WiFi Router X 2 = Repeater?

Don't know about that situation exactly, but you can do it a whole lot simpler.. output of one wap/router hardwired to the wan in of the second device, same ssid and same channel, and wala, you essentially have a bigger area covered and don't have to mess around with channels...Need 3/4/5/etc, just daisy chain em to make it as big as needed.

actually, you should use the same SSID but not the same channel...

You can get wireless repeaters which stay just about in range of each other and forward the signal.

Sure, that would work.

Your described setup isn't really "repeating", but rather using one of the two remote routers as a "client" and the second as only an "access point". The same thing could also be done with a wireless-ethernet bridge "client" plugged into an access point. In fact, doing something similiar to that here. The "wireless client" is simply replacing a CAT5 run, thats all, for a second AP -- which is still more efficient than "repeating" SSID's.

I used to "repeat", but after looking at how truely ugly repeating is with SNMP applications, opted to just run addition AP's as just that -- additional AP's.

Best to get the additional AP's as far out from other AP's in order to reduce RFI from one another. With my DLink's, I do this and also use the same SSID/channel, which allows my laptop and other mobile devices to seamlessly "jump to the strongest AP" without interruption. (Doesn't even need to redo DHCP when it jumps over.)

Yes, that's right, that's what I meant.

The original, too-distant, host AP is connected wirelessly to a second router configured as a client (or a bridge, I'm unsure of the proper terminology) on the same channel (naturally), then that router is connected by cable to a third router that becomes the wireless AP for the "near" wireless devices that we desire to connect to the net through that distant first router. I'm assuming this third router must operate on a different channel from the original AP.

I tried to get some help on this elsewhere, but I was told the idea wouldn't work well because it would only communicate in half-duplex mode. ???

It's sort of hard to explain all this clearly without diagrams, though I don't think it's really complex once you "see" it mentally. 8-)

Thanks for any additional clarification & tips!

-=- This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

I have a DLink G604T which has always had a flaky ADSL modem, disconnects, hard lockups etc etc. I've just replaced it with a Linksys WAG54GX2 and I'd like to set up the scenario above so I can extend the wan into the rest of our house.

Any chance you could give a little more detailed info on exactly what I need to change in the Dlink to get it to act as you state?

Many thanks, Regards, Jeff.

Same ssid's and same channel means it doesn't have to switch, and will always stay on the same one, no matter where he is. (multiple ap's with the same just make a bigger footprint, rather than seperate footprints requiring the client to switch)

I hate to tell you, but I have never had any success with D-Link stuff... (personally I'd toss it).. Have three Linksys wrt54g's (not the gs model, got the g's at walmart for about $48 bucks each). Have one in the house (sat in, no dsl or cable here in the boonies), and a hardwire to the garage (along with power/phone/cable TV/intercom etc, where I have a second) and then from there to an outbuilding(cabin) (a few hundred feet back on the property, with power/phone/cable/etc .../hardwired from the garage, I call it the back 4, cuz I have a 5 acre chunk, and the house is on the front 1).. Why the same ssid and channel? Don't care which I connect to, I just want to connect and stay connected from my laptop as I walk around. Why three wrt54g's? cuz they are everything in one box (wap and router), and having three the same means I can swap em for debugging... The wag is a wap only (no router).. and the specifics are to go from the output of one router to the input of the next wap/router (since you don't have the router part, wouldn't work for you). Help any?

Yeah, "repeating" gets you into half-duplex, cutting your pipe in half. I had an AP running as a "repeater" for my WLAN for a time, but after looking at with SNMP tools saw how really ugly it is -- and just ran CAT5 to it. For internet-only traffic, it may not be too noticable, but becomes a bottleneck for WLAN traffic.

Your remote "router to router" (acting like a wireless-ethernet bridge "client" to "access point") shouldn't cut the pipe in half though since its not a "repeater" and there is more hardware dedicated. Its just a stand-alone "AP", with the CAT5 replaced by another piece of wireless h/w...

take a look at

they claim to have a repeater for WiFi

It's partly through reading this group over the last few months that spurred me into changing the dlink for a Linksys Peter. I thought I had a bad one with all the lockups etc. but it seems from reading here that this is the norm :(

Thanks very much for the help Peter, I'll think hard abouth getting hold of another Linksys wireless router. FYI, I'm in pretty much the same boat as you. I live on the Isle of Arran off the west coast of Scotland and we have only just got ADSL (512kb) and as the farmhouse is predominately granite, radio don't propagate too well :) It would be nice to be able to get online when I'm in the workshop accross the yard without running an underground cable to the house.

Thanks for the help. Regards, Jeff.

1 fix would be powerline networking devices.

given where you are and the traditional poor power stability on farms, the biggest risk is electrical "hits" damaging them...

Just to be clear, it IS an undergound cable(s) (direct burial, 1 power and 1

20 pair utility in the same trench), direct wired to 3 different wireless AP's.. I trenched from the house to the garage to run 150 amp/240 power (for the arc welder), and decided to run a 20 pair utility cable in the same ditch (phone/cable tv/network/intercom/power controller etc), to be able to add almost anything I could think of... same to the back of the property... We get about 8ft of snow where I live, made more sense to go underground with a cable, rather than have to dig tunnels in the snow for wireless (not to mention wired works faster, handy for the terabyte of network storage and backup).. Interestingly enuf, I routinely transfer 100MB + files over the wireless and never have problems (unless the roomie uses the microwave at the same time), but routinely have problems with the sat downloads getting errors. I would suspect either you have interference, or your adsl is causing problems. If you don't need super high speed (like I did), you may want to look at PowerLine networking, a lot of older places already have power wires in em, and while limited to 14Mb speeds, is way way faster than your adsl anyway, and you can use the power line network devices as input to as many waps as you need (you have to plug em in anyway for power, so why not use the wiring for data too?

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Be more specific on your current setup and what you want to do.