Question: Is it possible to have 2 wireless routers connected to one modem ?

Forgive me if this question seems nonsensical.
I'm a borderline clueless newbie in this field.

I have a DSL connection connected to a modem in the upstairs part of
my house.
That modem is also connected to my desktop system. That modem is also
connected to a Microsoft MD-500 wireless router. I can use my laptop
anywhere upstairs in the house with this setup.
However, I can't connect anywhere downstairs.
My home is a very old and very sturdy building with lots of very
thick walls and brick, concrete and steel everywhere.

My proposed solution is to run a CAT-5 (or CAT-6 ?) cable from the
router upstairs to a central location downstairs, and then hook up an
additional router downstairs. I would then be able to connect
wirelessly (on different laptops) anywhere downstairs.

Is this a feasable situation ?
Would the two routers conflict with each other ?
The intallation software is of particular concern.
Could I put both installations on the same desktop PC ?

I've chosen the Belkin Pre-N modem for downstairs since it is
supposed to have exemplary range, and like I said, downstairs is
fraught with brick and steel.
Will this router conflict with the Microsoft one ?
(actually linksys I believe).

The Belkin is supposed to be compatible with 802.11b which is what I
believe the Microsoft one is.

I've concluded that this whole proposition will be either really
simple or diabolically complicated.
I thought I'd run it by the experts in here before taking the plunge.

Any comments, advice, and warnings would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks so much, --N

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:23:34 -0400, noydb <noydb@yahoo.com> wrote:

>My proposed solution is to run a CAT-5 (or CAT-6 ?) cable from the
>router upstairs to a central location downstairs, and then hook up an
>additional router downstairs. I would then be able to connect
>wirelessly (on different laptops) anywhere downstairs.
>
>Is this a feasable situation ?

Yes, it will work fine.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:30:06 -0400, NoSpam@anywhere.com wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:23:34 -0400, noydb <noydb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>My proposed solution is to run a CAT-5 (or CAT-6 ?) cable from the
>>router upstairs to a central location downstairs, and then hook up an
>>additional router downstairs. I would then be able to connect
>>wirelessly (on different laptops) anywhere downstairs.
>>
>>Is this a feasable situation ?
>
>Yes, it will work fine.


Cool.
Thanks for your input

Cheers, --N

If you intend to share files on your LAN, you will only want one router for
the whole setup.

That router (wired or wireless) gets connected to the DSL modem.

You can then run a cable to a wireless access point upstairs and a cable to
a wireless access point downstairs. Both wireless access points should be
set to operate on different channels (e.g., 1 and 6).

In this setup, your current Microsoft router can serve as both the router
and the upstairs wireless access point.

You can connect an ethernet switch (quite cheap) downstairs to have
additional ethernet ports. You would connect the downstairs access point to
one of them. You can also connect a wireless router instead of a wireless
access point downstairs, but you may need to connect it through a LAN port
(and not the WAN port), you may need to use a crossover cable for this, and
you will have to turn off its DHCP server (you do not want two active DHCP
servers on a LAN). Alternatively, you could connect the downstairs router
through its WAN port, but then the downstairs computers would be behind two
layers of NAT, which is superfluous (in addition, NAT only passes IP
traffic, which causes problems when sharing files with LAN protocols because
the computers connected to this router may not see the computers connected
to the upstairs router).

-Yves

"noydb" <noydb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4tetk1tle0ol81ro7ju8bpno75da34q3q9@4ax.com...
> Forgive me if this question seems nonsensical.
> I'm a borderline clueless newbie in this field.
>
> I have a DSL connection connected to a modem in the upstairs part of
> my house.
> That modem is also connected to my desktop system. That modem is also
> connected to a Microsoft MD-500 wireless router. I can use my laptop
> anywhere upstairs in the house with this setup.
> However, I can't connect anywhere downstairs.
> My home is a very old and very sturdy building with lots of very
> thick walls and brick, concrete and steel everywhere.
>
> My proposed solution is to run a CAT-5 (or CAT-6 ?) cable from the
> router upstairs to a central location downstairs, and then hook up an
> additional router downstairs. I would then be able to connect
> wirelessly (on different laptops) anywhere downstairs.
>
> Is this a feasable situation ?
> Would the two routers conflict with each other ?
> The intallation software is of particular concern.
> Could I put both installations on the same desktop PC ?
>
> I've chosen the Belkin Pre-N modem for downstairs since it is
> supposed to have exemplary range, and like I said, downstairs is
> fraught with brick and steel.
> Will this router conflict with the Microsoft one ?
> (actually linksys I believe).
>
> The Belkin is supposed to be compatible with 802.11b which is what I
> believe the Microsoft one is.
>
> I've concluded that this whole proposition will be either really
> simple or diabolically complicated.
> I thought I'd run it by the experts in here before taking the plunge.
>
> Any comments, advice, and warnings would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks so much, --N

> You can also connect a wireless router instead of a wireless
>access point downstairs, but you may need to connect it through a LAN port
>(and not the WAN port), you may need to use a crossover cable for this, and
>you will have to turn off its DHCP server (you do not want two active DHCP
>servers on a LAN).
>-Yves

I can confirm what Yves said. I have just done that myself with two
Netgear MR814v2 routers. One router is connected to my cable modem via
the WAN port. A LAN port on the first router is connected to a LAN
port on the second router. I didn't need to use a crossover cable. The
WAN port on the second router is unused. DHCP in the second router is
turned off. The first router is set to channel 1 and the second router
is set to channel 11. Works fine.

Bruce

"noydb" > wrote in message ...
> Forgive me if this question seems nonsensical.
> I'm a borderline clueless newbie in this field.
>
> I have a DSL connection connected to a modem in the upstairs part of
> my house.
> That modem is also connected to my desktop system. That modem is also
> connected to a Microsoft MD-500 wireless router. I can use my laptop
> anywhere upstairs in the house with this setup.
> However, I can't connect anywhere downstairs.
> My home is a very old and very sturdy building with lots of very
> thick walls and brick, concrete and steel everywhere.
>
> My proposed solution is to run a CAT-5 (or CAT-6 ?) cable from the
> router upstairs to a central location downstairs, and then hook up an
> additional router downstairs. I would then be able to connect
> wirelessly (on different laptops) anywhere downstairs.
>
> Is this a feasable situation ?
> Would the two routers conflict with each other ?
> The intallation software is of particular concern.
> Could I put both installations on the same desktop PC ?
>
> I've chosen the Belkin Pre-N modem for downstairs since it is
> supposed to have exemplary range, and like I said, downstairs is
> fraught with brick and steel.
> Will this router conflict with the Microsoft one ?
> (actually linksys I believe).
>
> The Belkin is supposed to be compatible with 802.11b which is what I
> believe the Microsoft one is.
>
> I've concluded that this whole proposition will be either really
> simple or diabolically complicated.
> I thought I'd run it by the experts in here before taking the plunge.
>
> Any comments, advice, and warnings would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks so much, --N

Hi,

Absolutely you can the downstairs talking, and its very straightforward and
simple.

No need to re-iterate Yves's great reply, but using an access point
downstairs instead of an router would keep things straightforward. Since
your focus seems to be getting to the DSL modem, I take it you mainly just
use your network for internet traffic? There is no need for a second
router, and hence a second WLAN.

But if you already have a second wireless router or have your eyes on one
because of price, as Yves suggested, a router can be used as only an access
point by simply bringing the CAT5 into one of it's LAN (not WAN) ports and
disabling it's DHCP. DHCP will come from the first router. I did that for
a while here, simple because I had a spare router. These were DLink's, and
did require a crossover CAT5 cable for router WAN to router LAN. Connecting
a router to an AP is done with straight CAT5 though.

All the above was mentioned in other replies, but just wanted to point out
another reason, other than simplicity, for using an AP (or router acting as
strickly an AP). It may be different with other manufacturers, but with my
DLink stuff I can crossover seamlessly as long as two (same) SSIDs are on
the same WLAN. I.e., walking around (or outside) the house with my laptop
(or even PDA), it will seamlessly (and automatically) re-connect to the
strongest SSID available (provided they are same SSID name and on same
WLAN). All done in the background, as you'd expect. I experimented with
two routers (two WLANs), but using same SSID, to see how they would handle
that -- when moving in range of the stronger SSID, the connection drops,
gets a little confused, takes a few tries to connect, and then course has
to do all new DHCP. Often to get it to "re"-connect would require having to
manually "bump" it. Just experimenting to see what it would do in that
setup. With one WLAN, its all seamless though.

Cheers,
Eric

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:56:34 -0700, "Yves Konigshofer"
<yvesk@sStTaAnNfFoOrRdD.edu> wrote:

>If you intend to share files on your LAN, you will only want one router for
>the whole setup.
>
>That router (wired or wireless) gets connected to the DSL modem.
>
>You can then run a cable to a wireless access point upstairs and a cable to
>a wireless access point downstairs. Both wireless access points should be
>set to operate on different channels (e.g., 1 and 6).
>
>In this setup, your current Microsoft router can serve as both the router
>and the upstairs wireless access point.
>
>You can connect an ethernet switch (quite cheap) downstairs to have
>additional ethernet ports. You would connect the downstairs access point to
>one of them. You can also connect a wireless router instead of a wireless
>access point downstairs, but you may need to connect it through a LAN port
>(and not the WAN port), you may need to use a crossover cable for this, and
>you will have to turn off its DHCP server (you do not want two active DHCP
>servers on a LAN). Alternatively, you could connect the downstairs router
>through its WAN port, but then the downstairs computers would be behind two
>layers of NAT, which is superfluous (in addition, NAT only passes IP
>traffic, which causes problems when sharing files with LAN protocols because
>the computers connected to this router may not see the computers connected
>to the upstairs router).
>
>-Yves

Many thanks for this excellent response.
I hadn't even known of "ethernet switches".

I also hadn't really thought about the possibility of sharing
files...it just wasn't a concern. But now I'm liking the idea, so I'll
have to give it a bit more research.

However, I am anticipating problems with the wireless downstairs, so I
still plan to go the router route, if only to reserve the option to
hard wire connections to the particularly perilous romms down there.

Thanks again for your advice.

Cheers, --N