Wireless Network Design
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Bob Simon on August 8, 2008, 9:07 am
Please log in for more thread options I set up a wireless router in my upstairs home office (providing good coverage for the second floor) and a second one downstairs in the living room where signal strength is too low to be useful. There are probably lots of different ways to do this but I would like feedback on the theoretical as well as practical pros and cons of two approaches: 1) One wired network (192.168.0.0) connecting the LAN port of the DSL modem and the WAN ports of both wireless routers. Each router would give out their own small pool of DHCP addresses, 192.168.1.0 upstairs and 192.168.2.0 downstairs. 2) The wireless router upstairs would be the only one with DHCP enabled and would connect to the one downstairs via the LAN-side switch. In effect, this turns the downstairs router into a bridged access point. Are both approaches equally valid? | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Stephen on August 8, 2008, 2:20 pm
Please log in for more thread options wrote: this one stops you sharing files / printers etc between devices attached to the 2 routers. It is difficult to connect if your modem only has 1 Ethernet port. it also breaks down completely if the provider only allows you a single WAN IP address at a time.... >
>2) The wireless router upstairs would be the only one with DHCP >enabled and would connect to the one downstairs via the LAN-side >switch. In effect, this turns the downstairs router into a bridged >access point. this is more common (mainly because SOHO routers are cheaper than dedicated access points). You are using the LAN only box as a switch / access point only. Some boxes have "AP only" mode this as a setup option. >
>Are both approaches equally valid? no - 1st one doesnt work if you only get 1 address. -- Regards stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Bob Simon on August 9, 2008, 3:27 pm
Please log in for more thread options
wrote: >wrote:
> >>I set up a wireless router in my upstairs home office (providing good
>>coverage for the second floor) and a second one downstairs in the >>living room where signal strength is too low to be useful. There are >>probably lots of different ways to do this but I would like feedback >>on the theoretical as well as practical pros and cons of two >>approaches: >> >>1) One wired network (192.168.0.0) connecting the LAN port of the DSL >>modem and the WAN ports of both wireless routers. Each router would >>give out their own small pool of DHCP addresses, 192.168.1.0 upstairs >>and 192.168.2.0 downstairs. >
>this one stops you sharing files / printers etc between devices >attached to the 2 routers. > >It is difficult to connect if your modem only has 1 Ethernet port. > >it also breaks down completely if the provider only allows you a >single WAN IP address at a time.... >>
>>2) The wireless router upstairs would be the only one with DHCP >>enabled and would connect to the one downstairs via the LAN-side >>switch. In effect, this turns the downstairs router into a bridged >>access point. >
>this is more common (mainly because SOHO routers are cheaper than >dedicated access points). >You are using the LAN only box as a switch / access point only. >Some boxes have "AP only" mode this as a setup option. > >>
>>Are both approaches equally valid? >
>no - 1st one doesnt work if you only get 1 address. I hooked up my two routers as per the second design and everything works except roaming. I set the SSID and WEP keys the same and put one router on channel 1 and the other on channel 6. When I go from my upstairs office to the living room, the signal strength meter displays zero or one bar but XP does not switch to the downstairs AP unless I disable or disconnect the wireless connection. When I re-enable or re-connect, I get five bars. Can this switchover be made to occur automatically? Also, I don't understand your comment that my first design won't work because >it also breaks down completely if the provider only allows you a
>single WAN IP address at a time.... My ISP provides a single public static IP address to the WAN port of the DSL modem. But since this modem does NAT, it should be able to handle mulitple inside hosts with private addresses up to the limit of its ability to handle translations without excessive delay. Right? -- Bob Simon Please remove Xs from domain for direct replies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Merv on August 9, 2008, 5:12 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
> My ISP provides a single public static IP address to the WAN port of > the DSL modem. But since this modem does NAT, it should be able to > handle mulitple inside hosts with private addresses up to the limit of > its ability to handle translations without excessive delay. Right? Are you able to configure the DSL modem ? If for example the DSL modem is setup to only NAT 192.168.0..0/24 then you might have an issue .... If you can control its configuration so that it will NAT 192.168.0.0/16, then you should be okay | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Bob Simon on August 10, 2008, 12:16 pm
Please log in for more thread options
wrote: >> My ISP provides a single public static IP address to the WAN port of
>> the DSL modem. But since this modem does NAT, it should be able to >> handle mulitple inside hosts with private addresses up to the limit of >> its ability to handle translations without excessive delay. Right? >
>Are you able to configure the DSL modem ? > >If for example the DSL modem is setup to only NAT 192.168.0..0/24 then >you might have an issue .... > >If you can control its configuration so that it will NAT >192.168.0.0/16, then you should be okay The modem is a Motorola/Netopia 2210-02. Motorola tech support said it's been customized per ATT specs with some functionality stripped out. I am able to configure it via the web interface plus via telnet, which offers additional configuration granularity. There is no manual available but the CLI offers help screens and command options. I only see four NAT features: mode -- NAT default server mode mode (off) [ off | default-server | ip-passthrough ] address -- NAT default server IP address dhcp-enable -- NAT IP Passthrough DHCP enabled host-hardware-address -- NAT IP Passthrough host hardware Why would it be useful for the modem to be able to NAT for more than one class c subnet? Wouldn't the following scenario work? DSL Modem WAN: public static LAN: 192.168.0.1/24 Def GW: WAN port NAT for 192.168.0.0/24 to public static IP Wireless Rtr 1 WAN: 192.168.0.2/24 LAN: 192.168.1.1/24 Def GW: 192.168.0.1 NAT for 192.168.1.0/24 to 192.168.0.2 Wireless Rtr 2 WAN: 192.168.0.3/24 LAN: 192.168.2.1/24 Def GW: 192.168.0.1 NAT for 192.168.2.0/24 to 192.168.0.3 Both routers would provide DHCP addresses for their respective wireless clients. I presume roaming would not work because the client would need to obtain a new IP address. But roaming doesn't work now anyway as I mentioned yesterday. If I'm missing some key point about network connectivity that requires NAT for 192.168.0.0/16, I sure wish that someone would enlighten me. Bob | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Wireless Network Design | August 8, 2008, 9:07 am |
| Wireless network design question | February 21, 2006, 3:15 pm |
| Wireless Controller and WCS Design ? | March 27, 2007, 11:06 am |
| Campus Network Design Help | February 9, 2005, 1:18 pm |
| A question in network design | February 1, 2006, 4:46 am |
| Automate Network Design | May 24, 2006, 6:28 am |
| Automate Network Design | May 24, 2006, 6:28 am |
| Network Design Cisco LAN | July 10, 2006, 1:54 pm |
| Network design questions | February 5, 2007, 4:27 am |
| Network Design Help Wanted | February 12, 2007, 4:08 pm |
| Where can I find the best way/guide for network design? | April 18, 2007, 4:14 am |
| Design Request - Split Current Network in Two | August 19, 2005, 12:11 pm |
| Catalyst 3750G / Network design question | August 15, 2006, 12:44 am |
| EIGRP network design : e book download | August 18, 2007, 11:54 am |
| Help with campus network design 1 main site, 7 remote over fiber GigE | February 14, 2005, 11:00 am |
>coverage for the second floor) and a second one downstairs in the
>living room where signal strength is too low to be useful. There are
>probably lots of different ways to do this but I would like feedback
>on the theoretical as well as practical pros and cons of two
>approaches:
>
>1) One wired network (192.168.0.0) connecting the LAN port of the DSL
>modem and the WAN ports of both wireless routers. Each router would
>give out their own small pool of DHCP addresses, 192.168.1.0 upstairs
>and 192.168.2.0 downstairs.