Using Wireless Router as Wireless Access Point Only

In the next few days I am soon to join Orange, after leaving AOL, and
shall receive an Orange Livebox, which, as far as I am aware, in
basically a normal wireless router.

I currently have a Netgear DG834G wireless router, and as the wireless
signal can fluctuate in our house (environmental reasons I believe) I
was thinking of demoting the Netgear to just an Access Point; having
the Netgear upstairs, and the Livebox downstairs with the phone line.

I really just need confirmation on how to go about this. I know I
shall have to disable DHCP on the Netgear, and change the SSID on both
routers to the same.

Now, if I change the "Internet IP Address" on the Netgear to the IP
Address of Livebox (making it the default gateway, in essence), and
change the former "LAN TCP/IP Setup" option from what was the gateway
to a new IP address within the range, would this be sufficent?

i.e.

PC --> Netgear (IP:192.168.0.10) --> Livebox (IP:192.168.0.1) -->
Internet
^
192.168.0.11____________________________DHCP/

(I hope that diagram comes out right).

Basically I would be changing the Netgear Router's static gateway IP
Address into just a static IP Address for access, and sending any
traffic through to the Livebox Static IP (new gateway) through what
used to be the IP that would access the Internet...

Or am I just over-complicating things?

Would this work, and would my computer upstairs find the SSID (Ch:9) on
the Netgear, send traffic through to Livebox, with the same SSID
(Ch:10) and DHCP come from the Livebox...

Most(?) wireless routers can only act as access points when they are
connected by RJ45 to the "other" router... You may find something about that
in the docs for your router. I also don't think you want both routers to
have the same SSID... I'll have to do some more reading on this, but that
is my first suggestion of possible issues for you.

HTH

Kerry


<buonacorsi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167411861.782653.294770@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> In the next few days I am soon to join Orange, after leaving AOL, and
> shall receive an Orange Livebox, which, as far as I am aware, in
> basically a normal wireless router.
>
> I currently have a Netgear DG834G wireless router, and as the wireless
> signal can fluctuate in our house (environmental reasons I believe) I
> was thinking of demoting the Netgear to just an Access Point; having
> the Netgear upstairs, and the Livebox downstairs with the phone line.
>
> I really just need confirmation on how to go about this. I know I
> shall have to disable DHCP on the Netgear, and change the SSID on both
> routers to the same.
>
> Now, if I change the "Internet IP Address" on the Netgear to the IP
> Address of Livebox (making it the default gateway, in essence), and
> change the former "LAN TCP/IP Setup" option from what was the gateway
> to a new IP address within the range, would this be sufficent?
>
> i.e.
>
> PC --> Netgear (IP:192.168.0.10) --> Livebox (IP:192.168.0.1) -->
> Internet
> ^
> 192.168.0.11____________________________DHCP/
>
> (I hope that diagram comes out right).
>
> Basically I would be changing the Netgear Router's static gateway IP
> Address into just a static IP Address for access, and sending any
> traffic through to the Livebox Static IP (new gateway) through what
> used to be the IP that would access the Internet...
>
> Or am I just over-complicating things?
>
> Would this work, and would my computer upstairs find the SSID (Ch:9) on
> the Netgear, send traffic through to Livebox, with the same SSID
> (Ch:10) and DHCP come from the Livebox...
>

Surely they wouldn't connect if they didn't have the same SSID... they
wouldn't be able to find each other. As long as they are on a
different channel, they should not conflict, just happily overlap.

The school I work in is set out in the same way with the Access Points,
three of which have the same SSID so that laptops can connect to the
same SSID without reconfiguration whereever they are in the school... I
can't see why a home network should be any different.

The question would be can I route from one router to the other through
IP addresses alone in the same SSID or not... if I need a cable, as it
would not be possible wirelessly, then fair enough. That really is one
of my questions.


Kerry Liles wrote:
> Most(?) wireless routers can only act as access points when they are
> connected by RJ45 to the "other" router... You may find something about that
> in the docs for your router. I also don't think you want both routers to
> have the same SSID... I'll have to do some more reading on this, but that
> is my first suggestion of possible issues for you.
>
> HTH
>
> Kerry
>
>
> <buonacorsi@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167411861.782653.294770@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> > In the next few days I am soon to join Orange, after leaving AOL, and
> > shall receive an Orange Livebox, which, as far as I am aware, in
> > basically a normal wireless router.
> >
> > I currently have a Netgear DG834G wireless router, and as the wireless
> > signal can fluctuate in our house (environmental reasons I believe) I
> > was thinking of demoting the Netgear to just an Access Point; having
> > the Netgear upstairs, and the Livebox downstairs with the phone line.
> >
> > I really just need confirmation on how to go about this. I know I
> > shall have to disable DHCP on the Netgear, and change the SSID on both
> > routers to the same.
> >
> > Now, if I change the "Internet IP Address" on the Netgear to the IP
> > Address of Livebox (making it the default gateway, in essence), and
> > change the former "LAN TCP/IP Setup" option from what was the gateway
> > to a new IP address within the range, would this be sufficent?
> >
> > i.e.
> >
> > PC --> Netgear (IP:192.168.0.10) --> Livebox (IP:192.168.0.1) -->
> > Internet
> > ^
> > 192.168.0.11____________________________DHCP/
> >
> > (I hope that diagram comes out right).
> >
> > Basically I would be changing the Netgear Router's static gateway IP
> > Address into just a static IP Address for access, and sending any
> > traffic through to the Livebox Static IP (new gateway) through what
> > used to be the IP that would access the Internet...
> >
> > Or am I just over-complicating things?
> >
> > Would this work, and would my computer upstairs find the SSID (Ch:9) on
> > the Netgear, send traffic through to Livebox, with the same SSID
> > (Ch:10) and DHCP come from the Livebox...
> >

"Kerry Liles" <me@completely.invalid> wrote in message
> Most(?) wireless routers can only act as access points when they are
> connected by RJ45 to the "other" router... You may find something about
> that in the docs for your router. I also don't think you want both routers
> to have the same SSID... I'll have to do some more reading on this, but
> that is my first suggestion of possible issues for you.

Same SSID is fine, they just need to be on different channels like 1 & or
whatever.
unless your router supports WDS or something similar you'll need a physical
connection to your new one


Adair

Ah I see... yes, of course you are right about the SSID. Thanks.

"Karlos" <buonacorsi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167417409.422028.296340@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> Surely they wouldn't connect if they didn't have the same SSID... they
> wouldn't be able to find each other. As long as they are on a
> different channel, they should not conflict, just happily overlap.
>
> The school I work in is set out in the same way with the Access Points,
> three of which have the same SSID so that laptops can connect to the
> same SSID without reconfiguration whereever they are in the school... I
> can't see why a home network should be any different.
>

Excellent,

Thanks for that... makes so much more sense when others give their
help. Sitting here trying to plan it all out in my head just gives me
a headache.

Yes, I would need a backbone (a mini-one at least)... which means
upping floorboards.. hmm, we will see.

Karl

Adair Witner wrote:
> "Kerry Liles" <me@completely.invalid> wrote in message
> > Most(?) wireless routers can only act as access points when they are
> > connected by RJ45 to the "other" router... You may find something about
> > that in the docs for your router. I also don't think you want both routers
> > to have the same SSID... I'll have to do some more reading on this, but
> > that is my first suggestion of possible issues for you.
>
> Same SSID is fine, they just need to be on different channels like 1 & or
> whatever.
> unless your router supports WDS or something similar you'll need a physical
> connection to your new one
>
>
> Adair

On 29 Dec 2006 10:36:49 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless , "Karlos"
<buonacorsi@gmail.com> wrote:

>Surely they wouldn't connect if they didn't have the same SSID... they
>wouldn't be able to find each other.

If the two routers are connected via RJ45, they're not connecting via
wireless.
In this scenario, you would need different SSIDs, to avoid your client
getting confused when you roamed from one router to the other.

> As long as they are on a
>different channel, they should not conflict, just happily overlap.

Yes, you need that too - but read up on how channels overlap, to pick
an optimal pair.

>The school I work in is set out in the same way with the Access Points,
>three of which have the same SSID so that laptops can connect to the
>same SSID without reconfiguration whereever they are in the school... I
>can't see why a home network should be any different.

This /can/ work but my experience (admittedly limited) is that
sometimes it confuses the client. WZC will autoconnect to the nearest
router anyway so there's no reconfig to perform if you configure each
AP up on each client (they ought to have different WPA/WEP keys
too...)

>The question would be can I route from one router to the other through
>IP addresses alone in the same SSID or not...

Are you trying to connect the two routers together wirelessly? This is
called bridging as far as I remember, and requires specific hardware.
--
Mark McIntyre

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 10:36:49 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless , "Karlos"
> <buonacorsi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Surely they wouldn't connect if they didn't have the same SSID... they
> >wouldn't be able to find each other.
>
> If the two routers are connected via RJ45, they're not connecting via
> wireless.
> In this scenario, you would need different SSIDs, to avoid your client
> getting confused when you roamed from one router to the other.

This is totally wrong... If you want to have a wired distribution
system, with the fastest switch over between AP's, give hem the smae
SSID. Just make sure you have a single DHCP server so you don't have
to reassign IP addresses. I.E. make the wireless cloud its own IP
subnet and the wired lan another subnet.
>
<Lots of other stuff deleted>

> Mark McIntyre

Thanks,

I know that giving them the same SSID is correct as it is very similar
to Domain naming. If you call an SSID a Domain Name, for this example,
you would have to log on to two completely different networks everytime
you moved from upstairs to downstairs.

No, the SSID can be the same, for ease of use, as long as the signal
does not have the same channel, as they can fight over who rules the
space.

I know this as it has been tried and tested and confirmed at my current
place of work. This was not the issue, so for anyone who wishes to
argue with this idea, I suggest you try it yourselves.

The question was can I turn a Wireless Router into just a Wireless
Access Point, by turning off DHCP, changing round a couple of IP
Addresses, and do it all wirelessly... or does it need to be physically
connected to a backbone, or similar idea, to connect with the Network.

If the answer is no, then fair enough... it's just I am going to be
recieving an Orange Livebox anyway, and thought using my existing
router as a booster might be more beneficial than leaving one or the
other piece of equipment dormant in the corner of the room...

Has anyone used the Orange Livebox? How does it compare to a standard
Wireless Router, such as my Netgear?


jrhick@gmail.com wrote:
> Mark McIntyre wrote:
> > On 29 Dec 2006 10:36:49 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless , "Karlos"
> > <buonacorsi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Surely they wouldn't connect if they didn't have the same SSID... they
> > >wouldn't be able to find each other.
> >
> > If the two routers are connected via RJ45, they're not connecting via
> > wireless.
> > In this scenario, you would need different SSIDs, to avoid your client
> > getting confused when you roamed from one router to the other.
>
> This is totally wrong... If you want to have a wired distribution
> system, with the fastest switch over between AP's, give hem the smae
> SSID. Just make sure you have a single DHCP server so you don't have
> to reassign IP addresses. I.E. make the wireless cloud its own IP
> subnet and the wired lan another subnet.
> >
> <Lots of other stuff deleted>
>
> > Mark McIntyre

>
> This /can/ work but my experience (admittedly limited) is that
> sometimes it confuses the client. WZC will autoconnect to the nearest
> router anyway so there's no reconfig to perform if you configure each
> AP up on each client (they ought to have different WPA/WEP keys
> too...)

If you have to configure every client with every possible wireless
connection... that is reconfiguring. If you only have one... no
reconfiguring. You have just basically told me, for example only, that
I would never have to replace any lightbulbs in my house if all of them
were brand new and working all the time...

Of course I wouldnt need to reconfigure anything if everything was
already configured for everything...

Damn.. but no ,the WEP/WPA is a matter of personal security. They can
be different, they can be the same. They do not conflict. Windows Zero
Configuration only connects to the nearest AP if the nearest one
happens to be configured to connect. Thing is they would both be near,
so one SSID makes more sense anyway..... otherwise my laptop would try
to connect to two SSID's at once, if I were to go by what you just
said... they are both near, and if I configured everything possible
onto my laptop, which would be those two SSID's then it would try to
connect to both of them!

But my original query still remains. Would my idea work wirelessly, or
would it have to be cabled. It has been suggested it needs a backbone
connection. Any one differ from that? See other posts for more
information.

Hi. What you are considering is called "repeating" or using the Netgear
as a "repeater"

Almost certainly won't work between these two boxes of a different
brand, unless they both have the feature called "WDS". Doubtful.

You will need to run a cable to the Netgear to use it as a second "AP".


Cheers,
Steve

On 30 Dec 2006 06:45:36 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless ,
jrhick@gmail.com wrote:

>This is totally wrong...

No.

>If you want to have a wired distribution
>system, with the fastest switch over between AP's, give hem the smae
>SSID.

*shrug*.
I have two APs, different SSIDs and roaming works fine thanks. When I
gave them the same SSID, it failed to roam. H4C I guess.


>Just make sure you have a single DHCP server so you don't have
>to reassign IP addresses.

Yes.

>I.E. make the wireless cloud its own IP
>subnet and the wired lan another subnet.

That doesn't follow from what you said about DHCP servers, and anyway
theres no need to do it unless you really want to for some other
reason.
--
Mark McIntyre

On 30 Dec 2006 14:00:04 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless , "Karlos"
<buonacorsi@gmail.com> wrote:

>Thanks,
>
>I know that giving them the same SSID is correct as it is very similar
>to Domain naming.

No.

>If you call an SSID a Domain Name, for this example,
>you would have to log on to two completely different networks everytime
>you moved from upstairs to downstairs.

No, you'd be conneting to two different APs. This is a totally
different layer in the protocol stack and doesn't affect what network
you're connecting to.

>I know this as it has been tried and tested and confirmed at my current
>place of work. This was not the issue, so for anyone who wishes to
>argue with this idea, I suggest you try it yourselves.

Either way will work, but you may get different conflicts depending on
the precise hardware and geometry. I've tried both.

>The question was can I turn a Wireless Router into just a Wireless
>Access Point,

Well, yes. Thats all it is - an AP plus a wired router. So turn off
DHCP and don't use the WAN port, and presto! .

>and do it all wirelessly... or does it need to be physically
>connected to a backbone, or similar idea, to connect with the Network.

You almost certainly need a wired backbone.

Most APs cannot be both a client (ie connecting to another router) and
a server (ie serving out connections to your laptop) at the same time.
Those that can must be installed in matched sets from the same maker,
and will suffer performance degradation.

I think you're looking for WDS.
--
Mark McIntyre

On 30 Dec 2006 14:09:54 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless , "Karlos"
<buonacorsi@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>
>> This /can/ work but my experience (admittedly limited) is that
>> sometimes it confuses the client. WZC will autoconnect to the nearest
>> router anyway so there's no reconfig to perform if you configure each
>> AP up on each client (they ought to have different WPA/WEP keys
>> too...)
>
>If you have to configure every client with every possible wireless
>connection... that is reconfiguring.

I assumed you meant reconfiguring each time you walked round the
house. No, you don't need to do this. Windows will silently swap
between APs, even if they hve different SSIDs, WPA keys and channels.
All you hve to do is configure everything once.

>reconfiguring. You have just basically told me, for example only, that
>I would never have to replace any lightbulbs in my house if all of them
>were brand new and working all the time...

Que?

>But my original query still remains. Would my idea work wirelessly, or
>would it have to be cabled. It has been suggested it needs a backbone
>connection. Any one differ from that? See other posts for more
>information.

See elsethread for answer: brief version - no. Longer version - yes,
but only with kit you don't have and loss of performance.
--
Mark McIntyre

I honestly don't know why you are continuing to try to make the SSID
thing an issue. As I have said in a previous post, I already know
having one SSID and multiple AP's works... this is not in dispute. I'm
not interested in arguments or discussions revolving around this.

However, in one of your responses you did answer my question... which
happens to be the same answer as I got previously... so you have
confirmed what I wished to know.

Thank you for your input. I would be interested to know, just out of
curiosity, what your occupation is Mark, and what qualifications you
hold in the IT world. This is not for anything but sheer curiosity.

Thank you for your time.

Karl


Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2006 14:09:54 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless , "Karlos"
> <buonacorsi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> This /can/ work but my experience (admittedly limited) is that
> >> sometimes it confuses the client. WZC will autoconnect to the nearest
> >> router anyway so there's no reconfig to perform if you configure each
> >> AP up on each client (they ought to have different WPA/WEP keys
> >> too...)
> >
> >If you have to configure every client with every possible wireless
> >connection... that is reconfiguring.
>
> I assumed you meant reconfiguring each time you walked round the
> house. No, you don't need to do this. Windows will silently swap
> between APs, even if they hve different SSIDs, WPA keys and channels.
> All you hve to do is configure everything once.
>
> >reconfiguring. You have just basically told me, for example only, that
> >I would never have to replace any lightbulbs in my house if all of them
> >were brand new and working all the time...
>
> Que?
>
> >But my original query still remains. Would my idea work wirelessly, or
> >would it have to be cabled. It has been suggested it needs a backbone
> >connection. Any one differ from that? See other posts for more
> >information.
>
> See elsethread for answer: brief version - no. Longer version - yes,
> but only with kit you don't have and loss of performance.
> --
> Mark McIntyre

On 30 Dec 2006 17:02:31 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless , "Karlos"
<buonacorsi@gmail.com> wrote:

>I honestly don't know why you are continuing to try to make the SSID
>thing an issue.

I'm not, I'm just clarifying that it is not "totally wrong" to have
two differnt SSIDS, since my advice was called into question in that
manner. If you're not interested in reading that part, just skip it.

>Thank you for your input. I would be interested to know, just out of
>curiosity, what your occupation is Mark, and what qualifications you
>hold in the IT world.

My experience relevant to this group is that I've installed and
maintain several home networks in wired/11b/11g environments,
including printers, servers, desktops, laptops and handhelds. I'm
currently experimenting with including Powerline in the mix, and am
looking at AV distribution. I don't do any of that for a living - I'm
a senior technology project manager in the City by day, specialising
in complex multidomain multilocation projects - so Jeff Liebermann I
aint.

--
Mark McIntyre

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2006 06:45:36 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> jrhick@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >This is totally wrong...
>
> No.
>
> >If you want to have a wired distribution
> >system, with the fastest switch over between AP's, give hem the smae
> >SSID.
>
> *shrug*.
> I have two APs, different SSIDs and roaming works fine thanks. When I
> gave them the same SSID, it failed to roam. H4C I guess.
>
>
> >Just make sure you have a single DHCP server so you don't have
> >to reassign IP addresses.
>
> Yes.
>
> >I.E. make the wireless cloud its own IP
> >subnet and the wired lan another subnet.
>
> That doesn't follow from what you said about DHCP servers, and anyway
> theres no need to do it unless you really want to for some other
> reason.

It does follow what I say if you are using the routers as
routers...connected the Internet connection into the WAN port of the
1st AP. This will get eiher a dynamicor static IP address from your
Internet device (cable, DSL or Satellite modem). Use the first AP as
the DHCP server if you want or have a DHCP server hanging off one of
the LAN ports. Since an AP is a bridge between the 802.11 and 802.3
protocol all Lan ports and wireless clients are in the same broadcast
domain so have to have the same IP subnet. Connect the 2nd AP to the
first via a LAN port and all you have done is extented the broadcast
domain and hence still need the same IP subnet and only need one DHCP
server.

If you used the WAN port on the second to connect the two AP's you
would need two DHCP servers... one for the broadcast domain on the
first AP's LAN ports and Wireless clients with the default gateway
being the ISP's and the second DHCP scope for the second AP's LAN
ports/wireless clients with the default gateway being the IP address of
the 1st AP. which in effect give you 3 IP subnets 1. ISPs on wan port
of 1st AP, IP subnet for broadcast domain of 1st AP lan/wireless
clients, and the third one being the IP subnet for the 2nd AP's
wireless/lan clients.

Many ways to skin a cat.. but well away from the original question of
whether or not he can connect two AP's wirelessly for a wireless
distribution system, and that depends on the AP's in question..


> --
> Mark McIntyre

Karlos wrote:
>
> The question was can I turn a Wireless Router into just a Wireless
> Access Point, by turning off DHCP, changing round a couple of IP
> Addresses, and do it all wirelessly... or does it need to be
> physically connected to a backbone, or similar idea, to connect with
> the Network.
>
> If the answer is no, then fair enough... it's just I am going to be
> recieving an Orange Livebox anyway, and thought using my existing
> router as a booster might be more beneficial than leaving one or the
> other piece of equipment dormant in the corner of the room...
>
> Has anyone used the Orange Livebox? How does it compare to a standard
> Wireless Router, such as my Netgear?
>

Just an aside, and not exactly wireless, but I have one wap/router connected
to the cable modem, and a powerline transciever at the house connected to
the router, and in the garage and guest house (both about 1000ft from the
house, but AC via underground cable from the house), and in each I have
another wap/router with another powerline transciever.. Use the same
ssid/different channel/no dhcp server/change ip address on them, and can
plug em in at either (or anywhere else where there is power) and have both
wired and wireless connections to both the internet and my home network...

See http://www.netgear.com/Products/Powe...etworking.aspx
Turn any electrical outlet into a Home Network connection and share the
Internet with PCs in different rooms with no new wires at 14, 85, or 200
Mbps.
depending on speed, $89 to $149 (per pair of transcievers)