extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding". Discuss extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding", on Wireless Forums.
extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
with my former ISP, I used a wireless router that served the three PCs in
the three bedrooms of my house. since we moved to another ISP lately, and
they couldn't mount their so-called "home access gateway" (basically a wired
router) where the old router was, they had to put it in our living room. I
managed to configure our old router as an access point, wired to the
gateway, and it works fine... except, its range does not cover the whole
house, missing one of the rooms due to its peculiar layout. I thought I'd
buy a range extender and I went to my local shop browsing for some models,
finding out that the typical extender costs approximately twice as much as
an access point of the same brand. "that's because they sell many more ap's
than extenders", the clerk said. great. therefore I said to myself that, if
I had managed to find some docs on the net explaining how to configure a
router as an ap, it was worth to give a shot at trying to set up an ap as an
extender... but I didn't find anything nearly as exhaustive as the articles
I stumbled on during my former quest. instead I found out that "basic"
extenders cut your bandwidth in half because they only have one radio and
must continuously switch between rx/tx (I don't know, are there "advanced"
ones? are there extenders that don't halve your bandwidth, and if so how do
you tell by reading their boxes?), and several other limitations and
possible problems were hinted at, to the point of defining this whole brood
of machines as "EVIL".
at this point, I have three possible scenarios (cheapest to most expensive):
a) buy an access point, they have a D-Link at about EUR 40.00, and configure
it as an extender for my "router-configured-as-an-ap" :)
b) buy a proper extender, the only one they have at the shop is a D-Link
that costs about EUR 99.00.
c) screw all the job I did on turning my router into an ap (well, it hasn't
been that unbearable an effort, actually), and buy this amazing access point
I saw at the mall, with I-don't-know-how-many-powerful-antennae inside it
that purportedly keep on scanning your house for obstacles and send the
correct signal to every pc in the crib, promising to seamlessly cover
I-don't-remember-how-many-square-metres. I don't remember the manufacturer,
but this thingie was whiteish and costed about EUR 120.00.
is "a" possible? which one would you suggest? "a" and "b", of course, are
acceptable only given that the answer to my question concerning "advanced"
extenders is positive and that the gizmo I'll be using is one of them: I
definitely don't want to narrow my bandwidth.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
d) Use powerline networking to move your current wireless access point
or router back to its original location.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:54:38 +0100, "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote
in <ejcoqs$vsr$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>with my former ISP, I used a wireless router that served the three PCs in
>the three bedrooms of my house. since we moved to another ISP lately, and
>they couldn't mount their so-called "home access gateway" (basically a wired
>router) where the old router was, they had to put it in our living room. I
>managed to configure our old router as an access point, wired to the
>gateway, and it works fine... except, its range does not cover the whole
>house, missing one of the rooms due to its peculiar layout. I thought I'd
>buy a range extender and I went to my local shop browsing for some models,
>finding out that the typical extender costs approximately twice as much as
>an access point of the same brand. "that's because they sell many more ap's
>than extenders", the clerk said. great. therefore I said to myself that, if
>I had managed to find some docs on the net explaining how to configure a
>router as an ap, it was worth to give a shot at trying to set up an ap as an
>extender... but I didn't find anything nearly as exhaustive as the articles
>I stumbled on during my former quest. instead I found out that "basic"
>extenders cut your bandwidth in half because they only have one radio and
>must continuously switch between rx/tx (I don't know, are there "advanced"
>ones? are there extenders that don't halve your bandwidth, and if so how do
>you tell by reading their boxes?), and several other limitations and
>possible problems were hinted at, to the point of defining this whole brood
>of machines as "EVIL".
>at this point, I have three possible scenarios (cheapest to most expensive):
>
>a) buy an access point, they have a D-Link at about EUR 40.00, and configure
>it as an extender for my "router-configured-as-an-ap" :)
>
>b) buy a proper extender, the only one they have at the shop is a D-Link
>that costs about EUR 99.00.
>
>c) screw all the job I did on turning my router into an ap (well, it hasn't
>been that unbearable an effort, actually), and buy this amazing access point
>I saw at the mall, with I-don't-know-how-many-powerful-antennae inside it
>that purportedly keep on scanning your house for obstacles and send the
>correct signal to every pc in the crib, promising to seamlessly cover
>I-don't-remember-how-many-square-metres. I don't remember the manufacturer,
>but this thingie was whiteish and costed about EUR 120.00.
>
>is "a" possible? which one would you suggest? "a" and "b", of course, are
>acceptable only given that the answer to my question concerning "advanced"
>extenders is positive and that the gizmo I'll be using is one of them: I
>definitely don't want to narrow my bandwidth.
>
>thank you all in advance for your time
>
>Swann
>
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
Swann <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote:
<snip>
> a) buy an access point, they have a D-Link at about EUR 40.00, and configure
> it as an extender for my "router-configured-as-an-ap" :)
The D-Link model DWL-G700AP is a reasonably priced access point that can
be configured to act as a repeater - when the firmware has been updated
to v2.1. It repeats the wireless signal here from my Trendnet
TEW-510APB. Works with WPA-PSK encryption.
> b) buy a proper extender, the only one they have at the shop is a D-Link
> that costs about EUR 99.00.
Would that be the DWL-G710 Extender? They cost twice as much as the
G700.
What's the difference between a repeater and an extender?
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
"Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote in
news:ejcoqs$vsr$1@registered.motzarella.org:
> with my former ISP, I used a wireless router that served the three PCs
> in the three bedrooms of my house. since we moved to another ISP
> lately, and they couldn't mount their so-called "home access gateway"
> (basically a wired router) where the old router was, they had to put
> it in our living room.
And why couldn't they put it where the other one was ? Move it.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
"Axel Hammerschmidt" <hlexa@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1hotiys.fml8rmyec61cN%hlexa@hotmail.com...
>
>> a) buy an access point, they have a D-Link at about EUR 40.00, and
>> configure
>> it as an extender for my "router-configured-as-an-ap" :)
>
> The D-Link model DWL-G700AP is a reasonably priced access point that can
> be configured to act as a repeater - when the firmware has been updated
> to v2.1. It repeats the wireless signal here from my Trendnet
> TEW-510APB. Works with WPA-PSK encryption.
how about the "half bandwidth" stuff?
>> b) buy a proper extender, the only one they have at the shop is a D-Link
>> that costs about EUR 99.00.
>
> Would that be the DWL-G710 Extender? They cost twice as much as the
> G700.
>
> What's the difference between a repeater and an extender?
beats the hell out of me... guess it's just the same thing...
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Xns987BE8EA65BCCthisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
> "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote in
> news:ejcoqs$vsr$1@registered.motzarella.org:
>
>> with my former ISP, I used a wireless router that served the three PCs
>> in the three bedrooms of my house. since we moved to another ISP
>> lately, and they couldn't mount their so-called "home access gateway"
>> (basically a wired router) where the old router was, they had to put
>> it in our living room.
>
> And why couldn't they put it where the other one was ? Move it.
cannot. it has to stay in the living room because it also needs to be wired
to the tv set. besides, we changed the phone lines and the router must now
dial from the main socket, which is in that room.
furthermore, to answer john navas, I can't actually move my access point
back, because another flatmate (who didn't use the net before) only gets a
good signal from its CURRENT position. so, we either use a repeater, or we
switch to a new, more powerful, access point. it's a, b, or c as I explained
before.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
"Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote in
news:ejeuat$9ob$1@registered.motzarella.org:
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> ha scritto nel
> messaggio news:Xns987BE8EA65BCCthisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
>> "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote in
>> news:ejcoqs$vsr$1@registered.motzarella.org:
>>
>>> with my former ISP, I used a wireless router that served the three
>>> PCs in the three bedrooms of my house. since we moved to another ISP
>>> lately, and they couldn't mount their so-called "home access
>>> gateway" (basically a wired router) where the old router was, they
>>> had to put it in our living room.
>>
>> And why couldn't they put it where the other one was ? Move it.
>
> cannot. it has to stay in the living room because it also needs to be
> wired to the tv set. besides, we changed the phone lines and the
> router must now dial from the main socket, which is in that room.
>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
Swann <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote:
> "Axel Hammerschmidt" <hlexa@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:1hotiys.fml8rmyec61cN%hlexa@hotmail.com...
> >
> >> a) buy an access point, they have a D-Link at about EUR 40.00, and
> >> configure
> >> it as an extender for my "router-configured-as-an-ap" :)
> >
> > The D-Link model DWL-G700AP is a reasonably priced access point that can
> > be configured to act as a repeater - when the firmware has been updated
> > to v2.1. It repeats the wireless signal here from my Trendnet
> > TEW-510APB. Works with WPA-PSK encryption.
>
> how about the "half bandwidth" stuff?
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
"Axel Hammerschmidt" <hlexa@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1hourie.10jqya81g1efxhN%hlexa@hotmail.com...
>>
>> how about the "half bandwidth" stuff?
>
> How fast is your internet connection?
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Xns987C4CD869CC6thisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
>>
>> cannot. it has to stay in the living room because it also needs to be
>> wired to the tv set. besides, we changed the phone lines and the
>> router must now dial from the main socket, which is in that room.
>>
>
> Confusing. Is this a cable modem or a DSL modem ?
DSL. but they also bring voip and some tv channels over it.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:40:12 +0100, "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote
in <ejeuat$9ob$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:Xns987BE8EA65BCCthisnthatadelphianet@216.196 .97.142...
>> "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote in
>> news:ejcoqs$vsr$1@registered.motzarella.org:
>>
>>> with my former ISP, I used a wireless router that served the three PCs
>>> in the three bedrooms of my house. since we moved to another ISP
>>> lately, and they couldn't mount their so-called "home access gateway"
>>> (basically a wired router) where the old router was, they had to put
>>> it in our living room.
>>
>> And why couldn't they put it where the other one was ? Move it.
>
>cannot. it has to stay in the living room because it also needs to be wired
>to the tv set. besides, we changed the phone lines and the router must now
>dial from the main socket, which is in that room.
>
>furthermore, to answer john navas, I can't actually move my access point
>back, because another flatmate (who didn't use the net before) only gets a
>good signal from its CURRENT position. so, we either use a repeater, or we
>switch to a new, more powerful, access point. it's a, b, or c as I explained
>before.
(e) Use wired networking (Ethernet, powerline, phoneline, or coax) to
attach a 2nd access point in the original location. This can be a
superior solution because repeaters cut network speed in half and can be
problematic to operate. Put the access points on different
non-overlapping channels (1, 6, 11) with the same _unique_ SSID.
(f) Upgrade the antenna on the single access point if that's enough to
ensure sufficient signal wherever you need it. How well that will work
depends on the amount of improvement needed and on layout of your house.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
Swann <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote:
> "Axel Hammerschmidt" <hlexa@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:1hourie.10jqya81g1efxhN%hlexa@hotmail.com...
> >>
> >> how about the "half bandwidth" stuff?
> >
> > How fast is your internet connection?
>
> *nominally* 6 Mbps... why?
Then you probably won't notice the "half bandwidth" - if say you
nominally start at 54 Mbps.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:34:06 +0100, "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote
in <ejetvf$9ac$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>"Axel Hammerschmidt" <hlexa@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:1hotiys.fml8rmyec61cN%hlexa@hotmail.com...
>>
>>> a) buy an access point, they have a D-Link at about EUR 40.00, and
>>> configure
>>> it as an extender for my "router-configured-as-an-ap" :)
>>
>> The D-Link model DWL-G700AP is a reasonably priced access point that can
>> be configured to act as a repeater - when the firmware has been updated
>> to v2.1. It repeats the wireless signal here from my Trendnet
>> TEW-510APB. Works with WPA-PSK encryption.
>
>how about the "half bandwidth" stuff?
Any simple repeater will cut wireless network speed in half because
there can be only one wireless transmission at a time. So instead of:
>>> b) buy a proper extender, the only one they have at the shop is a D-Link
>>> that costs about EUR 99.00.
>>
>> Would that be the DWL-G710 Extender? They cost twice as much as the
>> G700.
>>
>> What's the difference between a repeater and an extender?
>
>beats the hell out of me... guess it's just the same thing...
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.,
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
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.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
"Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote in
news:ejff70$rht$1@registered.motzarella.org:
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> ha scritto nel
> messaggio news:Xns987C4CD869CC6thisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
>>>
>>> cannot. it has to stay in the living room because it also needs to
>>> be wired to the tv set. besides, we changed the phone lines and the
>>> router must now dial from the main socket, which is in that room.
>>>
>>
>> Confusing. Is this a cable modem or a DSL modem ?
>
> DSL. but they also bring voip and some tv channels over it.
>
> Swann
>
>
So it's a combo DSL modem/IP Phone/Wireless Router/IP TV box ?
That's just stupid. Just another instance in which you can see you are
better off with individual components, if this indeed as I describe it.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:54:36 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1houuy5.l87fkb1ky486eN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>Swann <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote:
>
>> "Axel Hammerschmidt" <hlexa@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:1hourie.10jqya81g1efxhN%hlexa@hotmail.com...
>> >>
>> >> how about the "half bandwidth" stuff?
>> >
>> > How fast is your internet connection?
>>
>> *nominally* 6 Mbps... why?
>
>Then you probably won't notice the "half bandwidth" -
For Internet access, no; for local networking; yes.
>if say you
>nominally start at 54 Mbps.
Almost certainly not running at anything close to that.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
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.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
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.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:54:36 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1houuy5.l87fkb1ky486eN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>
> >Swann <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> "Axel Hammerschmidt" <hlexa@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> news:1hourie.10jqya81g1efxhN%hlexa@hotmail.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> how about the "half bandwidth" stuff?
> >> >
> >> > How fast is your internet connection?
> >>
> >> *nominally* 6 Mbps... why?
> >
> >Then you probably won't notice the "half bandwidth" -
>
> For Internet access, no; for local networking; yes.
>
> >if say you nominally start at 54 Mbps.
>
> Almost certainly not running at anything close to that.
Nor at 6 Mbps either. I was using nominal values to make a point. For
special lokal networking tasks the Op can do a lot of things, like
shutting down his repeater, or moving his laptop and use cable. Wireless
is for laptops, after all...
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:18:14 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov14h.10rhyn310u3x6oN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>... I was using nominal values to make a point. For
>special lokal networking tasks the Op can do a lot of things, like
>shutting down his repeater, or moving his laptop and use cable. Wireless
>is for laptops, after all...
Many families and businesses that use it for desktops as well.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:18:13 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov0ox.1nhqle71617hj2N%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>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?
What I mean is that a simple repeater cuts the available wireless
bandwidth for all wireless devices (including the router) in half.
>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.
Transmit packet 1
Transmit packet 2
Transmit packet 3
Transmit packet 4
...
When the repeater is transmitting a repeat packet, the wireless network
is unavailable to any other wireless transmitter, including the wireless
router. That's why I recommended a remote wireless Ethernet bridge
cabled to a wireless access point on a different non-overlapping
channel, which avoids have the available wireless bandwidth cut in half.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:18:13 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov0ox.1nhqle71617hj2N%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>
> >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?
>
> What I mean is that a simple repeater cuts the available wireless
> bandwidth for all wireless devices (including the router) in half.
Because the Wi-Fi router has to wait for the repeater while it repeats
the packet.
> >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.
>
> Per my earlier post, what actually happens is:
>
> Transmit packet 1
> Repeat packet 1
> Transmit packet 2
> Repeat packet 2
> ...
> Instead of:
>
> Transmit packet 1
> Transmit packet 2
> Transmit packet 3
> Transmit packet 4
> ...
> When the repeater is transmitting a repeat packet, the wireless network
> is unavailable to any other wireless transmitter, including the wireless
> router. That's why I recommended a remote wireless Ethernet bridge
> cabled to a wireless access point on a different non-overlapping
> channel, which avoids have the available wireless bandwidth cut in half.
OK. So the router runs at 27 Mbps with the repeater - is that constant
or only when the repeater is active?
Anyway! The router shares the available bandwidth with the station that
connects directly to the router and the repeater. The station then gets
13.5 Mbps and not 27 Mbps.
So two stations, one connected directly to the router and the other
using the repeater, each achieve 13.5 Mbps.
So much for theory. When Eye use a D-Link DWL-G700AP (access point) in
repeater mode with a Trendnet TEW-510APB (access point) the station as
often as not still connects to the Trendnet when left to itself, despite
the signal from the access point being very weak. This is the so-called
bug light problem, because the client (software) acts like a moth
entranced by a flame and unable to move away from it.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:18:14 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov14h.10rhyn310u3x6oN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>
> >... I was using nominal values to make a point. For
> >special lokal networking tasks the Op can do a lot of things, like
> >shutting down his repeater, or moving his laptop and use cable. Wireless
> >is for laptops, after all...
>
> Many families and businesses that use it for desktops as well.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:51:27 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov8g0.bv56qmma781kN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:18:14 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
>> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov14h.10rhyn310u3x6oN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >... I was using nominal values to make a point. For
>> >special lokal networking tasks the Op can do a lot of things, like
>> >shutting down his repeater, or moving his laptop and use cable. Wireless
>> >is for laptops, after all...
>>
>> Many families and businesses that use it for desktops as well.
>
>Eye doubt that; too slow.
I'm not making that up -- that's fact.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:38:23 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov6zm.e6hqn5odi4owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> What I mean is that a simple repeater cuts the available wireless
>> bandwidth for all wireless devices (including the router) in half.
>
>Because the Wi-Fi router has to wait for the repeater while it repeats
>the packet.
Correct -- only one device can be transmitting at any one time.
>> Per my earlier post, what actually happens is:
>>
>> Transmit packet 1
>> Repeat packet 1
>> Transmit packet 2
>> Repeat packet 2
>> ...
>> Instead of:
>>
>> Transmit packet 1
>> Transmit packet 2
>> Transmit packet 3
>> Transmit packet 4
>> ...
>> When the repeater is transmitting a repeat packet, the wireless network
>> is unavailable to any other wireless transmitter, including the wireless
>> router. That's why I recommended a remote wireless Ethernet bridge
>> cabled to a wireless access point on a different non-overlapping
>> channel, which avoids have the available wireless bandwidth cut in half.
>
>OK. So the router runs at 27 Mbps with the repeater - is that constant
>or only when the repeater is active?
The router, just like the repeater and all other wireless devices, still
runs at a maximum of 54 Mbps, but only 1/2 as often (because of
bandwidth taken for repeating).
>Anyway! The router shares the available bandwidth with the station that
>connects directly to the router and the repeater. The station then gets
>13.5 Mbps and not 27 Mbps.
1. All devices (router, local station, repeater, remote station) are
sharing the same channel.
2. Only one device can be transmitting at a time.
3. The repeater doubles the amount of wireless traffic (for all devices
it can "hear"), thereby cutting effective network speed in half.
>So two stations, one connected directly to the router and the other
>using the repeater, each achieve 13.5 Mbps.
No, a repeater turns a maximum 54 Mbps network into a 27 Mbps network
for all devices on that network. (Actual speeds will typically be much
less.)
Consider a network with access point AP, local wireless device LW,
repeater WR, and remote device RW. When LW is talking to AP, WR is
still repeating:
Packet 1 from LW to AP
Repeat of packet 1 by WR
Packet 2 from AP to LW
Repeat of packet 2 by WR
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:38:23 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov6zm.e6hqn5odi4owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
<snip>
> >OK. So the router runs at 27 Mbps with the repeater - is that constant
> >or only when the repeater is active?
>
> The router, just like the repeater and all other wireless devices, still
> runs at a maximum of 54 Mbps, but only 1/2 as often (because of
> bandwidth taken for repeating).
>
> >Anyway! The router shares the available bandwidth with the station that
> >connects directly to the router and the repeater. The station then gets
> >13.5 Mbps and not 27 Mbps.
>
> 1. All devices (router, local station, repeater, remote station) are
> sharing the same channel.
>
> 2. Only one device can be transmitting at a time.
>
> 3. The repeater doubles the amount of wireless traffic (for all devices
> it can "hear"), thereby cutting effective network speed in half.
>
> >So two stations, one connected directly to the router and the other
> >using the repeater, each achieve 13.5 Mbps.
>
> No, a repeater turns a maximum 54 Mbps network into a 27 Mbps network
> for all devices on that network. (Actual speeds will typically be much
> less.)
They are nominal values. Gives the same result as your numbers.
> Consider a network with access point AP, local wireless device LW,
> repeater WR, and remote device RW. When LW is talking to AP, WR is
> still repeating:
> Packet 1 from LW to AP
> Repeat of packet 1 by WR
> Packet 2 from AP to LW
> Repeat of packet 2 by WR
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:02:19 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hovbla.4zuktk10nztvkN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:38:23 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
>> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov6zm.e6hqn5odi4owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>> >So two stations, one connected directly to the router and the other
>> >using the repeater, each achieve 13.5 Mbps.
>>
>> No, a repeater turns a maximum 54 Mbps network into a 27 Mbps network
>> for all devices on that network. (Actual speeds will typically be much
>> less.)
>
>They are nominal values. Gives the same result as your numbers.
Depends what you meant by "connected directly to the router", which
I took to be a _wired_ connection. With a single repeater:
* Wireless G to wired network speed is a maximum of 27 Mbps.
* Wireless G to wireless G network speed is a maximum of 13.5 Mbps.
>> Consider a network with access point AP, local wireless device LW,
>> repeater WR, and remote device RW. When LW is talking to AP, WR is
>> still repeating:
>> Packet 1 from LW to AP
>> Repeat of packet 1 by WR
>> Packet 2 from AP to LW
>> Repeat of packet 2 by WR
>
>Why not use 802.11 no men cla ture?
What nomenclature?
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Xns987C80B7192ACthisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
>
> So it's a combo DSL modem/IP Phone/Wireless Router/IP TV box ?
>
> That's just stupid. Just another instance in which you can see you are
> better off with individual components, if this indeed as I describe it.
it's hard to explain if you don't know the peculiar situation where I live.
besides, the tv part will just be temporary, it's a limited free offer for
some months but we'll recede when it expires. and, trust me, the choice of
the ISP was long considered and we're sure it was the best we could have.
anyway, my only question was, which of the three possible solutions I listed
do you guys think is the best? I mean, imagine you didn't have any other
choice besides those three. really, if somebody put a gun to your head and
said "go ahead, a, b or c", and he promised to spare your life only if the
connectivity issue was solved through your decision, what would you choose?
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:47:39 +0100, "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote
in <ejhj4u$4gk$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:Xns987C80B7192ACthisnthatadelphianet@216.196 .97.142...
>>
>> So it's a combo DSL modem/IP Phone/Wireless Router/IP TV box ?
>>
>> That's just stupid. Just another instance in which you can see you are
>> better off with individual components, if this indeed as I describe it.
>
>it's hard to explain if you don't know the peculiar situation where I live.
>besides, the tv part will just be temporary, it's a limited free offer for
>some months but we'll recede when it expires. and, trust me, the choice of
>the ISP was long considered and we're sure it was the best we could have.
>anyway, my only question was, which of the three possible solutions I listed
>do you guys think is the best? I mean, imagine you didn't have any other
>choice besides those three. really, if somebody put a gun to your head and
>said "go ahead, a, b or c", and he promised to spare your life only if the
>connectivity issue was solved through your decision, what would you choose?
I think he meant it's stupid for the ISP to do that. I personally think
that's a bit harsh -- while there can be merit in individual boxes,
there's undeniably benefits from a combo design (e.g., less power,
complexity, space, and clutter).
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:2cgml2pcabd9vk56603ito5csf348q2jjs@4ax.com...
>
> (e) Use wired networking (Ethernet, powerline, phoneline, or coax) to
> attach a 2nd access point in the original location. This can be a
> superior solution because repeaters cut network speed in half and can be
> problematic to operate. Put the access points on different
> non-overlapping channels (1, 6, 11) with the same _unique_ SSID.
this would either imply buying both an ap and powerline adapters, which
could end up being too expensive. I can't pass a wire through the walls, not
enough space.
> (f) Upgrade the antenna on the single access point if that's enough to
> ensure sufficient signal wherever you need it. How well that will work
> depends on the amount of improvement needed and on layout of your house.
how do I upgrade an antenna? the only ones I saw at my shop were for a
specific model/brand ap. I have this zyxel router set up as an ap, do you
think it's possible to do the job on it? I'm not at home now, so I can't
tell you the model...
extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding" 