RG6 to RG11 Long Run Internet Extension Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stmlandplan

Member
Location
Boydton, VA
Occupation
Landscape Architect
I'm a newbie to this forum and it seems like some very smart members of this site might be able to help us...I hope.
I need to extend an internet connection from an existing fiber optic home service (50 MBps) to a remote location 300 ft across a large creek to a remote destination a total of 600 feet away. The objective is to establish a separate IP address for this destination and to utilize an existing run of 100' +/- of RG6 that feeds a boathouse along the first leg of the run. We plan to use a "ScreenBeam MoCA 2.5 Network Adapter" to connect to a second ethernet feed coming from the modem in the source house (home base). The RG6 leg is currently in place coming from the home base to the boathouse where it terminates. We want to use this line since it is already in place would would eliminate any disturbance along that line to replace it with a new cable...a very daunting task. From there I was thinking about using RG11 to cross the 9' deep creek weighing the cable down as needed with bricks zip-tied to the cable. On the other side it would either connect to and existing 20' run of RG6 75 ohm that was left over from a former satellite feed to the destination or run RG11 all the way to the destination. At the destination we use a second ScreenBeam 2.5 to switch back to an ethernet and then to connect to a wireless router. Have we lost our minds? Can anyone offer some guidance on the best cable and connectors or any other relevant suggestions? Do I even need RG11 or would RG6 or RG8 suffice?

We can get a higher feed on the source side (100MBps) but the destination side has always been limited to .5 MBps upload/9 MBps download...and it looks like it will stay that way for the foreseeable future. That's why we need to explore this option.
 
Last edited:
My first shot would be a pair of wireless bridges and directional antennas, any reason not to do that? It will be a lot less hassle that what you're talking about and probably be more reliable than reusing untested coax. I'd start with looking at the Ubiquity NanoBeam products.

If you go the coax route, you must keep it all the same impedance- RG6 and RG11 are 75 ohm, RG8 is not. Use quality connectors, but even then each connection is a failure point.
You're asking for trouble by running a metallic path between buildings. The two need to have a solid grounding connection between them that isn't the coax shield, and you need lightning protection at both ends.
Needs to use wet-location coax, preferably direct-burial, and I'd still put it in a PVC pipe.
 
I second the wireless point to point. I have a friend who needed network about 1,000 feet from house in a new shop. Ubiquity makes a point to point matched pair already set up with roughly a 10 mile line-of-soght link for about $250 complete. His is much shorter and through a small grove of trees.
He installed it last summer in about 1 hour and it worked and is still working flawlessly. Fiber was his only other option for any kind of reliability but that was 4 times the cost for materials plus trenching.
Amazon sells the Ubiquity which is a very quality manufacturer.
 
In my old house the cable pedestal was pretty far from the house and the cable company ran RG11 due to the length. It connected to RG6 in the house. No problem there, they are both 75 ohm. Basically RG11 has less loss. That may be fine for what you want. Unless you own the RG11 already, I imagine the length isn't going to be cheap. The outdoor stuff they used in my case actually has some sort of adhesive inside the sheath between all the layers. Don't know about the creek. I'm thinking your main risk is the cable getting damaged from debris or critters. You would need to balance the cable cost against some sort of line-of-sight transmission equipment.
 
If you run any type of wire you need to deal with lightning protection. You will need a good ground system at each end, bonded to the electric service ground system. You will also need good quality surge protectors

Wireless is the way to go. If you don't what to use wireless fiber would be the next choice.

>9' deep creek
Is that a typo, 9' deep? Either way, 9' deep or wide, any cable that crosses that needs to be in something strong, like rigid metal conduit.
Do you plan to burying the cable? If so you need "direct burial" coaxial cable, which is much more expensive than "normal" coaxial cable. The direct burial cable has a tough outer jacket that resists chemicals leaching in from the ground. Plastic, instead of PVC, is what is normally used for the outer jacket. On the inside direct burial coaxial has a thick viscous liquid that prevents water from getting into the cable if the outer jacket is nicked or cut. It can be damaged during installation, or after by some rodent or other animal. If water, or some other chemical, get into the coaxial cable, the cable will need to be replaced.
 
Thanks everyone for all the insight. Very much appreciated. Sounds like the Ubiquiti is the way to go. For clarification the creek is 9' deep and 260' wide. It is also fished a lot so there is opportunity for damage.

On the Ubiquiti system is there an antenna at both ends or just the receiving end?

How do I select from what appears to be many options or which system is that one described by dpcarls1598 in the first reply?

Any recommendations would be appreciated.
 
This is the exact one he used. There is an antenna at both ends and comes preconfigured so it was plug and play. With his short distance he was averaging over 100mbs both ways. These are not WiFi so it needs a router or something at the remote end but so would coax. These create a ‘bridge’. It basically just replaces the physical connection between the two locations. This is also not able to be tapped into since it’s preconfigured with security.

 
I'm liking it! Thanks for the guidance. I've attached my planned set-up based on what I'm hearing and appreciate any critique or suggestions. We are still wanting to make use of the existing RG6 cable run from the source house to the boathouse thereby avoiding/minimizing any disruption on that end...hence the two network adapters shown. I've listed a hand full of questions below and hope you all can keep me on the right path. Thanks again.

Question-1: M2 or M5?
Question-2: How Long can the Ethernet runs be? 200'? best cable to use?
Question-3: Do I really need the Nano Beam Antenna?
Question-4: Can you turn the LED light off on the NanoBeam?
...or just tape over it for stealth?
Question-5: Is there a better Network Adaptor to use?
 

Attachments

  • Internet Schematic.pdf
    49.9 KB · Views: 9
The link I referred to on Amazon is not a nano beam. With that short of a distance, that seems like overkill both work and cost wise. The system I referred to is easier to install and far less obtrusive. I also hate beams as they are narrow and affected by rain, snow, etc. Any slight bump can get them off alignment. I’ve often seen nests built in/on them.
the one he used can have the LEDs turned off via programming.
Industry standard for Ethernet is 100 meters (330 feet). Close to or beyond that distance can cause issues including crosstalk and POE issues. Of course this is a perfect run. Not crossing electrical, near lights, perfect sweeps, etc.
CAT 6E is what I’m currently using for everything.
 
Not to be unkind, but many of these questions are basic IT/networking ones and it would probably be better to get someone local involved instead of learning everything here.

  • Twisted-pair ethernet goes 100m (330').
  • If you're going to install cable, might as well install CAT6E, but if you've never done that, just hire someone to do the ends and test it.
  • Crossing power lines/etc has little to no effect on TP ethernet.
  • Which specific model to get depends on the site conditions and none of us are able to evaluate them. OTOH, I think Ubiquity has some guidance on their web site.
  • Beam or no beam? Since this is being used as a point-to-point link, any RF power not sent in the direction of the other station is wasted, and rain/snow/etc will affect the link anyway; I'd use more focused antennas than the wide coverage panels of the nanoStation M5 set. Could go either way.
  • Forget about the coax unless there is no other way (and a good electrician can probably find one). Using it adds the cost and reliability issues of two more pieces of less-common electronics; run CAT6 where you can and use the wireless for the rest.

Either the nanoStation or the nanoBeam would probably do the job, but that depends on the site and none of us have laid eyes on it.

Oh, one last thing.... crossing a 100'+ wide river (that's not a creek) runs into issues like flood water flow and potentially State or Federal regulations.
 
Not taken as unkind at all zbang and much appreciate the info thusfar. I always like to solicit the help of the pros when time comes to pull the trigger. That said it is clear which way we need to go with this.

I do have one last question though...Is there a router that will let me assign a second IP address thereby keeping each secure for them other without having to set-up a second account?
 
stmlandplan said:
Not taken as unkind at all zbang and much appreciate the info thusfar. I always like to solicit the help of the pros when time comes to pull the trigger. That said it is clear which way we need to go with this.

I do have one last question though...Is there a router that will let me assign a second IP address thereby keeping each secure for them other without having to set-up a second account?
Click to expand...
Yes, if what you mean is for the router to offer DHCP services to assign devices at the end of the long link IP addresses in a different IP subnet than are assigned by whatever is supplying DHCP services on the other end of the link (typically the broadband Internet connection device such as a cable modem or a router integral with that cable modem.)
But that is not a commonly used configuration and you will have to delve pretty deeply into the router configuration to implement it. The router offered by default by a broadband provider may not offer you this flexiblity.
 
stmlandplan said:
Is there a router that will let me assign a second IP address thereby keeping each secure for them other without having to set-up a second account?
Click to expand...
@GoldDigger covered a lot, but we're back to the question of "Why?" The firewall and Network Address Translation of most routers is enough to prevent network-level intrusions; decent on-system firewall and anti-virus spftware will cover the rest.

Each device gets it's own IP from the DHCP part of the router; most consumer and small-business routers will only do a single "IP subnet" on the inside network, the four or eight ports it has are all connected to an internal ethernet switch and that connects to the routing function. There are less expensive devices* which will give you separate IP subnets, but then you still need the switch(es) and someone to configure the router.

*The lower-end Ubiquity EdgeRouters will do it but configuration is not for the novice.
 
You don't really need a seperate IP address for the other property. This can all be accomplished with a somewhat more sophisticated router behind the cable modem or fiber ONT that just keeps two separate NAT'ed spaces separated and unable to be routed to each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top