How do I make this work more seamlessly? Client Bridges, routers and whacky access points.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 4, 2017

Hi,

I'm.. sort of in a crisis with this.

I live with my mother still because I'm not an adult, so factor this in why it's so [bad].

I'll add a diagram to the post. Read/view that one first, and then continue reading..
--

Problems I'm having:

Any device connected to the Client Bridge's ports via LAN require static IP's to function. The IP reservation is optional and does work for devices in the WLAN network. I like to have the most used machines on a static IP. However, as it works with other machines not on the client bridge, when I disable static IP on the client it goes bonanzas. It tries to reach DHCP, receives IP's in the whoock of 147.157.1.138. This is the LOCAL IP it gets assigned. It seems like the DHCP server on the main router isn't being reached.

Occasionally, any device connected to WLAN will also funk out (especially my Linux-powered laptop) by receiving an IP address that's just plain out of the bounds that were assigned to the DHCP (addresses 100-150). See the Image with the config window.
Notice also how it always just goes out of the bounds and always defaults to 192.168.1.2 as gateway. The *?

major conclusion: Because my WiFi sucks, and I can't run LAN to downstairs, and my phones barely connect to it downstairs: I need a fix. I would like to upgrade the WRT54GL to another natively WRT supporting device that doesn't break the bank. Wireless N at least would be nice.
However, since upgrading is for Just-not-now I'd like to fix the client bridge to work seamlessly (as if the client bridge's lan devices were directly wired to the router's switch) so that it works with DHCP. Address reservation is a feature of the DHCP so if DHCP works, that will work too.

Don't know where to put this: So it needs to actually, when a device asks 192.168.1.3 aka Client Bridge "hey, I want an IP Address!", forward this to 192.168.1.1, and then have the IP assigned by the one MASTER DHCP. It also needs to tell every pc that the DHCP is located at 192.168.1.1. That's what Default Gateway is right? The one that handles the core?

Also: the reason for the high range of the DHCP is so I can assign static IP's to devices without any possible conflict of when the static'd device goes offline, that the dhcp assigns a device the IP of a static device. This is what address reservation is for, in case you want a static IP in the dhcp's range.

I was thinking of getting a WRT-3200AC (or something named like that, at least) for the main device upstairs. This should give better signal strength than the TL-WR1043ND we have right now, right?

If you suggest any items for me, for now or the future, please try and find them on Belgian sites or use the BE version of Pcpartpicker (if they do networking gear too). You might suggest US-only devices otherwise, that I can't find in Europe.

Cheers,
Annelies

The diagram. http://imgur.com/a/NHLG8
The Linux config window: http://imgur.com/a/MseFm
The desktop, main windows pc when not in static mode: http://imgur.com/a/Enegp

I bricked my internet temporarily for a long time trying to make the windows screenshot.
edit: if I have a wireless AC access point, and then also a wireless AC access point with DDWRT... Can I use Beamforming to make it better? It has to go through thick concrete but there's not alot of wifi in the area.

<Language, please. Thanks>

bill001g · Aug 4, 2017

The client bridge should be completely transparent. It will not work much better than a nic in your pc in most cases it does not fix the weak signal problem.

I would consider powerline adapters. If you need wireless at the remote end use a AP or there are powerline adapters with built in AP.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 4, 2017

I'm using a client bridge because then I can choose my point of pickup and I can have my server downstairs too. Powerline won't really work for this as i've tested it before and it was worse than my satisfyingly-consistent 20/20 I get with the WRT54GL.

The problem sustains though: the WRT54GL is not transparant acting. Otherwise it would allow the main router's DHCP to assign IP's (which it doesn't)

bill001g · Aug 4, 2017

Hard to say you must have something configured incorrectly on your clinet-bridge. It by definition is a layer 2 device and does not do any function at the IP level. DD-WRT is very messy and has a lot of option that are easy to get wrong.

I am somewhat surprised most people find powerline connection superior to wifi.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 4, 2017

bill001g :

The thing is, there's nothing concerning DHCP that is wrong imo. DHCP options have been hidden given that I selected Client Bridge.

I have some passionate hate for dem powerline adapters. I really don't like them. I only use them in worst case scenario.

Quick question: Wireless AC on a linksys 1900ACS or 3200AC(s?) than the current TLWR1043ND, right? I mena.. the 1043ND is a beginner model if I'm not mistaken. I can't even get LuCI on it :')

bill001g · Aug 4, 2017

It makes no difference if your goal is to improve the connection to your linksys. That is a old 802.11g router so it can not even use the 5g band which is required to run 802.11ac.

You would need 802.11ac devices on both ends. Still using 802.11ac does not magically solve signal strength issues. In most cases it actually will be worse because the 5g signal is blocked more easily that the 2.4g signals. Pretty much the only difference between 802.11g,802.11n and 802.11ac is how much data they can put in the signal. It might increase the speed of a connection but it generally does not increase the coverage. The radio power levels are the same no matter the way the data is encoded.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 4, 2017

Yup, I know that! What I meant is upgrading the main one AND the client bridge to something that runs good with DDWRT or other aftermarket linux software.

What about Beaming though? Doesn't that increase signal strength by beaming the signal towards one area? Signal coverage isn't actually bad right now where the client bridge is. I could easily use the old 54GL as an access point that does signals over a different frequency one I estabilish some AC 5.0Ghz link.

edit: if both TX and RX power settings are higher because of a better access point with better specs, than the signal strength should be better, if not just more stable and faster if not reaching further.

bill001g · Aug 4, 2017

The beaming forming stuff is mostly smoke and mirrors you get very little gain in the real world. It is more for sharing the bandwidth not so much to increase the coverage. Not sure dd-wrt images support the beam forming in the clients and both ends must support it. This is going to be one of those if the chipset provider allows a pubic driver that has beam forming support. This is like the hardware nat assist, the vendors will not provide it so dd-wrt routers can not keep up with very fast internet connections.

If your signal levels are fine then I am confused. If your problem is the DHCP then again you have something configured incorrectly. The core dd-wrt image is the same no matter what you load it on. The newer routers just have features like USB ports and more memory so they are extra things the basic stuff is the same.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 5, 2017

Hmm yeah. I just thought about it. My laptop directly connected to the main device also does the 'gateway 192.168.1.2 and ip address out of dhcp bounds' thing. Weird thing is though, it should work with an IP out of the dhcp bounds. It's the gateway that's not giving it a chance. But then again, the dhcp should not be doing this. I'll check everything again and if I can't find why it's doing this then I'll report it here.

edit: I also don't automatically receive addresses of DNS from the DHCP. Something's very wrong.
Then again, it's weird how other devices just gracefully receive addresses from 192.168.1.101 and onwards (because .100 is a reserved address and 105 too) Reserving addresses also doesn't do jack-anything.

The reason that lead me to believe the client bridge isn't transparent is because the devices connected to the client bridge all show up under the WLAN MAC of the client bridge. I have to assign IP's to that, reserve IP's for that (including the .1.3 for the interface itself).

I thought making a client bridge would act as if there was a physical wire to the router for every client, or every client was directly connected over wireless? If not, that's what I expected. :??:

bill001g · Aug 5, 2017

If they all appear under the same mac then that is your problem. dd-wrt has some option to run that way. The issue likely is that client bridge can only have a single device behind it when you have encrypted wireless. The mac is part of the keys. When it is not encrypted you can have multiple macs.

The first more standard hack to get around is called WDS. It is not official part of the wifi standard but almost all manufactures support it. This sends the actual mac in another field and the router changes the packets to make it look valid. WDS is not always turned on in devices and some require special configurations because WDS is consider a security concern when you do not know it is being used.

For things that do not support WDS or where the main router can not be accessed/changed there is the trick dd-wrt is doing. This is a form of NAT but at the mac level. Just like NAT of IP addresses it put limitation on what will work and what will not work.

RealBeast · Aug 5, 2017

AlexianaBritmonkey :

Agree with all of Bill's comments, but would like to add one thing. You must be using poor quality or old PL adapters or have very unusual poor quality home wiring and or interference (that can often be eliminated). I've installed hundreds of sets of AV2-1000 adapters and never seen any that didn't get well over 50Mbps, most around 150-200+ range.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 5, 2017

I could test new ones, but I don't have money for that right now. They're incredibly expensive around here, ranging from 150 to 250 eurobucks from time to time.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 5, 2017

bill001g :

Both my devices support WDS. Should I enable WDS links between both of them? I know it's intended to be used when using multiple access points under the same name to make them seamlessly handover to each other.

I don't understand it fully though. I can't enable WDS on the Client Bridge. I also heard if I do WDS over wireless, that I lose the ability to connect wirelessly to my main router. Enabling WDS on the main router makes it think I want to connect the main router to another one as if the main was a different one, and I had a different main.

bill001g · Aug 5, 2017

You are confusing uses of WDS. WDS is used by a repeater since a repeater is a client-bridge and a AP connected back to back.

You are only using part of it so it puts no limitations on your connectivity it is purely a feature that lets you pass multiple mac addresses over a encrypted wifi connection. dd-wrt has a client wds option it is one of the many option on the bridge menu.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 5, 2017

Then, those people speaking of, if you connect a client bridge to a router using WDS that it disables the normal transmission to other devices and that it makes it exsclusively available for the Client bridge is incorrect?

bill001g · Aug 5, 2017

Not sure what you mean. The router will talk to the client bridge and other devices just fine it will just use WDS on the client bridge connection. It purely is a special option that passes mac addresses in a unused field.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 5, 2017

Alright. Must be that I looked up info on some other WDS version. Any idea on where I enable this on the client bridge? If I go to WDS under Wireless it says I need the device to be in AP mode (while I want to use it with CB mode)

bill001g · Aug 5, 2017

It may be different on the different releases of dd-wrt. Last time I did this there was a option that said wds station. I have been using commercial client-bridge devices from ubiquiti for so long I forget how to configure dd-wrt. When you can use a outdoor bridge for $50 it just is not work the hassle to mess with dd-wrt.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 5, 2017

Well I heard of ubiquiti devices and I know they're good and easy to use, but they're probably a little too expensive for me (although they do, from hearing, have a kick ass AC capable router/AP for less than the linksys. The linksys just makes my heart beat faster because it reminds me of my very trusty 54GL.)

Besides, after looking around so much I see mixed tutorials. One says Bridge Client with DHCP and DHCP Forwarder as mode (which, I guess, forwards dhcp requests to the mainstation) but that doesn't make sense as dhcp settings disappear when I do CB.

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 6, 2017

I just tested my luck, again, with powerline using some AV6400 devices. The connection's ping is about 120 on average, and speeds are 2-3Mbps. up/down. That's like 2000% worse than the wireless CB.

RealBeast · Aug 6, 2017

AlexianaBritmonkey :

Those are ancient HomePlug AV junk that were released in 2005, I never had good results from them but that was like almost 10 years ago that I tried them and found them useless.

If you cannot afford modern AV2-1000 or better adapters don't bother. It is unfortunate they cost so much for you, here they are on sale at $50 a pair for the better sets fairly often.

unselected as BA since this does not answer your issue

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 6, 2017

RealBeast :

They actually perform very well in the owners house. They're pretty much new. Sold to her from the ISP for 120 eurobucks a pair and she gets a good speed on them.

I asked alot about getting a wire run from upstairs but we would have to drill a hole to the outside of the house and run a wire around the outside of the house.

Beachnative · Aug 6, 2017

Using the same Wi-Fi SSID or in the case of using multiple SSID's on a single device (wireless router) to bridge and connect wifi devices is not a good practice and should always be avoided. There is a limitation on total throughput on any one AP. Also you are cutting your bandwidth in half at minimum.

Also there is the noise floor that can be a real issue. Can you see any other wireless networks?

Bill said it best "Hard to say you must have something configured incorrectly on your clinet-bridge. It by definition is a layer 2 device and does not do any function at the IP level. DD-WRT is very messy and has a lot of option that are easy to get wrong. "

Simplify, simplify simplify

AlexianaBritmonkey · Aug 6, 2017

I don't think you correctly understand what I mean then. I only have ONE device transmitting a wireless signal on channel 11. Only channels 3-7 are used alot in my area. 9-12 practically not.

Just to say: Wireless connection on its own is totally fine. The only issues I really need to have solved is the IP-DHCP kinda thing. Upgrading hardware to achieve higher speeds is something I can do on my own. After all, Wireless G is starting to show its age, too.

Beachnative · Aug 6, 2017

AlexianaBritmonkey :

The bridge should be as Bill said transparent. Also why is your computer on the bridge side plugged into the WAN port? Shouldn't you be using the LAN side ? Also before you go running up and down the stairs to reset everything put all of them in one room to test everything

How do I make this work more seamlessly? Client Bridges, routers and whacky access points.

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Titan

Honorable

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Share this page