Mesh vs BlueCurve router

[Steve34]

I’ve recently moved to BlueCurve (from a previous provider) but also have an eero mesh network, which I’ve put into bridge mode. The eero is a great system and I want to keep the mesh for house coverage but have two questions:

- from a download performance standpoint, is it better to bridge the mesh system or the BlueCurve? I understand each way has minor limitations on adjustments but is one way a better speed performer?

- is there anything else I should be doing on the BlueCurve Router Settings if I bridge the mesh system?

[mdk]

I do not know what "bridging the EERO" would accomplish -- it even seems to be unlikely for it to have that feature ?!

In "router" mode, the BlueCurve gives you a WiFi network, and wireless links to other "slave" set-top boxes.

In "bridged" mode, it supplies a "public" IP-address to one device, namely your EERO, but neither of the above 2 features.

I don't expect any performance-differences between "bridged" and "router" traffic.

Any "router" must supply NAT (Network Address Translation), to deliver "incoming" network traffic to the device on your local network that requested that traffic.  But, if you are downloading one large file, or streaming a video, the router has to perform only one "NAT" for that connection -- not one per TCP/IP packet.

Ensure that your Ethernet cables are labelled "CAT-5e" or "CAT-6", because "CAT-5" cables are certified only up to 100 Mbps -- not good-enough, if you have "Shaw 300" or "Shaw 600" Internet.

Of course, the speed of your WiFi devices is limited by the WiFi adapter inside each device. For example, an iPhone-4S has a maximum of 63 Mbps, and an older iPad has a maximum of 150 Mbps.

[Steve34]

Thanks for the reply - my goal is to get Wi-Fi to a multi-floor house, and the EERO (and it’s slave units) did a great distribution job of that with the previous Internet provider, although I previously used that Telus modem/router as the bridge to the EERO mesh to have the EERO do all the distribution work.

When setting this up I used the EERO as the bridge rather than the Shaw modem/router, so I’m trying to understand if it’s better this way or should I be using the Shaw modem/router in bridge mode to the EERO system, or would it make any difference either way.

Hadn’t thought about the cabling, though, thanks for that.

[mdk]

> When setting this up I used the EERO as the bridge rather than the Shaw modem/router,

I don't understand. I don't see how it is possible to completely bypass the Shaw device -- it has coaxial input, and Ethernet (with WiFi) output. I doubt that the EERO has the functionality to replace the Shaw device, but (allegedly) I have been wrong before. 🙂

> I’m trying to understand if it’s better this way or should I be using the Shaw modem/router in bridge mode to the EERO system, or would it make any difference either way.

Given that the Shaw device must be present, I think that it does not matter if the EERO receives a "private" IP-address from the Shaw router, or receives a "public" IP-address from a "bridged" Shaw router.

If you leave the Shaw device in "router" mode, you'll have one WiFi network "near" (horizontal vicinity, and up/down, too) to the Shaw device, in addition to another WiFi network provide by your "mesh" of EERO slaves everywhere else in your home. That is one difference -- just connect a specific WiFi device to the "better" WiFi network.  How often does a specific WiFi-connected device move throughout your home, to make it necessary to disconnect it from one WiFi network, and to connect it to the other WiFi network?  The only other difference is that devices connected to Shaw's WiFI network may not be able to communicate ("share files/folders/printers") with devices connected to the EERO's WiFi network.

[rstra]

If you had the Telus modem in bridge mode when you were with them, I would do the same and bridge the Shaw modem and use EERO as the router. 

[rickatk]

That is how I did my setup for a few years. I simply put the Shaw cable modem in to bridge mode and my AirPort Extreme did the wifi part.

Not withstanding @mdk ‘s very detailed explanation seems the EERO package would do the wifi part in bridged mode. 

[Steve34]

Thanks for all the comments - I did put the Gateway into bridge mode and reconfigured the EERO to handle the Wi-Fi and it works as brilliantly as EERO does, I’d say so far better overall connectivity than when I had it in the reverse. The only downside I can see is you can’t use the BlueCurve app when the modem is in bridge mode, but that’s no loss if you can run a mesh network yourself.

[rstra]

The EERO devices look good. I have the Shaw pods, which I am happy with, but I am tired of spending $10 a month.

[Steve34]

Absolutely happy with them, they worked perfectly out of the box, have a slim profile and (except for the master unit that plugs into the router) they plug right into the wall without blocking a second plug. Very easy to use.

[mdk]

> seems the EERO package would do the WiFi part in bridged mode. 

You are not bridging the EERO. You are bridging the Shaw cable-modem.

When the Shaw cable-modem is bridged, the EERO receives a "public" IP-address, assigned by Shaw's DHCP-server. Additionally, the cable-modem is NOT providing WiFi.

When the Shaw cable-modem is not bridged, the EERO receives a "private" IP-address, assigned by the DHCP-server inside the Shaw cable-modem. Additionally, the cable-modem is providing WiFi.

Either way, the EERO is providing WiFi to your mesh.

So, any difference in "performance" depends on the speeds of the processors inside the cable-modem and the processors inside the EERO.  Either the non-bridged cable-modem is doing NAT (Network Address Translation) or the bridged cable-modem is relying on the EERO to do the NAT for its clients.