Straightforward out-of-the-box solution for extending WiFi range

Makes sense. These people are like that also. Apple users. :)

Reply to
Danny D'Amico
Loading thread data ...

What? You log into a starbuck from 300ft with your phone?

Further, don't use any inverters that are not pure sine wave.

Reply to
miso

If you mean Netstumber, that is an active wifi sniffer. Not particularly useful in my opinion.

Most of the Alfa usb dongles work with kismet I have a AWUS051NH. It is a bit deaf being dual band and all. The 2.4G Tube-u really works well with kismet.

You need a wifi chipset/driver that has monitor mode.

Reply to
miso

If the underlying networks are bridged, this is a supported configuration and it allows client machines to move between the access points seamlessly.

If the networks are not bridged, this will cause IP conflicts and other problems.

Reply to
DevilsPGD

I call it dueling routers. ^_^

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

As opposed to dualing routers? ;-)

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

I have five but they just make sawdust.

Reply to
krw

Or the dualism of routers. ^_^

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

I think, if it's 802.11n, it must have (at least) two antennas. Right?

Reply to
Danny D'Amico

I am always confused if it's raw "monitor" or "promiscuous" mode that is required, but, I do realize that you need a chipset which allows you to show packets which aren't meant for you.

In the past, on the PC, I had used NetStumbler and NetCrumbler, the difference being NetCrumbler allowed you to actually connect, while NetStumbler expressly denied that capability.

On Android, when I search for NetStumbler, I only see "Meraki WiFi Stumbler", which I don't think is the same thing.

I don't know if the Ubuiquiti Bullet M2, Nanobridge M2, or Rocket M2 that I have will allow "monitor" mode, but, I would suspect they do.

That means I only need to find a Netstumbler/crumbler equivalent for Linux to test it out on my Lenovo W510 laptop. I think that might be kismet, wifi-radar or iwscanner ...

Reply to
Danny D'Amico

I haven't tried that yet. :) I'm still just practicing by logging into my own home broadband router.

As noted, the antenna and receiver sensitivity are the limiting factors; not the transmit power.

Oh oh... I have those cheap 70W ones. What's the problem if they're not a pure sine wave?

Reply to
Danny D'Amico

Since Netstumbler is only on Windows ...

formatting link

Looks like these will work on Linux: $ sudo apt-get install wifi-radar Kismet

formatting link
SWScanner
formatting link

Reply to
Danny D'Amico

  1. The "modified sine wave" variety tend to generate high power RFI (both conducted and radiated) which your receiver will not appreciate.
  2. The power that its NOT part of the fundamental sine wave, has to go somewhere. For example, the worst case is if the inverter belches a square wave, where 1/3 of the power is in harmonics of the fundamental sine wave. That power has to go somewhere. It can be radiated, which is unlikely at 60 Hz. Since the radio power supply usually has a low pass filter at the input, it can be dissipated in the filter, or it can be reflected back to the inverter, which usually fails to appreciate the added voltage or current (depending on phase).
  3. Inverters tend to have switching spikes on the output. They create RFI, but if large enough, can blow up downstream electronics.

How close to a sine wave does the output need to be? Difficult to tell. It depends on the load. Some wall-wart style switchers tolerate almost anything, while others blow up with little or no provocation.

Personally, I like to run everything on 12V DC (actually 11-15VDC). While that has its own collection of horrors, such as voltage spike on the vehicle battery line when starting the engine, having a built in UPS makes it worthwhile.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Everyone seems to have different definitions of what constitutes "carrier class" or "professional" wireless hardware. For me, it's quite simple. Will it do SNMP and can it be monitored and managed with 3rd party tools? I think you'll find that SNMP support will make a good dividing line between consumer and pro. The average home user doesn't need SNMP even if it's provided. I need it to keep a mess of access points and routers alive and provide reports and pretty graphs to keep the customer happy. ISP's need SNMP to allow a diverse collection of dissimilar hardware to be monitored and managed with a single software tool:

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Interesting. I've got SNMP on all the Ubiquit radios, and, I've never used it.

Although, that was precisely your point!

Reply to
Danny D.

Hi Jeff, That's what we did. We used ch 1 & 6 so as not to overlap.

I'm really starting to like these access points, although, the "controller" software is a pain.

For example, we tried to set up a second access point at another site, and the first access point setup kept getting in the way.

Had we known, we would have just wiped out the controller software on our PC, before starting.

If they just put a web server on these Unify access points, it would make it easier for the consumer. But, other than the lousy controller software setup (which, in effect, is merely a login shell for the access point), these Ubiquiti Unify long-range access points are nice for consumer use.

Reply to
Danny D.

This is interesting.

I haven't set this up at my own home, so, I'm only going off what the neighbors are saying, so, we'll keep this caveat in mind.

However ... just guessing ... it would seem to me that, if we use the same SSID, that the STRONGEST should win, and, if one disconnects, it *should* (logically anyway) switch seamlessly over to the stronger signal as the person roams the home.

I'll need more data from the neighbors to confirm or discount that theory though ...

Reply to
Danny D.

Everything I write is interesting. Sometimes, it's even accurate.

Fat chance. That's the way it should work. Instead, what happens is that the client will remain connected to the initial access point, no matter how weak or disgusting a signal it offers. Even if turn off the client device, it will try to reconnect to the same initial access point, even if there's a stronger/better signal with the same SSID evailable. Even if you intentionally disconnect, the client will retain the MAC address of the initial access point. When you try to reconnect, it will try that MAC address first.

Intel seems to have gotten the clue and offers a setting as to how "aggressive" the client will act in retaining a connection: It's not a total solution, but does work rather well on my various laptops.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Stop using them on ultra liberal idiots, and let the termites finish them off.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

That bytes! ;-)

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

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.