I'll try it, but I have to wait until my daughter is not home. She uses the AP upstairs with her laptop. Right now, I'm using wpa-psk w/tkip, but I'll disable it on both the router and the AP temporarily.
I'll put the AP on 1 and the router on 10.
Will do. Thanks for the help.
That's an idea. I work in support, but Sales doesn't have much clout in my department. We try to help them to sell of course, but we know the best way to help them is to keep the customers thrilled with the service we give. If I hung up on a customer, I would be putting my personal stuff in a box 'cause I'd be fired very quickly.
That's not surprising. Auto roaming on the best signal is a tricky work-in-progress. Try manually disconnecting and reconnecting. Hopefully your laptop will then select the better signal.
OK, but you are using Duh-Link stuff, which you've been warned doesn't work like they say it does, plus mostly Duh-Link client hardware. What does it do with the Intel client machine with the latest drivers?
The inability to roam seamlessly is not unexpected. My home network does much the same thing unless I manually disconnect, scan, and reconnect. In: news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com I sorta explains how I guess(tm) the connect/disconnect malfunction works. It's neither a graceful or seamless transfer. Wireless clients that have provisions for roaming work much better.
Now that you have it working at the most rudimentary, crude, and minimal level, start turning features back on, one at a time, and see which one created the original hunting problem. My guess(tm) is that turning WPA-PSK on will be the culprit.
If that's the case, and you have the latest firmware, I would drop a note with your test results in the DLink forum on DSLReports.com demanding a beta firmware release that DLink support always seems to have handy when the effluvia hits the fan. This would also be a great opertunity to mention your experiences with their outsourced support department.
Drivel: I'm now online waiting for a chat session with Dell customer service for why my 35% coupon is not being accepted by the order page. When I started, I was number 20 in the queue with a 15 minutes wait. It's now 32 minutes later, I'm number 12 in the queue, and the estimated wait is now 40 minutes. Kinda looks like the chat version of hanging up.
Ah, well, it was worth a try. The only other suggestion would be to try a couple of WAP54G devices. Maybe you can sell the Duh-Link products on eBay to someone who doesn't care if they work together.
One final question...is there any reason to ever use a WAP54G rather than a WRT54G? From the comments I have read in this thread, it appears that the router is an access point plus some additional functionality. Worse yet, the access point seems to be priced higher than the router, even though the access point does less. So, is there any advantage at all to using the access point?
I tend to use non-wireless (BEFSR41) routers and multiple (WAP54G or WAP54GP) APs in situations where I want more than one AP in a location.
This allows you to (for instance) have a Power Over Ethernet solution to supplying power to the APs, so you can put them in ceilings or other inaccessable locations and still easily power cycle them, provide them with UPS power, and reduce the possible effects of power surges and lightning strikes.
Also, the WAPs have only one wire, where putting (say) a WRT54G in one location and another one in another location could turn into a real rats-nest. Besides, you have to remember all that funky configuration stuff for using a router as an AP.
Personal preference, but when you are getting into a large enough place that you need multiple APs, your setup, wiring, and maintenance costs are going to swamp the aquisition cost of routers versus APs.
[And it doesn't apply to this situation, but WAPs have a lot more features than WRTs do, they can operate as repeaters, clients, etc. We stock both and use whichever is appropriate.]
Just to underscore the point, wireless access points want to live in open locations, as high as possible, so as to increase the coverage area. Ceilings and attics are good. So are high bookshelves. However, wired routers want to live where the wires are located, which is usually a basement, under a desk, near the floor, or other RF disgusting location. Unless you enjoy looking at multiple wires creeping up the wall, these requirements are mutually exclusive.
There are some other advantages to using access points instead of conglomerated wireless routers. However, I tend to buy wireless routers and use them as wireless access points. Reasons below.
- The access point can be powered off for additional security when not in use without affecting the wired router.
- A local bar (pub) tolerates wireless users during off peak hours, but unplugs the wireless at 6PM when the establishment gets crowded and table hogs are not appreciated.
- Wireless technology changes literally by the month. Last months acronyms get replaced by this months fashionable acronyms. By using seperate boxes, it is possible to upgrade the wireless part, without affecting the wired part.
- Wireless routers are cheaper than wireless access points because manufactories sell more wireless routers. This is despite the fact that wireless routers include a 4 port ethernet switch, while access points do not.
However...
- Some wireless routers include WDS (wireless distribution service) which allows extending the network via wireless to both wired and wireless devices. Some wireless routers and access points also include a client mode, that allows building workgroups. Since I prefer to stock as few devices as possible, I tend to buy wireless routers with as many features as possible, and then use them as access points. This is normally not a consideration for home users.
I just installed a Zyxel P-330W router, As instructed above , I disabled the DHCP server and connected it to a LAN port. Actually, I removed a wired
8-port switch and replaced it with the Zyxel, utilizing three of the four LAN ports (the WAN port is no used). I do not appear to be getting better wireless coverage than I had previously. Question: how can I determine that the Zyxel is actually functioning as intended (as an Access Point)? Even with the Zyxel installed, and appearing to function properly, how do I know that my wireless computers aren't still getting their signal from the :Linksys WRT54G that is located in my garage, which is a remote area of my house? I assigned the Zyxel an address of 192.168.1.10, and I can access it though my LAN without problems, but I know no way of verifying that it is serving in its intended capacity as an Access Point. Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks to Mr Navas and Mr Smith. After reading your posts, I realized that I should be seeing the Zyxel when I scan for available networks. I had set the router as a Client rather than as an Access Point. After making that change, I was able to see the Zyxel (which I had set to a different SSID) and signal strength showed as excellent (not surprising since I was sitting right next to it), but I could not get on the internet. I took another look and realized that I needed to set the router for Bridge Mode. I also conformed the channels. My original Linksys was set to Channel 6, but the Zyxel was set to Channel 11. I made them both 6. I also made sure that the encryption was set to WPA for both routers.
Now everything is working just fine. Depending on where in my house I am sitting, I will have to scan for available networks and select the router with the better signal strength. One last question...should the channel number be the same for both routers?
Way back in the dawn of time (or earlier in this thread, on 5/20) I pointed out a known functional method of setting things up so that you didn't have to manually connect to the stronger network.
It doesn't really matter if the channel numbers are the same or different, it's a congestion/interference tradeoff, but in most residential situations it really doesn't matter.
No. They will interfere with each other that way. They should ideally be on different non-overlapping channels (1, 6, 11) with the least interference from others (neighbors). With the same SSID, your clients should connect to the access point with the better signal automatically.
If there's only a single wireless laptop in the house, you're probably correct. What I see are TIVO boxes, game machines, and a few 802.11 VoIP phones, all of which may generate erratic traffic to either access points. The degree of interference varies with the amount of traffic but mostly by the signal strength. If the interference source is weak, then the effects will be minimal.
Don't forget that the client radios can also cause interference. If there are more than one wireless laptop in the house, with 2 access points on the same channel, then a 2nd laptop might be located halfway between these access points. Instead of getting interference from the other access points on the same channel, the first laptop will receive interfence from the 2nd laptop.
There is one case where it would be safe to use the same channel for both access points. If there is sufficient physical isolation between access points to prevent any mutual inteference. An isolated house and garage, or house with concrete walls, might work.
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.