P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510

P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 06:21:10
Model :

Hardware Version : Not Clear

Firmware Version :

ISP :

I have 2km p2p link using two TL-WA5210G without external antennas for almost 5 years. This link is across center of city which is so crowded with more than 100 wireless links (not home routers) which I see on 2.4GHz with 12dB or more. I also find a few 5GHz networks on my dual-band laptop. Link between two TL-WA5210G is 100% reliable, but speed is low, only 15Mb/s. I wanted higher speed so I ordered two cpe510 yesterday. I have a few questions:


1. Will I have better link and higher throughput with two cpe510 ?

2. Two TL-WA5210G are in bridge p2p mode without AP mode, and it seems that it is the best possible scenario. Reading all posts I saw that everybody advice AP-Client scenario for two cpe510. Should it be wrong if I configure both devices in bridge mode by their MAC addresses, like it is on my TL-WA5210G devices?

Thank you on fast answer, because I have to replace devices or give up till October, 17th.
0
0
#1
Options
45 Replies
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 16:09:19
1. Since the wireless environment in your case is complicate, and the quality of communication depends on a lot such as interference, it's hard to comment that the new application can get a higher throughpu. However, CPE510 is a 11n product while 5210G a 11g, CPE510 can get a higher maximum speed than 5210G and perform better in this scenario.
2. It's better for you to setup the CPE510 on AP-Client combination. But under such configuration, you should use and extra wireless router to provide wireless network coverage in the client side. According to the rule, wireless device cannot 'talk' and 'listen' at the same time. On bridge mode the back-end CPE510 has to 'listen' to the front AP and then broacast to the behind clients. While in Client mode, it should only 'listen' to the AP and then transmit the signal to the wireless router via cable and the router will 'talk' in place of CPE510. In another word, it improve the speed.
0
0
#2
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 16:12:27
1. Since the wireless environment in your case is complicate, and the quality of communication depends on a lot such as interference, it's hard to comment that the new application can get a higher throughpu. However, CPE510 is a 11n product while 5210G a 11g, CPE510 can get a higher maximum speed than 5210G and perform better in this scenario.
2. It's better for you to setup the CPE510 on AP-Client combination. But under such configuration, you should use an extra wireless router to provide wireless network coverage in the client side. According to the rule, wireless device can only 'talk' or 'listen' at the a time. On bridge mode the back-end CPE510 has to 'listen' to the front AP and then 'talk' to the behind clients. While in Client mode, it should only 'listen' to the AP and at the same time transmit the signal to the wireless router via cable and the router will 'talk' in place of CPE510. In another word, it improve the communication speed.
0
0
#3
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 16:35:35
1. Will I have better link and higher throughput with two cpe510 ?


CPE510 is a 802.11n 300Mbps product, while TL-WA5210G is a very old product which only supports 802.11g (54Mbps in maximum).
Besides, CPE510 works on 5GHz which is more cleaner than 2.4GHz, so with a less interference the throughput should be higher in most cases, while it still depends on your real environment

2. Two TL-WA5210G are in bridge p2p mode without AP mode, and it seems that it is the best possible scenario. Reading all posts I saw that everybody advice AP-Client scenario for two cpe510. Should it be wrong if I configure both devices in bridge mode by their MAC addresses, like it is on my TL-WA5210G devices?


There is some difference between CPE510 and TL-WA5210G's bridge mode, TL-WA5210G's bridge is a so called traditional bridge which requires to type in the other device's MAC address manually in both sides' TL-WA5210G, while in CPE510, you just need to click survey in bridge side and no need to manually type in the other device's MAC address, its bridge's realization approach is different with TL-WA5210G.
For CPE510, if you just need to make a p2p link, AP-Client mode is the best choice.
0
0
#4
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 16:52:27



Lines without arrows are ethernet cables, so 5210 are only talk to each other and wired conected to rest of the net.
This is schematic diagram of my home network. I have 3 apartments and 3 subnets as you can see. There are more than 50 devices on my network (wired and wireless). Network is used for media, movies, games, file sharing, internet.. I use bandwith control, MAC filtering, IP binding... I made port forwarding so I can acess to any router from internet side. Also I have VPN connection to few buissness networks and ..huh...
It all started when I conected 2 computers in 1996 and now....you can see.

Bottleneck is 5210 bridge. I wanna know if it would be better to use two CPE510 instead 5210?
0
0
#5
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 17:03:38

winstar wrote


There is some difference between CPE510 and TL-WA5210G's bridge mode, TL-WA5210G's bridge is a so called traditional bridge which requires to type in the other device's MAC address manually in both sides' TL-WA5210G, while in CPE510, you just need to click survey in bridge side and no need to manually type in the other device's MAC address, its bridge's realization approach is different with TL-WA5210G.
For CPE510, if you just need to make a p2p link, AP-Client mode is the best choice.

I dont type MAC address manually, I use Survey button in my TL-WA5210G devices. WEB interface of TL-WA5210G is similar to CPE510 with different colors.
0
0
#6
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 17:12:33

srmarkovic wrote

Bottleneck is 5210 bridge. I wanna know if it would be better to use two CPE510 instead 5210?


Yes, just move on to CPE510, you will have an unimaginable experience with it, TL-WA5210G is really a b ottleneck in your network:)
0
0
#7
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 17:26:56

srmarkovic wrote

I dont type MAC address manually, I use Survey button in my TL-WA5210G devices. WEB interface of TL-WA5210G is similar to CPE510 with different colors.


My mistake, sorry for that, anyway, forget about this old product, as I mentioned, move on to CPE510 with AP-Client mode is the best choice...
0
0
#8
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 18:17:52
Thank you for replies and suggestions. TP-link distributer just called me and I expect that I'll get CPE510 devices tommorrow. I hope I'll change devices next day so I'll submit new speed and signal power very soon.


P.S. As you can see from picture above, I use a lot of TP-Link devices.(D-Link was my favourite before) This network configuration is 4 years old (maybe wr740n is younger !?!) and I can say that I havent had any single problem... Everything work like a charm!
0
0
#9
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 19:49:33
Pretty cool...huh... I don't think CPE510 will let you down, you can post results here if any update
0
0
#10
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 22:10:51
Advise, do not bring down 5210s from tower until you deploy 510s they can work side by side cause they are on a dif. freq.
And before any settings done, update to latest FW here http://forum.tp-link.com/showthread.php?82073-TP_PharOS_1.3.0_150807_Beta-add-CDP-Radius-MAC-Auth-and-compatible-with-MikroTik.&p=165006&viewfull=1#post165006
0
0
#11
Options