Ahhhh... now it is starting to make sense. Thanks for the detailed
replies. I am assuming that I can use one of my existing wireless
routers and shut down everything so that I turn it into an access
point. I will definitely keep WPA on the wireless, but your reply does
make me think I might want to have a second subnet. Since the implied
benefit there is that the two are kept at arms length, although, where
I live there is little threat introduced by my wifi spillover.

My guess is that if I set up a separate subnet this would prevent
wireless connected users from using services (printers etc) on the
other subnet; which is part of what I was hoping to have available.
Would this impact the internet sharing capability?

Bill

Bill Kearney wrote:
> > What I think I want is for the wireless router to employ a pass through
> > DHCP call to the first router so that it is in effect, one network.
> > Again, I am not well versed in this so it is a trial and error.
> >
> > Am I making this too complicated in my mind?
>
> Yes, sort of.
>
> You're on the right track regarding having one DHCP server if you're going
> to have just one subnet. If you're using WPA security on the WiFi then it's
> not unreasonable to use just one subnet. But if you're going to leave the
> wifi unprotected it's a good idea NOT to have it on the same subnet. It's
> OK to do this (assuming you want to share the wifi or something) but it's
> not without adding configuration work.
>
> When you tack on wifi to a wired network the 'simplest' way to do it is as
> an access point. That way it's just a connection, not a routing point. It
> merely passes the DHCP packets onto the wired network. It's common to also
> disable all server 'features' on the wifi router and let it operate just as
> an access point. Then plug a wired connection from the existing network
> into one of the LAN ports on the wifi router. This to avoid any features
> that might depend on using the WAN port on the wifi router. This works
> pretty well.
>
> > The question on hardware really was more about what someone might
> > suggest given the goal of reliability. Just looking through the online
> > descriptions of routers, I have seen some of the routers described as
> > having QoS functionality... should I be looking for things like this?
>
> QoS is great, if you've got all devices involved supporting it. That
> includes the uplink gear at your ISP. It's a way for higher priority
> traffic to get passed through faster in the event of other activity. This
> is important for stuff like voice over IP. But it's not going to be
> terribly useful if your ISP isn't also supporting it. Sometimes the router
> hardware will be better in order to support the features (more CPU speed,
> ram, etc).
>
> -Bill Kearney