This topic has been marked solved and closed to new posts due to inactivity. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.
Hoping to use Nighthawk AC1900 C7000 as an extension router From an ATT DSL modem/router
After using my Nighthawk AC1900 in a Cable Modem environment, I recently changed internet service/TV providers and the new one ATT Uverse utilizes a PACE Model 5268 AC (DSL).
It is my hope to use perfectly good Nighthawk AC1900 as an extension hub utilizing one of the lan outputs on the PACE 5268 (cat5) feeding under the house to the Pace modem. The issue is one of connectivity in that the Netgear Nighthawk has a COAX input and the outputs on the PACE are all Cat5. Is there any way I can effectively get these two devices to talk to each other with a converter?
Re: Hoping to use Nighthawk AC1900 C7000 as an extension router From an ATT DSL modem/router
> There is such a thing as a coax / cat5 adapter, but they are not cheap > (~$100) and they may not allow the same speeds.
I would not expect any such adapter to be useful in this situation.
> [...] use the Netgear in Bridge / extender modes [...]
Does a Cxxxx have such modes? Documentation?
> [...] you can use a cat5 cable right from the 5268 to the input port > on the Netgear using an adapter and then use that as your primary.
This is nonsense. First, all ports on these devices are bidirectional; there are no "inputs" or "outputs".
Second, a Cxxxx modem+router is expecting its co-axial cable connector to be connected to a cable-TV-type ISP. Any adapter (modem) which simply converts twisted-pair Ethernet signals to/from co-axial cable signals will not magically convert a Cxxxx into an Rxxxx.
> Google "cat5 to coax network adapter" to see what options you have.
Complete waste of time and effort. (And money, if you buy anything.)
Re: Hoping to use Nighthawk AC1900 C7000 as an extension router From an ATT DSL modem/router
> It is my hope to use perfectly good Nighthawk AC1900 as an extension > hub utilizing one of the lan outputs on the PACE 5268 (cat5) feeding > under the house to the Pace modem. [...]
Eh? Connecting what with what?
> [...] The issue is one of connectivity [...]
That's one of them.
> [...] Is there any way I can effectively get these two devices to talk > to each other with a converter?
Not "with a converter", but you might be able to employ the C7000 as a wireless access point. See, for example:
Re: Hoping to use Nighthawk AC1900 C7000 as an extension router From an ATT DSL modem/router
Jason,
As Antinode points out, you have a couple of different options. There is such a thing as a coax / cat5 adapter, but they are not cheap (~$100) and they may not allow the same speeds.
Since the 5268AC is itself a wifi AP, you can either a) use the 5268 as your primary device and use the Netgear in Bridge / extender modes OR b) if the distance is not too far, you can use a cat5 cable right from the 5268 to the input port on the Netgear using an adapter and then use that as your primary.
Google "cat5 to coax network adapter" to see what options you have. I think the extender mode is your better option.
Re: Hoping to use Nighthawk AC1900 C7000 as an extension router From an ATT DSL modem/router
> There is such a thing as a coax / cat5 adapter, but they are not cheap > (~$100) and they may not allow the same speeds.
I would not expect any such adapter to be useful in this situation.
> [...] use the Netgear in Bridge / extender modes [...]
Does a Cxxxx have such modes? Documentation?
> [...] you can use a cat5 cable right from the 5268 to the input port > on the Netgear using an adapter and then use that as your primary.
This is nonsense. First, all ports on these devices are bidirectional; there are no "inputs" or "outputs".
Second, a Cxxxx modem+router is expecting its co-axial cable connector to be connected to a cable-TV-type ISP. Any adapter (modem) which simply converts twisted-pair Ethernet signals to/from co-axial cable signals will not magically convert a Cxxxx into an Rxxxx.
> Google "cat5 to coax network adapter" to see what options you have.
Complete waste of time and effort. (And money, if you buy anything.)
Re: Hoping to use Nighthawk AC1900 C7000 as an extension router From an ATT DSL modem/router
As my sole intention was to get OFF of WiFi , I won't be going that route, but I thank you for your idea and time spent. Still, I think the real issue is trying to go OUT of a DSL Modem/Router into a CABLE Modem/Router - simply not compatible. I think my best plan at this point is to dump the C7000 on ebay (now worth around 1/3 of what I paid 2 years ago) and just buy an inexpensive LAN hub "switch" with the money.
Re: Hoping to use Nighthawk AC1900 C7000 as an extension router From an ATT DSL modem/router
> As my sole intention was to get OFF of WiFi , [...]
I missed that part of your original problem description.
> [...] I won't be going that route, [...]
Which route, exactly, is "that route"?
> [...] I think the real issue is trying to go OUT of a DSL Modem/Router > into a CABLE Modem/Router - simply not compatible. [...]
No, that's not "the real issue. And, as explained above, "OUT" and "into" are not valid concepts in this context.
One real problem is that the cable modem+router lacks an Ethernet WAN/Internet port, making it useless as a _router_. But that doesn't make it completely useless. As explained, it should be possible to configure it as a WAP. And, when you do that, you don't _need_ to use its wireless-network radios. The remainder of its LAN Ethernet ports would still be available as if it were a network switch (which, effectively, it is).
> [...] I think my best plan at this point is to dump the C7000 on ebay > (now worth around 1/3 of what I paid 2 years ago) and just buy an > inexpensive LAN hub "switch" with the money.
If you need more than three (four total minus one to connect to the main router) Ethernet ports from the gizmo, then a C7000-as-WAP can't do what you want. A simple (unmanaged) network switch is certainly easier to configure, because you don't need to cripple its useless features. But, if three remote Ethernet ports will let you connect what you want, then the C7000, properly configured, should be able to provide that, at no additional cost.
A wireless access point is called a _wireless_ access point because it provides wireless access, not because it uses a wireless connection to the main router.
But if all you need is a network switch, and selling the C7000 would pay for one (doubtless with more ports), then it's ok with me.
