to be much repercussion for the Google's or Facebooks of the world. Today's announcements from Apple added a little twist. I know they aren't perfect but view them as the lesser of all evils.

I agree with you. There is enough inertia at Apple in the privacy department to keep my greater fears at bay. I know Cook isn't Steve - obviously - and he doesn't have the same unwillingness to compromise with government that Steve had. His jump into hiring lobbyists and making political statements worries me, because at some point he may decide to compromise privacy and anonymity to achieve his "greater" goals. He's a good numbers guy, but I am uneasy with him at the helm when my privacy is at risk.

I since dropped the Google pucks and went with a Ubiquiti Unifi system. Mostly for fun, to tweak and learn but also because I couldn't shake the nagging feeling that Google was watching. We dont use any social media either and its amazing how many packets are being logged to Facebook, Instagram, etc. - I may consider a Pi Hole next.

You have GOT to tell me how that Unifi system is working for you! Ubiquiti/Amplifi is the only setup I've found that didn't require cloud credentials to work (at least, according to various people at their tech support). I'm really looking forward to hearing your report on them. My Extreme is going strong right now, but eventually I'm going to need more coverage here after my home addition is done and I'll need to look at some options.

You're right about Google "watching". I found that there are people who have discovered "phone home" packets from something as basic and pervasive as Chromium (which allegedly is Chrome without the Google, but really isn't), and it calls home a lot more than anyone realized.
[doublepost=1559866407][/doublepost]

I agree 100% as I still use mine. But I will say one thing I wish it did better was read/writes to an external drive via USB. There’s no other word for it other than extremely slow.

I wonder if there's some setting that needs to be tweaked on your kit. I have a final-gen Extreme running a portable WD 3TB drive via USB for my Infuse app, and the performance has been top notch. It also hosts my Time Machine backup. Very sturdy and no slow downs.