Wireless Access Point Modes

I've been struggling, perhaps just with vocabulary, in trying to set up
a home network. Here's the scenario: In one end of an L-shaped house,
I have a combination DSL modem/wireless router that is serving a desktop
and a couple of wireless media devices.

In the other end of the L-shaped house, in a split-level basement, is a
home theater. I only lost one testicle crawling through the rafters to
get a wire run from the router to a switch right behind the component
rack. I will shortly be installing a Netflix-enabled Blu-ray player in
that rack.

There are several smart phones roaming around the property, so I would
like to plug an access point into that switch, to get full coverage.
Ideally, it should just extend my existing wireless network so that I do
not have induce those devices into using the strongest access point.
(There will likely be a slight overlap in coverage at the crotch of the
"L", but the ends of the house are effectively blind to each other, save
the hard wire.)

I've looked at a variety of setups for APs, but they all seem to require
you to be able to see the pre-existing wireless network before you can
repeat/extend it. Isn't there some way I can just configure it to put
out the "same" wireless network for clients, but then run the data down
the copper connection?

- - - - - - - - -

I have one of these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833704049

But their difficult-to-understand tech support informs me I cannot do
what I've outlined above.

Here is an excerpt from the manual concerning the AP's modes:

| Supports multiple operating modes including:
|
| Access Point - Makes the AP an ideal solution for
| your wireless local area network. You can create
| a wireless local area network.
|
| Multi-SSID - Allows the wireless adapter to access
| to different LANs appropriate to your needs by
| connecting to different SSID.
|
| Client - Wirelessly connects Ethernet devices.
|
| Repeater （Universal Repeater） - Relays signal
| between its stations and the root AP for greater
| wireless range.
|
| Bridge (Point to Point, Point to Multi-point) -
| Bridges the AP and another AP also in bridge mode
| to connect two or more wired LANs.

Tech support suggested that I go ahead and set it up in AP mode, using
the same ssid, channel, security settings, etc. as my wireless router.
When I asked if that would cause a problem when I'm in that overlap area
where the router *and* the AP can be seen by my wireless device. The
tech did not seem to have contemplated that situation, nor was inclined
to do so.

At that point, My will and schedule were broken, so I just set it up in
AP mode with a different ssid and channel, and called it a day.

Is it crazy for me to think I can do what I'm suggesting?

- - - - - - - - -

Thanks guys.

On 10/9/2011 5:26 PM, Grinder wrote:
> I've been struggling, perhaps just with vocabulary, in trying to set up a
> home network. Here's the scenario: In one end of an L-shaped house, I have
> a combination DSL modem/wireless router that is serving a desktop and a
> couple of wireless media devices.
>
> In the other end of the L-shaped house, in a split-level basement, is a
> home theater. I only lost one testicle crawling through the rafters to get
> a wire run from the router to a switch right behind the component rack. I
> will shortly be installing a Netflix-enabled Blu-ray player in that rack.
>
> There are several smart phones roaming around the property, so I would like
> to plug an access point into that switch, to get full coverage. Ideally, it
> should just extend my existing wireless network so that I do not have
> induce those devices into using the strongest access point. (There will
> likely be a slight overlap in coverage at the crotch of the "L", but the
> ends of the house are effectively blind to each other, save the hard wire.)
>
> I've looked at a variety of setups for APs, but they all seem to require
> you to be able to see the pre-existing wireless network before you can
> repeat/extend it. Isn't there some way I can just configure it to put out
> the "same" wireless network for clients, but then run the data down the
> copper connection?
>
> - - - - - - - - -
>
> I have one of these:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833704049
>
> But their difficult-to-understand tech support informs me I cannot do what
> I've outlined above.
>
> Here is an excerpt from the manual concerning the AP's modes:
>
> | Supports multiple operating modes including:
> |
> | Access Point - Makes the AP an ideal solution for
> | your wireless local area network. You can create
> | a wireless local area network.
> |
> | Multi-SSID - Allows the wireless adapter to access
> | to different LANs appropriate to your needs by
> | connecting to different SSID.
> |
> | Client - Wirelessly connects Ethernet devices.
> |
> | Repeater （Universal Repeater） - Relays signal
> | between its stations and the root AP for greater
> | wireless range.
> |
> | Bridge (Point to Point, Point to Multi-point) -
> | Bridges the AP and another AP also in bridge mode
> | to connect two or more wired LANs.
>
> Tech support suggested that I go ahead and set it up in AP mode, using the
> same ssid, channel, security settings, etc. as my wireless router. When I
> asked if that would cause a problem when I'm in that overlap area where the
> router *and* the AP can be seen by my wireless device. The tech did not
> seem to have contemplated that situation, nor was inclined to do so.
>
> At that point, My will and schedule were broken, so I just set it up in AP
> mode with a different ssid and channel, and called it a day.
>
> Is it crazy for me to think I can do what I'm suggesting?
>
> - - - - - - - - -
>
> Thanks guys.

Maybe I'm not understanding the problem. Why not just set the unit up as a
standard WAP and have a go at it? You really have nothing to lose except
for a few minutes of time. Your devices are up to figuring out which WAP on
the network they want to use. Big companies have WAPs by the dozen and
their portable devices get along pretty well. You will want to use proper
security settings and if your other unit is what you are satisfied with you
should use the same settings for the new one (I would). SSID will need to
be the same IIRC. Channels can take care of themselves pretty well but if
you encounter interference you can always take care of the housekeeping
afterwards. Don't forget, you are not repeating the existing, you are
extending.

All of this just reminds me of why I loathe wireless for use in fixed
locations such as a home. Give me wires any day.

On 10/9/2011 7:33 PM, John McGaw wrote:
> On 10/9/2011 5:26 PM, Grinder wrote:
>> I've been struggling, perhaps just with vocabulary, in trying to set up a
>> home network. Here's the scenario: In one end of an L-shaped house, I
>> have
>> a combination DSL modem/wireless router that is serving a desktop and a
>> couple of wireless media devices.
>>
>> In the other end of the L-shaped house, in a split-level basement, is a
>> home theater. I only lost one testicle crawling through the rafters to
>> get
>> a wire run from the router to a switch right behind the component rack. I
>> will shortly be installing a Netflix-enabled Blu-ray player in that rack.
>>
>> There are several smart phones roaming around the property, so I would
>> like
>> to plug an access point into that switch, to get full coverage.
>> Ideally, it
>> should just extend my existing wireless network so that I do not have
>> induce those devices into using the strongest access point. (There will
>> likely be a slight overlap in coverage at the crotch of the "L", but the
>> ends of the house are effectively blind to each other, save the hard
>> wire.)
>>
>> I've looked at a variety of setups for APs, but they all seem to require
>> you to be able to see the pre-existing wireless network before you can
>> repeat/extend it. Isn't there some way I can just configure it to put out
>> the "same" wireless network for clients, but then run the data down the
>> copper connection?
>>
>> - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> I have one of these:
>>
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833704049
>>
>> But their difficult-to-understand tech support informs me I cannot do
>> what
>> I've outlined above.
>>
>> Here is an excerpt from the manual concerning the AP's modes:
>>
>> | Supports multiple operating modes including:
>> |
>> | Access Point - Makes the AP an ideal solution for
>> | your wireless local area network. You can create
>> | a wireless local area network.
>> |
>> | Multi-SSID - Allows the wireless adapter to access
>> | to different LANs appropriate to your needs by
>> | connecting to different SSID.
>> |
>> | Client - Wirelessly connects Ethernet devices.
>> |
>> | Repeater （Universal Repeater） - Relays signal
>> | between its stations and the root AP for greater
>> | wireless range.
>> |
>> | Bridge (Point to Point, Point to Multi-point) -
>> | Bridges the AP and another AP also in bridge mode
>> | to connect two or more wired LANs.
>>
>> Tech support suggested that I go ahead and set it up in AP mode, using
>> the
>> same ssid, channel, security settings, etc. as my wireless router. When I
>> asked if that would cause a problem when I'm in that overlap area
>> where the
>> router *and* the AP can be seen by my wireless device. The tech did not
>> seem to have contemplated that situation, nor was inclined to do so.
>>
>> At that point, My will and schedule were broken, so I just set it up
>> in AP
>> mode with a different ssid and channel, and called it a day.
>>
>> Is it crazy for me to think I can do what I'm suggesting?
>>
>> - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> Thanks guys.
>
> Maybe I'm not understanding the problem. Why not just set the unit up as
> a standard WAP and have a go at it? You really have nothing to lose
> except for a few minutes of time. Your devices are up to figuring out
> which WAP on the network they want to use. Big companies have WAPs by
> the dozen and their portable devices get along pretty well. You will
> want to use proper security settings and if your other unit is what you
> are satisfied with you should use the same settings for the new one (I
> would). SSID will need to be the same IIRC. Channels can take care of
> themselves pretty well but if you encounter interference you can always
> take care of the housekeeping afterwards. Don't forget, you are not
> repeating the existing, you are extending.
>
> All of this just reminds me of why I loathe wireless for use in fixed
> locations such as a home. Give me wires any day.

I was trying to find a way to set it up such that I would not have to
rely on the logic in the portable devices. I'll do as you suggest and
see how it goes--maybe I'm needlessly worrying.

I use Netgear's (www.netgear.com) coax system (MCA1001) and maybe this
is something you could consider using. I put this in because I could
not receive wireless from my modem to where my wide screen was located.
--
<Bill>

Brought to you from Anchorage, Alaska.

Grinder wrote:
> I've been struggling, perhaps just with vocabulary, in trying to set
> up a home network. Here's the scenario: In one end of an L-shaped
> house, I have a combination DSL modem/wireless router that is serving
> a desktop and a couple of wireless media devices.
>
> In the other end of the L-shaped house, in a split-level basement, is
> a home theater. I only lost one testicle crawling through the
> rafters to get a wire run from the router to a switch right behind
> the component rack. I will shortly be installing a Netflix-enabled
> Blu-ray player in that rack.
>
> There are several smart phones roaming around the property, so I would
> like to plug an access point into that switch, to get full coverage.
> Ideally, it should just extend my existing wireless network so that I
> do not have induce those devices into using the strongest access
> point. (There will likely be a slight overlap in coverage at the
> crotch of the "L", but the ends of the house are effectively blind to
> each other, save the hard wire.)
>
> I've looked at a variety of setups for APs, but they all seem to
> require you to be able to see the pre-existing wireless network
> before you can repeat/extend it. Isn't there some way I can just
> configure it to put out the "same" wireless network for clients, but
> then run the data down the copper connection?
>
> - - - - - - - - -
>
> I have one of these:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833704049
>
> But their difficult-to-understand tech support informs me I cannot do
> what I've outlined above.
>
> Here is an excerpt from the manual concerning the AP's modes:
>
>> Supports multiple operating modes including:
>>
>> Access Point - Makes the AP an ideal solution for
>> your wireless local area network. You can create
>> a wireless local area network.
>>
>> Multi-SSID - Allows the wireless adapter to access
>> to different LANs appropriate to your needs by
>> connecting to different SSID.
>>
>> Client - Wirelessly connects Ethernet devices.
>>
>> Repeater (Universal Repeater) - Relays signal
>> between its stations and the root AP for greater
>> wireless range.
>>
>> Bridge (Point to Point, Point to Multi-point) -
>> Bridges the AP and another AP also in bridge mode
>> to connect two or more wired LANs.
>
> Tech support suggested that I go ahead and set it up in AP mode, using
> the same ssid, channel, security settings, etc. as my wireless router.
> When I asked if that would cause a problem when I'm in that overlap
> area where the router *and* the AP can be seen by my wireless device.
> The tech did not seem to have contemplated that situation, nor was
> inclined to do so.
>
> At that point, My will and schedule were broken, so I just set it up
> in AP mode with a different ssid and channel, and called it a day.
>
> Is it crazy for me to think I can do what I'm suggesting?
>
> - - - - - - - - -
>
> Thanks guys.

On 10/11/2011 2:41 AM, Bill Bradshaw wrote:
> I use Netgear's (www.netgear.com) coax system (MCA1001) and maybe this
> is something you could consider using. I put this in because I could
> not receive wireless from my modem to where my wide screen was located.

It's an interesting device, so I'll file it away for future reference.
It doesn't really fit my situation though.