Panda, I think you're correct. I just came across a couple of threads confirming this - both devices in AP mode (no WDS). Thanks all!
Wireless repeater / extender?
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Panda, I think you're correct. I just came across a couple of threads confirming this - both devices in AP mode (no WDS). Thanks all!
Yup, that's what I was saying when I said set the 2nd one up as an AP. Only issue is the different SSID's.
Panda, I think you're correct. I just came across a couple of threads confirming this - both devices in AP mode (no WDS). Thanks all!
Yup, that's what I was saying when I said set the 2nd one up as an AP. Only issue is the different SSID's.
The info I found suggests to use the same SSID with both devices set up as APs. I guess I'll have to experiment whenever I do get that second device.
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?thr...-network.29885/
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?thr...-network.29885/
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
The info I found suggests to use the same SSID with both devices set up as APs. I guess I'll have to experiment whenever I do get that second device.
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?thr...-network.29885/
That's sort of a false "mesh" topology he's created (and IMHO, he's misusing the term). A true mesh is (usually) managed by a wireless controller(s) and is redundant as well as self-healing.... Oh, and fully wireless
I'm not saying it won't work (it will) simply that creating two identical wireless networks that don't know about each other (and they don't if the AP's aren't clustered or managed by a controller) isn't a "recommended" config, nor is it really creating a mesh topology. I would refer to this as a "dumb cluster", as that is what it best resembles.
But heck, consumers do all kinds of things that aren't recommended all the time, LOL.
The info I found suggests to use the same SSID with both devices set up as APs. I guess I'll have to experiment whenever I do get that second device.
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?thr...-network.29885/
That's sort of a false "mesh" topology he's created (and IMHO, he's misusing the term). A true mesh is (usually) managed by a wireless controller(s) and is redundant as well as self-healing.... Oh, and fully wireless
But heck, consumers do all kinds of things that aren't recommended all the time, LOL.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Re-thinking this, aside from a personal hang-up on it being "wrong" due to the AP's not knowing about each other, I think this "dumb cluster" will work fine for you.
The important thing to remember is to ensure that the 2nd router (the one setup as an AP) isn't doing anything besides transmitting WiFi, and that you have the Ethernet cable plugged into one of its LAN ports. DHCP, routing and all that need to be handled by the primary router.
Also, be sure to use different channels (like 6 on one, 11 on the other) for the best results.
Now, since there is nothing aiding in the decision making process regarding AP client hand-offs, you MAY experience disruptions in service when the clients are forced to roam due to signal strength issues and the like. But the performance should be generally acceptable for what you are paying for it
The important thing to remember is to ensure that the 2nd router (the one setup as an AP) isn't doing anything besides transmitting WiFi, and that you have the Ethernet cable plugged into one of its LAN ports. DHCP, routing and all that need to be handled by the primary router.
Also, be sure to use different channels (like 6 on one, 11 on the other) for the best results.
Now, since there is nothing aiding in the decision making process regarding AP client hand-offs, you MAY experience disruptions in service when the clients are forced to roam due to signal strength issues and the like. But the performance should be generally acceptable for what you are paying for it
Just for my personal education, how much of a difference in signal strength does there need to be before a client decides to switch to another AP? Is this something that's pretty much set as part of the 802.11 spec, or does it typically vary based on the actual hardware being used (APs, network adapters, etc.)?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Just for my personal education, how much of a difference in signal strength does there need to be before a client decides to switch to another AP? Is this something that's pretty much set as part of the 802.11 spec, or does it typically vary based on the actual hardware being used (APs, network adapters, etc.)?
It is handled by the OS and drivers for the wireless card. Many of the drivers have an option to set roaming aggressiveness under the properties of the card in device mangler. Making roaming more aggressive may help to alleviate low signal issues you encounter like poor speed and disconnects. Keep in mind that this will make the card more promiscuous however, and so it may switch between AP's more frequently. This may not be desirable depending on the effects it has on connectivity and your activities.
Just for my personal education, how much of a difference in signal strength does there need to be before a client decides to switch to another AP? Is this something that's pretty much set as part of the 802.11 spec, or does it typically vary based on the actual hardware being used (APs, network adapters, etc.)?
It is handled by the OS and drivers for the wireless card. Many of the drivers have an option to set roaming aggressiveness under the properties of the card in device mangler. Making roaming more aggressive may help to alleviate low signal issues you encounter like poor speed and disconnects. Keep in mind that this will make the card more promiscuous however, and so it may switch between AP's more frequently. This may not be desirable depending on the effects it has on connectivity and your activities.
And 2 pages later we're back to what I originally suggested...
Gotta love the internet.
Gotta love the internet.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: brandini
And 2 pages later we're back to what I originally suggested...
Gotta love the internet.
You suggested a bridge, he's setting it up as an AP. They aren't even close to being the same thing.
However, your description of what you wanted him to setup was in fact turning the router into an AP. Not sure why you are calling it a bridge?
Regardless, the indicated topology that you have suggested is indeed what I guess we have "agreed" upon here, being limited to consumer hardware. I don't think there is a problem with this discussion going two pages beyond your suggestion.... The OP learned some stuff that he wasn't clear on... stuff that wasn't covered earlier in the thread. So unless you have a personal hang-up on a thread running past the point of you making a suggestion, I fail to see why you've taken issue with it?
And 2 pages later we're back to what I originally suggested...
Gotta love the internet.
You suggested a bridge, he's setting it up as an AP. They aren't even close to being the same thing.
However, your description of what you wanted him to setup was in fact turning the router into an AP. Not sure why you are calling it a bridge?
Regardless, the indicated topology that you have suggested is indeed what I guess we have "agreed" upon here, being limited to consumer hardware. I don't think there is a problem with this discussion going two pages beyond your suggestion.... The OP learned some stuff that he wasn't clear on... stuff that wasn't covered earlier in the thread. So unless you have a personal hang-up on a thread running past the point of you making a suggestion, I fail to see why you've taken issue with it?
No issue, it's just funny to me how all the worry that he'd need an 802.11f spec device to have more than 1 access point in a home environment. Different brands call it different things hence the bridge name, mostly since a company would make a device, call it one thing, even though it could be configured many ways.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: brandini
No issue, it's just funny to me how all the worry that he'd need an 802.11f spec device to have more than 1 access point in a home environment. Different brands call it different things hence the bridge name, mostly since a company would make a device, call it one thing, even though it could be configured many ways.
Fair enough. I don't go by what a company may call a device, I go by the definition of the function being performed
As you said, they can be configured many different ways. Router/Gateway/Firewall can all be separate devices. Or they can all be the same thing
No issue, it's just funny to me how all the worry that he'd need an 802.11f spec device to have more than 1 access point in a home environment. Different brands call it different things hence the bridge name, mostly since a company would make a device, call it one thing, even though it could be configured many ways.
Fair enough. I don't go by what a company may call a device, I go by the definition of the function being performed
Yea, but it's tough when you're calling a place asking if they have something that will function as X, and the person has no idea what you're talking about and only has boxes to go by.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: brandini
Yea, but it's tough when you're calling a place asking if they have something that will function as X, and the person has no idea what you're talking about and only has boxes to go by.
Very true, LOL!
Yea, but it's tough when you're calling a place asking if they have something that will function as X, and the person has no idea what you're talking about and only has boxes to go by.
Very true, LOL!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
