John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:34:17 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1houwni.1xh69001thqu04N%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>
> >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Instead of a simple repeater you can use a wireless Ethernet bridge
> >> (that can support enough clients) cabled to a wireless access point on a
> >> different non-overlapping channel; i.e.,
> >
> >What sort of router are you assuming the Wi-Fi Router is? This router
> >(which the OP already has) will have to share bandwidth amongst stations
> >connecting directly with this router as well as the bridge.
>
> Of course. But a simple repeater only makes things (much) worse by
> cutting the available wireless bandwidth in half. With a remote access
> point on a different non-overlapping channel, full Wi-Fi bandwidth is
> preserved.

Do you mean, because the repeater runs at a slower speed it will then
slow down the router? How would that effect bandwidth?

Say the router could run at max (nom) 54 Mbps and the repeater runs at
27 Mbps. That slows down the router to 27 Mbps. A station connects
directly with the router. There's still 27 Mbps available.