Of course they won't "support" it, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily not going to work.
You're not trying to use their repeater with another vendor's AP either. you're trying to use a repeater with another router?
Who said anything about "final instalation"?
Like what? That's really all there is to it, you plug it into the outlet and try it.
Buy one and test it.
Even if you find something that theoretically has supposed "support", that's no assurance that plugging it in and trying it will result in signal strenth from the hotspot to it, or it to you.
You need to buy a repeater and try it, not fixate on problems more common with a different device or device function (a bridge).
It may, but I'm into simplicity. Plus, this installation won't be readily accessible, so reboot and reset may be a bit complicated, too (I have in mind a secure location but one which takes some [notable] effort to visit). A power-down and up again will be easy, but hands-on definitely won't. Think, for example, at the top of a major utility pole like you'd see a barnyard light on, with a secure switch below. EZ on, EZ off, but out come the climbers and the belt if I want to fiddle with it.
Hm. For example, a unit which can be either a bridge or an AP (they seem common, based on a quickie search), using two of them? The bridge unit discovers the neighborhood APs? (That part's pretty simple - if it weren't for the wire connection challenge, I could run a cat5 crossover to a bridge and be done with it!) Would that be a point-to-point, or, since I'm trying to be able to not only see, but select from, several, a point-to-multipoint configuration?
By back-to-back, do you mean connected with a crossover, relying on the AP to talk to me, and the bridge to the other APs? The AP passes through like a repeater, so instead of my wiring to the bridge, the AP sends that to me via wifi? (That is, if wired, the ethernet NIC in my computer talks to the bridge over ethernet. If wireless, the wireless LAN talks to the AP over wifi, that wifi link taking the place of the long part of ethernet - which is then connected to a short part of ethernet between the AP and the Bridge, completing the connection between my computer and the Bridge?) Then, I control the bridge (setup, selection of AP to associate with, etc.) through the AP? Please pardon my density, here, as it's not my field (as must already be evident!).
If that's correct, I'd assume I'd need a relatively smaller antenna for the AP to talk to me (I'm relatively close), and a larger (both cases in dBi, not just size) antenna for the bridge to talk to the other APs. I'd assume the Bridge would see my AP as one of the available (so I'd not choose it, of course)? Presumably, unless I were to encrypt the AP, others could also see it? Or would I have to associate only my machine to make it work? Would you see any conflicts in IP, antenna, or other issues if they were the same units, but configured to one AP and one Bridge?
Well, I might, in the end. But what if the instance case graduates? Moves? Newer, stronger, signal (which I'd prefer) arrives/appears? Something else making it unavailable or those, I'd want to be able to change.
Thanks for the engagement and assists in thinking this through.
Then how about getting your own broadband service? It's gonna be a lot more reliable (and probably cheaper to set up) than a couple of APs up a pole. Weatherproofing them and preventing overheating in the summer are going to be challenges.
[I wrote]
Yes, that's the ticket. Configuring and maintaining it is left as an exercise for the student.
Why can't you put it in aproximately the middle? Once you start talking about external antennas the price rises rapidly...
Otoh, _any_ standards-based router that can act as a client, can interoperate with others of the same standard, so you can get repeating capability by using _two_ routers - one as the bridge-client, and the other as the access point for your local wireless net. Even your own pair don't need to be identical. Of course, it doubles your cost.
I'd say "most" and "should". The Linksys WAP54G, for instance, specifically lists (in the router setup page) the WAP54G and WRT54G as the only APs it'll connect to in client mode.
Maybe they just don't want to deal with other vendor's equipment, but there are probably hardware/chipset/firmware/timing compatability issues when repeating.
The OP wants a remotely reprogrammable repeater that'll work with multiple vendor's APs, and that's going to be difficult and problematic...
Ehhh... A NEMA box takes care of the weather, and mostly the overheating. I haven't a clue about my own broadband service (or, do you mean an ISP running to my place?) - but if it's a one-time cost similar, I'm all ears (or antennae, if you prefer).
See minor comment immediately below, where I'll continue this part about the exercise:
Well, perhaps. The other part about that was interference, as all the boxes I've seen already have one or two antennae on them. I'd have to feed something to the outside, in any case, for best reach, so I'd be in for a pigtail. Would there be antenna conflict?
And, on to the exercise left to the student: This is where I come unstuck. I have the luxury of a couple of pretty good AP/Bridge (switchable, not concurrent) units, 200mW each, which should give me pretty good range. When I set up one as AP (on channel 1, say) and the other as bridge (on channel
11, say, both to make sure I'm as far away from the typical channel 6 as possible), using different IPs for each, including the most off-the-wall ones I can imagine (so there can't possibly be any conflict with anything else around - see below), so long as they are in the same family and subset (e.g. 192.168.1.x and 255.255.255.0, but instead something like 15.0.0.x),
*and* my NIC which I used to configure them, *and* my wireless NIC are in the same family and subset (different end numbers, of course, for all, to avoid IP conflict - which, by the way, the properties confirm as "no conflict"), when I plug the two together (AP+Bridge with crossover), they do just fine. I've also gone into the "advanced" section and set up the extras (start with the 192 set, and add the oddballs), to no avail.
However, that's as far as it gets. The wireless NIC sees the AP, loud and clear - and nothing else. As soon as I put the wireless into dhcp, the computer immediately responds with IP conflict messages, and there's no connectivity. Without my ethernet NIC connected to either of them, they can't be interrogated (web interface). With the wireless NIC in static IP, it won't surf. The only thing it sees is the AP.
I've about worn out the CD reading the manual and going through iterations of potential setups where there might not be an IP conflict. If I keep the crossover cable connected (with my ethernet NIC) to the bridge, it acts like a large external antenna, and I see the available points and can select between them. But it's got this #$%^&(_)(&* wire on it.
So, there I am, the worst of all worlds. I can't cut the cord, I can't interrogate wirelessly, I can't select from APs, and I can't get out in static mode. In DHCP, all I can see is the AP - and conflict messages ensue, to boot, though, as I've been typing this and mucking around with these two, for whatever reason, the IP conflict has gone away, despite my going to dhcp. OTOH, I can't get the AP to communicate, any more, either - it shows "limited or no connectivity". That is, my wifi NIC can't talk to the AP - it can *see* it, but it can't get an address.
I have a WAP54G (3 actually) and it connects to a Senao 2611CB3 in client mode just fine. Linksys is simply covering thier ass so they don't have to support every possible compbination on the market.
It really _must_ connect to every AP in client mode that properly implements the 802.11b or 802.11g standards. What use are standards, otherwise? If I found an AP that was supposedly operating in standards-compliance client mode, and couldn't connect to a WRT54G, I'd want my money back from one of the vendors.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.