# Unapproved DECA to switch setup?



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

dwcolvin said:


> *If* you're adventurous and one of your CAT5-attached receivers is near your router or a switch with an extra connection, put the DECA in line with the receiver coax connection (which simultaneously powers the DECA and is a Band Stop filter), then _plug the Ethernet cable from the DECA into the router/switch_ (*leave the receiver connected to the router/switch*). _Voilla!_ Internet connection with no additional splitter, power supply or Band Stop filter. Yes, I've done this, it works, but as always, YMMV. Note that the bridge will go down briefly when the receiver reboots.


Seems very clean. Is this method approved? Are there any issues with connecting this way?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

-Draino- said:


> Seems very clean. Is this method approved? Are there any issues with connecting this way?


"Approved" ? NO. 
Could it work? yes


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

-Draino- said:


> Seems very clean. Is this method approved? Are there any issues with connecting this way?


My problem with what's pictured is that the HR is not in the DECA cloud when connected directly to the LAN switch. Ya, it will work as an MRV client/server, but at least on paper, it's not an optimal configuration.


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> "Approved" ? NO.
> Could it work? yes


Ok so it's not approved.....any reason??? It seems so simple and clean there must be some reason why they would not approve this?

I'm thinking of using this setup but I don't want to ruin a new receiver or damage the DECA unit


----------



## jpitlick (Apr 19, 2007)

-Draino- said:


> Ok so it's not approved.....any reason??? It seems so simple and clean there must be some reason why they would not approve this?
> 
> I'm thinking of using this setup but I don't want to ruin a new receiver or damage the DECA unit


You're not going to ruin anything. You just won't officially have the best performance.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

-Draino- said:


> Ok so it's not approved.....any reason??? [...]


See my post above for why I think it's not optimal.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

-Draino- said:


> Ok so it's not approved.....any reason???


The "simple answer" is you're adding in "crap" that isn't part of the DirecTV service/install/connected home networking.
Why do something they don't support?

Yes many will modify what DirecTV does for their own reasons/needs, but understand it will all be "on you" to sort out any problems that may arise.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

Steve said:


> My problem with what's pictured is that the HR is not in the DECA cloud when connected directly to the LAN switch. Ya, it will work as an MRV client/server, but at least on paper, it's not an optimal configuration.


!rolling

The 'DECA cloud' is plugged in to the same Ethernet switch as the HR. There is _no_ network delay (and infinitessimal switching delay) between the 'DECA cloud' and the 100 Mbps RJ45 input on the HR. Now, I can see how Hx24s _could_ achieve greater than 100 Mbps FDX on the 'DECA cloud', but as long as you're using DECA adapters, you're limited to 100 Mbps Ethernet (since that's how the DECA adapter connects to the HR).

D* wouldn't suggest this because there's no requirement to have a receiver near an Ethernet connection (that's the whole point of DECA). If you _do_, this works.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Doesn't this change the receiver from being on the DECA cloud to the same as being on a LAN?


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

The only problem I could see happening with this setup would be if the other 2 devices plugged into this switch also tried sending info over the DECA cloud at the same time as the HD-DVR.

If that doesn't happen I don't see this causing any issues as the DECA connection to the HD-DVR is already limited to 100Mbps (assuming that switch is 100Mbps, and not an old 10Mbps switch).


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Doesn't this change the receiver from being on the DECA cloud to the same as being on a LAN?


Yup.



dwcolvin said:


> !rolling
> 
> The 'DECA cloud' is plugged in to the same Ethernet switch as the HR. There is _no_ network delay (and infinitessimal switching delay) between the 'DECA cloud' and the 100 Mbps RJ45 input on the HR. Now, I can see how Hx24s _could_ achieve greater than 100 Mbps FDX on the 'DECA cloud', but as long as you're using DECA adapters, you're limited to 100 Mbps Ethernet (since that's how the DECA adapter connects to the HR).


You can laugh all you want, but you've created a hybrid CAT5/DECA MRV network here that denies that HR any MRV QOS benefits that DECA may provide it. Whether or not you think that's important is up to you and has been the subject of 2-3 threads on DECA vs. CAT5, so let's not get into it here.

Simply put, in practice this may work, but in theory, it's not the way DirecTV intended DECA to be implemented.


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> The "simple answer" is you're adding in "crap" that isn't part of the DirecTV service/install/connected home networking.
> Why do something they don't support?
> 
> Yes many will modify what DirecTV does for their own reasons/needs, but understand it will all be "on you" to sort out any problems that may arise.


I'm the type that loves to have "optimal" performance. When there is a proven method to achieve that, I'm all for it.

VOS you say I won't get that by "adding in crap" I'm not sure I understand that. The OP of the picture says that we are actually getting rid of crap "with no additional splitter, power supply or Band Stop filter"

Just seems like getting rid of a splitter alone would allow for a cleaner signal.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

Steve said:


> Yup.
> 
> You can laugh all you want, but you're created a hybrid CAT5/DECA MRV network here that denies that HR any MRV QOS benefits that DECA may provide it. Whether or not you think that's important is up to you and has been the subject of 2-3 threads on DECA vs. CAT5, so let's not get into it here.
> 
> Simply put, in practice this may work, but in theory, it's not the way DirecTV intended DECA to be implemented.


Yes, I know, I created a hybrid CAT5/DECA MRV network, that was my goal. As part of the Beta (and before ) I had already connected all the HRs to Gigabit switches. All I really needed from DECA was to connect a receiver that didn't have Ethernet wiring.

Since I now have some DECA-capable receivers, they're all on the 'DECA cloud'. The other 2 HRs are on Gigabit Ethernet. There's no perceptable difference in performance, one way or another.

"_Simply put, in practice this may work, but in theory, it's not the way DirecTV intended DECA to be implemented_." *I couldn't agree more.* 
But it's not any more unsupported than just using Ethernet would be.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

-Draino- said:


> VOS you say I won't get that by "adding in crap" I'm not sure I understand that. The OP of the picture says that we are actually getting rid of crap "with no additional splitter, power supply or Band Stop filter"
> 
> Just seems like getting rid of a splitter alone would allow for a cleaner signal.


Remember you're not seeing the whole system picture.
"Crap" is the addition of other traffic though one DECA.
Splitter & bandstop filter [count] isn't any different.
Well maybe there might be one more splitter somewhere for the DECA to router bridge and a small PI for it, but this doesn't need to be near the receiver.
Bandstop filter count/need doesn't change AT ALL.

"So" adding in a switch one place that could reduce the DECA performance is "cleaner" than having another DECA close to your router and a PI to power it in another place?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dwcolvin said:


> "_Simply put, in practice this may work, but in theory, it's not the way DirecTV intended DECA to be implemented_." *I couldn't agree more.*
> But it's not any more unsupported than just using Ethernet would be.


BINGO!

We have the winner here.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

Beerstalker said:


> The only problem I could see happening with this setup would be if the other 2 devices plugged into this switch also tried sending info over the DECA cloud at the same time as the HD-DVR.
> 
> If that doesn't happen I don't see this causing any issues as the DECA connection to the HD-DVR is already limited to 100Mbps (assuming that switch is 100Mbps, and not an old 10Mbps switch).


The three devices are 1) the Home Network; 2) the HR; 3) the 'DECA cloud'

It's a Gigabit switch.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

In that case I really don't see this causing any issues at all. In essence you are just using one DECA module as both the DECA for the receiver, and the broadband DECA. When using MRV the receiver shouldn't even notice that it is going through the switch, it should just go from the receiver to the DECA adapter and out to the other receivers. When using Media Share or On Demand the receiver won't even realize it is on DECA and it will just talk directly to your router.

At least that is how I understand it would work. I don't think the receiver would keep looking at your home network when it is trying to talk to the other devices. I also don't see why anything on your home network would ever cross into the DECA cloud either unless you were trying to use MediaShare/On Demand.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I don't know why this has to be an argument at all.

Yes, it should work fine. Yes, it is unsupported.

You are free to set it up like that, just if you have ANY problems with MRV or network related applications on your DVR you should be expected to take this hybrid portion out of the mix (easy enough to do) to get support from DirecTV or us for that matter. Networking can bey very simple, but VERY complex as well. It is dumbed down in a home environment, but just one device can mess things up majorly and be hard to track down.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> [...] In essence you are just using one DECA module as both the DECA for the receiver, and the broadband DECA [...]


Just to be clear, as configured, that module is only being used as the broadband DECA. The pictured receiver is connected CAT5 to the LAN switch.


----------



## dvdmth (Jul 24, 2008)

In our case, the installer who did the MRV upgrade didn't provide a network DECA, so we picked up a 10/100 switch and stuck it between the basement HR21 and the DECA (there was already a cat5 connection available there). Nothing else is on that switch. I've done some MRV testing with all three DVR's (an HR24 with built-in DECA, an HR22 with "proper" DECA install, and the HR21 with the 10/100 switch between it and the DECA). The only difference I could notice was that playback started a little faster if the HR24 was the server (most likely due to the faster processor in that unit). There was no discernible difference whatsoever between the HR22 and HR21, so the 10/100 switch has no apparent effect on performance in our setup.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dvdmth said:


> In our case, the installer who did the MRV upgrade didn't provide a network DECA, so we picked up a 10/100 switch and stuck it between the basement HR21 and the DECA (there was already a cat5 connection available there). Nothing else is on that switch. I've done some MRV testing with all three DVR's (an HR24 with built-in DECA, an HR22 with "proper" DECA install, and the HR21 with the 10/100 switch between it and the DECA). The only difference I could notice was that playback started a little faster if the HR24 was the server (most likely due to the faster processor in that unit). There was no discernible difference whatsoever between the HR22 and HR21, so the 10/100 switch has no apparent effect on performance in our setup.


In your case the installer should have added the DECA to router bridge, since it was part of your upgrade.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Somebody needs to explain to me and the others what additional / spurious network traffic this is imposing / causing on the DECA cloud. It actually looks like a good way to avoid one more Deca adapter and power supply for the broadband interconnect.

I may try it depending on the results of my installation tomorrow and report back.

(No conclusions in advance, but I'd bet there's no appreciable difference - it's a 100MB or GB switch.)


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

One more thing (without going against the grain here), from reading the terribly long threads about the DECA / MRV threads, 'unsupported' seems to mean something between what the installers haven't done / don't know / or WE (people here) haven't provided the training / pictures / work arounds for them.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> One more thing (without going against the grain here), from reading the terribly long threads about the DECA / MRV threads, 'unsupported' seems to mean something between what the installers haven't done / don't know / or WE (people here) haven't provided the training / pictures / work arounds for them.


That means, if the installer was to show up and see this bastardization of a setup, be prepared for him to say "Not my problem to fix" and leave.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

dennisj00 said:


> Somebody needs to explain to me and the others what additional / spurious network traffic this is imposing / causing on the DECA cloud. It actually looks like a good way to avoid one more Deca adapter and power supply for the broadband interconnect.
> 
> I may try it depending on the results of my installation tomorrow and report back.
> 
> (No conclusions in advance, but I'd bet there's no appreciable difference - it's a 100MB or GB switch.)


I just got my DECA units today from Solid Signal. I set mine up in this manner to avoid just that... having to purchase another adapter and PI just to get the internet on the cloud.

My HR22 is on the 'cloud' and my HR21 is on a gig switch that has the 2nd DECA adapter on it.

So far so good, no problems and it's a huge improvement over my wireless 'N' hybrid setup.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Somebody needs to explain to me and the others what additional / spurious network traffic this is imposing / causing on the DECA cloud. It actually looks like a good way to avoid one more Deca adapter and power supply for the broadband interconnect.
> 
> I may try it depending on the results of my installation tomorrow and report back.
> 
> (No conclusions in advance, but I'd bet there's no appreciable difference - it's a 100MB or GB switch.)


I can tell you right now it works fine and has no appreciable difference at all in my testing (I have run a hybrid DECA/Ethernet network for awhile now). But that does not change the fact that it is unsupported and if ANY issues arise, it is expected that you remove it from the equation to see what is going on.


----------



## premio (Sep 26, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> Somebody needs to explain to me and the others what additional / spurious network traffic this is imposing / causing on the DECA cloud. It actually looks like a good way to avoid one more Deca adapter and power supply for the broadband interconnect.
> 
> I may try it depending on the results of my installation tomorrow and report back.
> 
> (No conclusions in advance, but I'd bet there's no appreciable difference - it's a 100MB or GB switch.)


I haven't made the phone call yet to order this stuff yet (my disclaimer), but from a network perspective and how I /think/ this is working:

The negative is that the DECA device is negotiating one channel on the RG6 LAN (why are people calling this a cloud?). Let's say that channel has 100Mb of throughput. In theory the receiver needs all of that, when you split that bandwidth out to to other devices you are possibly limiting what is available to the receiver. Since there is no QoS *quality of service* built into most consumer switches, the second device could theoretically take needed bandwidth away from the receiver causing frame dropouts, frozen screens, etc. If you're sharing it to other devices that simply need internet, most likely your internet pipe itself will limit throughput to the other devices. My PS3, tv, HD-DVD, and HR20 will go on one switch connected to a DECA. They will be limited by the fact that my Internet is only 18Mbps, leaving 82Mbps for the receiver's video traffic.

Now, if you were to install a laptop on that switch and start copying 40Gb of movies/music from a local computer connected via a different DECA segment, you'll likely steal all the bandwidth and mess MRV up. DirecTV did not design this to be your all purpose network backbone.

Educating consumers on the effects that their other computer habits would have on MRV would be a nightmare, I don't blame D* for saying its not supported.


----------



## hitokage (Jan 19, 2010)

premio said:


> (why are people calling this a cloud?)


It's one of the current popular IT industry buzzwords like SaS.

As soon as I get a hold of some DECAs I'm going to try some experiments.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

-Draino- said:


> Seems very clean. Is this method approved? Are there any issues with connecting this way?


Couple points:
1) As others have pointed out, the HR attached is not supported since its technically Ethernet, but it'd be easy to swap it to supported in this scenario.  Let your conscience be your guide. 
2) In terms of what you are doing - realistically the picture makes it worse than it really is. The ONLY thing you have done is used an HR as a power supply. Good/Bad/Acceptable? Who knows. Worth it? I wouldn't really think so, nor does it seem like this would make sense in the vast majority of installations.

So, is the method approved? From an installer or D* perspective? No. Will it work? Obviously. Is it the best setup? Its up to you... I wouldn't do it because it ties together components that don't need to be tied together. I'd rather just put the DECA on the HR and get a DECA bridge and put it in place. Would eliminate a whole lot of questions, further isolate the traffic, bring better QoS to the cloud, etc.

Cloud = Since DECA is installed in an RF environment that is not linear, but multipath - it is commonly called a cloud because the path a signal takes may not always be consistent. The packet enters the "cloud" (your RF wiring) and exits at the end device. Exactly how it gets there we don't know. Versus Ethernet where you have predictable and defined paths - no questions there.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

why pay for deca and support then do something like that.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

RobertE said:


> That means, if the installer was to show up and see this bastardization of a setup, be prepared for him to say "Not my problem to fix" and leave.


did I see mention somewhere that is other systems in house had issues and this were found it would be unplugged and the customer charged for fixes?


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> did I see mention somewhere that is other systems in house had issues and this were found it would be unplugged and the customer charged for fixes?


If the tech determines that the root cause of the issues is customer caused, then yes the customer can be charged for the cost of the repair and the truck roll, even if they have the protection plan.

The customer must be advised and agree to the charges before the repairs are made. If the customer says no, then the tech can walk, leaving the customer to DIY.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

RobertE said:


> That means, if the installer was to show up and see this bastardization of a setup, be prepared for him to say "Not my problem to fix" and leave.


As they will for _*anyone*_ with the MRV 'u' flag set... in fact, I wouldn't expect an installer to even be dispatched.

I _absolutely_ do not advocate anyone not network-saavy to do anything but have a complete, supported DECA install (unfortunately, we all know how well that's working in some cases).

But for capable DIYers, this works.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

dwcolvin said:


> As they will for _*anyone*_ with the MRV 'u' flag set... in fact, I wouldn't expect an installer to even be dispatched.
> 
> I _absolutely_ do not advocate anyone not network-saavy to do anything but have a complete, supported DECA install (unfortunately, we all know how well that's working in some cases).
> 
> But for capable DIYers, this works.


You'd be surprised at what people pull to try and get free service calls and/or free service. :nono2:


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

premio said:


> I haven't made the phone call yet to order this stuff yet (my disclaimer), but from a network perspective and how I /think/ this is working:
> 
> The negative is that the DECA device is negotiating one channel on the RG6 LAN (why are people calling this a cloud?). Let's say that channel has 100Mb of throughput. In theory the receiver needs all of that, when you split that bandwidth out to to other devices you are possibly limiting what is available to the receiver. Since there is no QoS *quality of service* built into most consumer switches, the second device could theoretically take needed bandwidth away from the receiver causing frame dropouts, frozen screens, etc. If you're sharing it to other devices that simply need internet, most likely your internet pipe itself will limit throughput to the other devices. My PS3, tv, HD-DVD, and HR20 will go on one switch connected to a DECA. They will be limited by the fact that my Internet is only 18Mbps, leaving 82Mbps for the receiver's video traffic.
> 
> ...


*There is no doubt that the DECA here is a 100 Mbps bottleneck.* :grin:
The worst case scenario is that two DVRs on DECA are streaming to two Ethernet-attached receivers. In practice, this is not a problem 
(and if it were, moving the DVRs back to Gigabit Ethernet would fix it).

The switch in this case is Gigabit, _not_ consumer, and has nothing else attached so is isolated from any other non-D* traffic (at least, as much as all-DECA with IC is).

Once again, I do not advocate this for anyone but knowledgeable DIYers who already have receivers on an Ethernet network (or as a stop-gap for improperly installed DECA upgrades).


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

premio said:


> The negative is that the DECA device is negotiating one channel on the RG6 LAN (why are people calling this a cloud?).


It's being called a cloud because it is more of a P2P setup. There is no central switch or other device handling the connections like in a typical network. Each DECA just seeks out other DECAs and they form their own "cloud" without having any main device controlling them.

That, and cloud is a popular IT word right now


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Grentz said:


> It's being called a cloud because it is more of a P2P setup. There is no central switch or other device handling the connections like in a typical network. Each DECA just seeks out other DECAs and they form their own "cloud" without having any main device controlling them.
> 
> That, and cloud is a popular IT word right now


Anybody trying to follow the RF signals, will understand why "cloud" is used.


----------



## premio (Sep 26, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Anybody trying to follow the RF signals, will understand why "cloud" is used.


Thanks,

I was under the impression that a cloud reference meant that the services had to be Internet based, specifically since the term was derived from the old Visio diagram used for the Internet - which was a cloud.

I'm also going to start calling WLAN's a cloud now which use RF. I could have sworn coax passed electrons in different frequencies, but didn't rely on Radio transmission. Back to EE school for me.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

premio said:


> Thanks,
> 
> I was under the impression that a cloud reference meant that the services had to be Internet based, specifically since the term was derived from the old Visio diagram used for the Internet - which was a cloud.
> 
> I'm also going to start calling WLAN's a cloud now which use RF. I could have sworn coax passed electrons in different frequencies, but didn't rely on Radio transmission. Back to EE school for me.


WLANs you can at least recognize the signal path "A to B", where as within the coax & splitters, the DECA signal has multiple paths and by trying to monitor them, the act of doing so can change the path used. I look at this more like an electron cloud, where there is no certainty of exactly where the electron is at any on point in time, hence "the cloud".


----------

