Wi-fi router features..

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by dex22, Jun 23, 2007.

  1. dex22 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Round Rock, TX
    #1
    Hi all,

    I'm looking for a modest G or N wifi router but I'm looking for a couple of features...

    I share my connection with several flatmates and they all contribute to the cost of the connection. I would like to be able to more easily manage their access when they don't pay. MAC whitelisting doesn't work, because I don't want to be constantly adding and removing new pieces of kit, their guests, etc.

    I also want to be able to identify the person who is constantly file-sharing and slowing things down for the rest of us, and cap just that one person.

    Is there an affordable wifi router out there that can do those things?

    Or, any suggestions on a simple, low maintenance approach to resolving these issues using a technology fix?

    Thanks :)
     
  2. Hmac macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    #2
    Look at this Linksys site, download the user manual for the WRT54G and look at the instructions for establishing an internet policy for each machine that uses the network. I think it might meet your needs.
     
  3. dex22 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Round Rock, TX
    #3
    Unfortunately, it doesn't. I'm still left managing access based on a MAC address or IP address using their "policy" feature. While it does let me limit someone's streaming torrents at certain times, that's not what I'm really trying to do.

    What I'm looking at is being able to authenticate each user, not each machine, so others here can get a friend logged on, etc, but we still all have WPA. Under this system (and with my existing router) we must all use the same password to connect.

    I'm open to having a linux server manage this, if the set-up is simple enough. I'm running a virtual ISP within the house and the cost-sharing has caused a lot of friction with the unidentified bandwidth-hog and a couple of people not paying their share.
     
  4. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #4
    DD-WRT might be able to do what you want. Maybe not the free version but the pay one has per user bandwidth controls.
     
  5. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #5
    the...paid version? i was under the assumption dd-wrt was free, period.
     
  6. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #7
  7. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #8
    Its fairly controversial due to the gpl of dd-wrt.
     
  8. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #9
    yeah I thought it was based on GPL'd code which would mean the source for those should be available upon request...
     
  9. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #10
    Just out of curiosity (this is beyond my knowhow), is this something that a Radius server is capable of doing? I think that you can define traffic limitations on a per-user level in the radius software, and it isn't too hard to add/remove users using the control software.

    I guess, however, that being able to accommodate guests would make Radius harder....
     
  10. dex22 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Round Rock, TX
    #11
    The presumption is that resident Alan has a guest, Bob, and Alan will give Bob Alan's password. Charlie lives here too but he doesn't know Alan's password. So each person is responsible for their own access and their guests (we could even create a guest account, maybe) but the principle is that each resident has their own login and I can manage their access by their account, regardless of hardware, rather than by MAC address or other machine-specific tag.

    I think maybe a linux server is going to be the best option, but not the easiest or cheapest, especially when you live in a household where we account for electricity usage by each individual server as a separate expense.
     
  11. trainguy77 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    #12
    Your easiest option in my opinion would be a m0n0wall setup. So just get a 133mhz-500mhz PC. Put http://m0n0.ch/wall/ onto it. THen you have a web interface with the captive portal in which they log in with users. THose users can either be held on the m0n0wall or on a radius server up to you. Then you can set up traffic shaping to set priorities on the bandwidth this won't say who is using the most bandwidth but it makes it so when people who are just using the net won't feel slow down from file sharing. As you set priorities on the types of traffic. You can't currently log traffic bandwidth per user to my knowledge but i think thats coming. I also think that involves a radius server. So really depends how complicated you want to go. m0n0wall is pretty easy to use. Really its just a firewall/router(webGUI) on a PC with advanced features. And its free....
     
  12. brbubba macrumors 6502

    brbubba

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    #13
    Yep I second that. I have pfsense, which is a derivative of monowall developed by the same guys, running on a Dell GX150. For less than $100 shipped that is going to be the most cost effective setup that can even begin to give you these kinds of options. Also there is an installable package of bandwidthd which fully shows exactly how much bandwidth each IP on the LAN is using.
     
  13. trainguy77 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    #14
    Actually it is developed by different people. There is 1 or 2 people who help with both. But for the most part its now two separate groups, they had a disagreement of what it should look like. One wanted a fully features unit. The other wanted one that could run on a pc133. So they split m0n0wall and pfsense.
     

Share This Page