extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"

with my former ISP, I used a wireless router that served the three PCs in the three bedrooms of my house. since we moved to another ISP lately, and they couldn't mount their so-called "home access gateway" (basically a wired router) where the old router was, they had to put it in our living room. I managed to configure our old router as an access point, wired to the gateway, and it works fine... except, its range does not cover the whole house, missing one of the rooms due to its peculiar layout. I thought I'd buy a range extender and I went to my local shop browsing for some models, finding out that the typical extender costs approximately twice as much as an access point of the same brand. "that's because they sell many more ap's than extenders", the clerk said. great. therefore I said to myself that, if I had managed to find some docs on the net explaining how to configure a router as an ap, it was worth to give a shot at trying to set up an ap as an extender... but I didn't find anything nearly as exhaustive as the articles I stumbled on during my former quest. instead I found out that "basic" extenders cut your bandwidth in half because they only have one radio and must continuously switch between rx/tx (I don't know, are there "advanced" ones? are there extenders that don't halve your bandwidth, and if so how do you tell by reading their boxes?), and several other limitations and possible problems were hinted at, to the point of defining this whole brood of machines as "EVIL". at this point, I have three possible scenarios (cheapest to most expensive):

a) buy an access point, they have a D-Link at about EUR 40.00, and configure it as an extender for my "router-configured-as-an-ap" :)

b) buy a proper extender, the only one they have at the shop is a D-Link that costs about EUR 99.00.

c) screw all the job I did on turning my router into an ap (well, it hasn't been that unbearable an effort, actually), and buy this amazing access point I saw at the mall, with I-don't-know-how-many-powerful-antennae inside it that purportedly keep on scanning your house for obstacles and send the correct signal to every pc in the crib, promising to seamlessly cover I-don't-remember-how-many-square-metres. I don't remember the manufacturer, but this thingie was whiteish and costed about EUR 120.00.

is "a" possible? which one would you suggest? "a" and "b", of course, are acceptable only given that the answer to my question concerning "advanced" extenders is positive and that the gizmo I'll be using is one of them: I definitely don't want to narrow my bandwidth.

thank you all in advance for your time

Swann

Reply to
Swann
Loading thread data ...

d) Use powerline networking to move your current wireless access point or router back to its original location.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:54:38 +0100, "Swann" wrote in :

Reply to
John Navas

The D-Link model DWL-G700AP is a reasonably priced access point that can be configured to act as a repeater - when the firmware has been updated to v2.1. It repeats the wireless signal here from my Trendnet TEW-510APB. Works with WPA-PSK encryption.

Would that be the DWL-G710 Extender? They cost twice as much as the G700.

What's the difference between a repeater and an extender?

Reply to
Axel Hammerschmidt

"Swann" wrote in news:ejcoqs$vsr$ snipped-for-privacy@registered.motzarella.org:

And why couldn't they put it where the other one was ? Move it.

Reply to
DanS

"Axel Hammerschmidt" ha scritto nel messaggio news:1hotiys.fml8rmyec61cN% snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com...

how about the "half bandwidth" stuff?

beats the hell out of me... guess it's just the same thing...

Swann

Reply to
Swann

"DanS" ha scritto nel messaggio news:Xns987BE8EA65BCCthisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...

cannot. it has to stay in the living room because it also needs to be wired to the tv set. besides, we changed the phone lines and the router must now dial from the main socket, which is in that room.

furthermore, to answer john navas, I can't actually move my access point back, because another flatmate (who didn't use the net before) only gets a good signal from its CURRENT position. so, we either use a repeater, or we switch to a new, more powerful, access point. it's a, b, or c as I explained before.

thanks, Swann

Reply to
Swann

"Swann" wrote in news:ejeuat$9ob$ snipped-for-privacy@registered.motzarella.org:

Confusing. Is this a cable modem or a DSL modem ?

Reply to
DanS

How fast is your internet connection?

Reply to
Axel Hammerschmidt

"Axel Hammerschmidt" ha scritto nel messaggio news:1hourie.10jqya81g1efxhN% snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com...

*nominally* 6 Mbps... why?

Swann

Reply to
Swann

"DanS" ha scritto nel messaggio news:Xns987C4CD869CC6thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...

DSL. but they also bring voip and some tv channels over it.

Swann

Reply to
Swann

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:40:12 +0100, "Swann" wrote in :

(e) Use wired networking (Ethernet, powerline, phoneline, or coax) to attach a 2nd access point in the original location. This can be a superior solution because repeaters cut network speed in half and can be problematic to operate. Put the access points on different non-overlapping channels (1, 6, 11) with the same _unique_ SSID.

(f) Upgrade the antenna on the single access point if that's enough to ensure sufficient signal wherever you need it. How well that will work depends on the amount of improvement needed and on layout of your house.

Reply to
John Navas

Then you probably won't notice the "half bandwidth" - if say you nominally start at 54 Mbps.

Reply to
Axel Hammerschmidt

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:34:06 +0100, "Swann" wrote in :

Any simple repeater will cut wireless network speed in half because there can be only one wireless transmission at a time. So instead of:

Transmit packet 1 Transmit packet 2 Transmit packet 3 Transmit packet 4 ... You have:

Transmit packet 1 Repeat packet 1 Transmit packet 2 Repeat packet 2 ...

Instead of a simple repeater you can use a wireless Ethernet bridge (that can support enough clients) cabled to a wireless access point on a different non-overlapping channel; i.e.,

+--------------+ | | | DSL Modem | | | +------|-------+ | +------|-------+ +--------------+ | | | Wi-Fi | | Wi-Fi Router ............... Ethernet | | | Chan 1 | Bridge | +--------------+ +------|-------+ | +------|-------+ | | | Wi-Fi AP ........... | | Chan 6 +--------------+
Reply to
John Navas

What sort of router are you assuming the Wi-Fi Router is? This router (which the OP already has) will have to share bandwidth amongst stations connecting directly with this router as well as the bridge.

Reply to
Axel Hammerschmidt

"Swann" wrote in news:ejff70$rht$ snipped-for-privacy@registered.motzarella.org:

So it's a combo DSL modem/IP Phone/Wireless Router/IP TV box ?

That's just stupid. Just another instance in which you can see you are better off with individual components, if this indeed as I describe it.

Reply to
DanS

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:54:36 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

For Internet access, no; for local networking; yes.

Almost certainly not running at anything close to that.

Reply to
John Navas

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:34:17 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

Of course. But a simple repeater only makes things (much) worse by cutting the available wireless bandwidth in half. With a remote access point on a different non-overlapping channel, full Wi-Fi bandwidth is preserved.

Reply to
John Navas

Do you mean, because the repeater runs at a slower speed it will then slow down the router? How would that effect bandwidth?

Say the router could run at max (nom) 54 Mbps and the repeater runs at

27 Mbps. That slows down the router to 27 Mbps. A station connects directly with the router. There's still 27 Mbps available.
Reply to
Axel Hammerschmidt

Nor at 6 Mbps either. I was using nominal values to make a point. For special lokal networking tasks the Op can do a lot of things, like shutting down his repeater, or moving his laptop and use cable. Wireless is for laptops, after all...

Reply to
Axel Hammerschmidt

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:18:14 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

Many families and businesses that use it for desktops as well.

Reply to
John Navas

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.