Wireless Routers used as Access Points only

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Can someone correct my train of thought on this?

I have a wired network in a 2 story block building, I have a wireless router
connected to my internet connection, I have bought another one to replace it
since the new one has several features we need. I would like to take the old
one and place it in the first floor to give it wireless connectivity.

I think I can just changed the IP of the old router and disable DHCP and
just plug a cable from the hardwired into one of the LAN ports and this will
allow wireless units access to the net?

The "old" router is a Linksys WKPC54G and the new router is a SMC
SMC2804WBR.

Any suggestions, ideas or links is appreciated.
13 answers Last reply
More about wireless routers access points only
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "S.C" <schjee@spams.com> wrote in message
    news:uMidnUwRcYSMJUXcRVn-jA@comcast.com...
    > Can someone correct my train of thought on this?
    >
    > I have a wired network in a 2 story block building, I have a wireless
    > router
    > connected to my internet connection, I have bought another one to replace
    > it
    > since the new one has several features we need. I would like to take the
    > old
    > one and place it in the first floor to give it wireless connectivity.
    >
    > I think I can just changed the IP of the old router and disable DHCP and
    > just plug a cable from the hardwired into one of the LAN ports and this
    > will
    > allow wireless units access to the net?
    >
    > The "old" router is a Linksys WKPC54G and the new router is a SMC
    > SMC2804WBR.
    >
    > Any suggestions, ideas or links is appreciated.

    You are correct in your wiring scheme, and in your wired configuration. For
    the wireless configuration, set the two routers to use different channels.
    At least 5 channels apart is ideal, at least 3 channels apart is acceptable.
    You probably want to use the same SSID on both routers, even though you
    likely won't be able to roam due to the different manufacturers.

    Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Ron Bandes <RunderscoreBandes@yah00.com> wrote:

    > You probably want to use the same SSID on both routers, even though you
    > likely won't be able to roam due to the different manufacturers.

    He will be able to roam; he just won't be able to do WDS. But he doesn't
    need WDS, because he can connect the two APs via Ethernet.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    > > Can someone correct my train of thought on this?
    > >
    > > I have a wired network in a 2 story block building, I have a
    wireless
    > > router
    > > connected to my internet connection, I have bought another one to
    replace
    > > it
    > > since the new one has several features we need. I would like to
    take the
    > > old
    > > one and place it in the first floor to give it wireless
    connectivity.
    > >
    > > I think I can just changed the IP of the old router and disable
    DHCP and
    > > just plug a cable from the hardwired into one of the LAN ports and
    this
    > > will
    > > allow wireless units access to the net?
    > >
    > > The "old" router is a Linksys WKPC54G and the new router is a SMC
    > > SMC2804WBR.
    > >
    > > Any suggestions, ideas or links is appreciated.
    >
    > You are correct in your wiring scheme, and in your wired
    configuration. For
    > the wireless configuration, set the two routers to use different
    channels.
    > At least 5 channels apart is ideal, at least 3 channels apart is
    acceptable.
    > You probably want to use the same SSID on both routers, even though
    you
    > likely won't be able to roam due to the different manufacturers.
    >
    > Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.

    Tis best to use channel 1 and 11 for two co-located aps as there is
    some overlap
    between 1 and 6 and 6 and 11, just not as much as between 1 and 2 or 3
    or 4 etc.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Airhead" <campbell@alliancecable.net> wrote in message
    news:41d95178$0$22514$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com...
    >
    > > > Can someone correct my train of thought on this?
    > > >
    > > > I have a wired network in a 2 story block building, I have a
    > wireless
    > > > router
    > > > connected to my internet connection, I have bought another one to
    > replace
    > > > it
    > > > since the new one has several features we need. I would like to
    > take the
    > > > old
    > > > one and place it in the first floor to give it wireless
    > connectivity.
    > > >
    > > > I think I can just changed the IP of the old router and disable
    > DHCP and
    > > > just plug a cable from the hardwired into one of the LAN ports and
    > this
    > > > will
    > > > allow wireless units access to the net?
    > > >
    > > > The "old" router is a Linksys WKPC54G and the new router is a SMC
    > > > SMC2804WBR.
    > > >
    > > > Any suggestions, ideas or links is appreciated.
    > >
    > > You are correct in your wiring scheme, and in your wired
    > configuration. For
    > > the wireless configuration, set the two routers to use different
    > channels.
    > > At least 5 channels apart is ideal, at least 3 channels apart is
    > acceptable.
    > > You probably want to use the same SSID on both routers, even though
    > you
    > > likely won't be able to roam due to the different manufacturers.
    > >
    > > Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
    >
    > Tis best to use channel 1 and 11 for two co-located aps as there is
    > some overlap
    > between 1 and 6 and 6 and 11, just not as much as between 1 and 2 or 3
    > or 4 etc.
    >

    I'm sorry, this is not correct. There is absolutely no spectrum overlap
    between 802.11b/g channels 1, 6 and 11. Check it out for yourself in any
    good WiFi book. This is where the "5 channels" rule-of-thumb originated.

    -Jonathan
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:55:07 -0500, "Jonathan"
    <jonathanNO@SPAMsprintmail.com> wrote:

    >I'm sorry, this is not correct. There is absolutely no spectrum overlap
    >between 802.11b/g channels 1, 6 and 11. Check it out for yourself in any
    >good WiFi book. This is where the "5 channels" rule-of-thumb originated.

    Actually there is, because the spectra extends well beyond the alleged
    occupied bandwidth. Maybe an explanation will help.

    802.11b/g direct sequence channels are 5 MHz wide[1]. 802.11b/g
    direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) modulation looks like a
    sin(x)/x curve, with a big major "lump" in the middle, a drop to zilch
    on either side of the lump, and then smaller lumps going of into
    infinity. See tutorial at:
    http://www.sss-mag.com/ss.html#tutorial
    The photo of the DS spectra is what I'm muttering about.

    The width of the "lump" in the middle is about 22MHz wide. The bulk
    of the RF is concentrated in this 22MHz or about 4+ channels wide. 5
    channels per signal is a good average.

    However, much of the RF on the slope of the "lump" is relatively low
    level when compared to the peak power. If you have sufficient
    physical seperation to reduce the signal even more, it is possible to
    run a system on perhaps every 3 or 4 channels seperation instead of 5.
    However, if the radios are in the same "air space" and can hear each
    other, every 5 channels is considered safe.

    [1] Frequency hopping spread spectrum channels a 1MHz wide.

    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Jonathan" <jonathanNO@SPAMsprintmail.com> wrote in message
    news:--udnWWjUeldP0TcRVn-og@speakeasy.net...
    >
    > "Airhead" <campbell@alliancecable.net> wrote in message
    > news:41d95178$0$22514$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com...
    > >
    > > > > Can someone correct my train of thought on this?
    > > > >
    > > > > I have a wired network in a 2 story block building, I have a
    > > wireless
    > > > > router
    > > > > connected to my internet connection, I have bought another one
    to
    > > replace
    > > > > it
    > > > > since the new one has several features we need. I would like
    to
    > > take the
    > > > > old
    > > > > one and place it in the first floor to give it wireless
    > > connectivity.
    > > > >
    > > > > I think I can just changed the IP of the old router and
    disable
    > > DHCP and
    > > > > just plug a cable from the hardwired into one of the LAN ports
    and
    > > this
    > > > > will
    > > > > allow wireless units access to the net?
    > > > >
    > > > > The "old" router is a Linksys WKPC54G and the new router is a
    SMC
    > > > > SMC2804WBR.
    > > > >
    > > > > Any suggestions, ideas or links is appreciated.
    > > >
    > > > You are correct in your wiring scheme, and in your wired
    > > configuration. For
    > > > the wireless configuration, set the two routers to use different
    > > channels.
    > > > At least 5 channels apart is ideal, at least 3 channels apart is
    > > acceptable.
    > > > You probably want to use the same SSID on both routers, even
    though
    > > you
    > > > likely won't be able to roam due to the different manufacturers.
    > > >
    > > > Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
    > >
    > > Tis best to use channel 1 and 11 for two co-located aps as there
    is
    > > some overlap
    > > between 1 and 6 and 6 and 11, just not as much as between 1 and 2
    or 3
    > > or 4 etc.
    > >
    >
    > I'm sorry, this is not correct. There is absolutely no spectrum
    overlap
    > between 802.11b/g channels 1, 6 and 11. Check it out for yourself
    in any
    > good WiFi book. This is where the "5 channels" rule-of-thumb
    originated.

    I have checked it out. (found it in some good wi-fi books) It happens
    in co-located APs.
    The reason is due to the fact that they are transmitting at
    approximately
    the same degree of power and are close to each other. This will cause
    a small overlap
    between 1 and 6 and 6 and 11 around the 2.427 and 2.447 freq area
    and will typically decrease the throughput from approximatley 5mbs to
    around 4mbs.
    Theoretically there is no overlap but in reality there has shown to be
    some.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Just a question I have about this, since I started the thread. Does it
    really matter since the first wireless router cannot even reach the first
    floor? I get "0" signal strength and no connection at all. I have tried
    several different laptops with different cards and I get nothing at all on
    the first floor, so I am to believe that the signal from the one on the
    first floor will not reach the second floor either.

    Thanks
    Steve


    "Jonathan" <jonathanNO@SPAMsprintmail.com> wrote in message
    news:--udnWWjUeldP0TcRVn-og@speakeasy.net...
    >
    > "Airhead" <campbell@alliancecable.net> wrote in message
    > news:41d95178$0$22514$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com...
    > >
    > > > > Can someone correct my train of thought on this?
    > > > >
    > > > > I have a wired network in a 2 story block building, I have a
    > > wireless
    > > > > router
    > > > > connected to my internet connection, I have bought another one to
    > > replace
    > > > > it
    > > > > since the new one has several features we need. I would like to
    > > take the
    > > > > old
    > > > > one and place it in the first floor to give it wireless
    > > connectivity.
    > > > >
    > > > > I think I can just changed the IP of the old router and disable
    > > DHCP and
    > > > > just plug a cable from the hardwired into one of the LAN ports and
    > > this
    > > > > will
    > > > > allow wireless units access to the net?
    > > > >
    > > > > The "old" router is a Linksys WKPC54G and the new router is a SMC
    > > > > SMC2804WBR.
    > > > >
    > > > > Any suggestions, ideas or links is appreciated.
    > > >
    > > > You are correct in your wiring scheme, and in your wired
    > > configuration. For
    > > > the wireless configuration, set the two routers to use different
    > > channels.
    > > > At least 5 channels apart is ideal, at least 3 channels apart is
    > > acceptable.
    > > > You probably want to use the same SSID on both routers, even though
    > > you
    > > > likely won't be able to roam due to the different manufacturers.
    > > >
    > > > Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
    > >
    > > Tis best to use channel 1 and 11 for two co-located aps as there is
    > > some overlap
    > > between 1 and 6 and 6 and 11, just not as much as between 1 and 2 or 3
    > > or 4 etc.
    > >
    >
    > I'm sorry, this is not correct. There is absolutely no spectrum overlap
    > between 802.11b/g channels 1, 6 and 11. Check it out for yourself in any
    > good WiFi book. This is where the "5 channels" rule-of-thumb originated.
    >
    > -Jonathan
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:59:58 -0500, "S.C" <schjee@spams.com> wrote:

    >Just a question I have about this, since I started the thread. Does it
    >really matter since the first wireless router cannot even reach the first
    >floor? I get "0" signal strength and no connection at all. I have tried
    >several different laptops with different cards and I get nothing at all on
    >the first floor, so I am to believe that the signal from the one on the
    >first floor will not reach the second floor either.

    Y'er 98.7% correct. If you can't hear the potential source of
    interference, you will not have a problem and can use the same
    channel. However, if there is a location, where a real user might
    hear BOTH access points, you'll have an interference problem. In my
    limited experience, unless you have a very well isolated system, there
    will usually be some place on the premisis that can/will hear both
    access points.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  9. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    S.C wrote:
    > Just a question I have about this, since I started the thread. Does it
    > really matter since the first wireless router cannot even reach the
    > first floor? I get "0" signal strength and no connection at all. I
    > have tried several different laptops with different cards and I get
    > nothing at all on the first floor, so I am to believe that the signal
    > from the one on the first floor will not reach the second floor
    > either.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Steve
    >
    It depends on the construction. I have run into things like metal beams in
    floors, firewalls etc that really screw up propogation. Depends on your
    needs on the other floor. Not sure of your setup, but have seen a hardwire
    from one floor building to another, with multiple AP's. Wasn't meant to get
    into AP stuff, but more to mention that it is very typical to find "dead
    spots". The strangest I ran across was what I thought was a simple square
    brick pole, turned out to be metal inside with a brick facade, and just to
    make it stranger, the room had plastered walls (turned out there was a metal
    mesh under the plaster!) (older building, guess that's the way they
    constructed stuff then).
  10. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    S.C <schjee@spams.com> wrote:

    > Just a question I have about this, since I started the thread. Does it
    > really matter since the first wireless router cannot even reach the first
    > floor? I get "0" signal strength and no connection at all. I have tried
    > several different laptops with different cards and I get nothing at all on
    > the first floor, so I am to believe that the signal from the one on the
    > first floor will not reach the second floor either.

    That doesn't matter if you're going to run a cable from the wireless
    router on one floor to the wireless router on the other floor. Or does
    that *not* describe what you were thinking of doing? If you want to have
    the two floors connected by a wireless link, that can't be done using
    the two routers you currently have.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    My intent was to have a AP on the first floor since the WirelessRouter on
    the second floor will not reach the first floor, The router and AP on the
    first floor will be hardwired to each other, I have had two laptops running
    side by side walking thru the first floor and I get no signal at all at the
    places people will be using the laptops.

    Thanks for the info guys!!!


    "Neill Massello" <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1gptl5y.4346v31r9spcnN%neillmassello@earthlink.net...
    > S.C <schjee@spams.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Just a question I have about this, since I started the thread. Does it
    > > really matter since the first wireless router cannot even reach the
    first
    > > floor? I get "0" signal strength and no connection at all. I have tried
    > > several different laptops with different cards and I get nothing at all
    on
    > > the first floor, so I am to believe that the signal from the one on the
    > > first floor will not reach the second floor either.
    >
    > That doesn't matter if you're going to run a cable from the wireless
    > router on one floor to the wireless router on the other floor. Or does
    > that *not* describe what you were thinking of doing? If you want to have
    > the two floors connected by a wireless link, that can't be done using
    > the two routers you currently have.
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Neill Massello" <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1gps9qu.1xseu4w1qsh9pgN%neillmassello@earthlink.net...
    > Ron Bandes <RunderscoreBandes@yah00.com> wrote:
    >
    >> You probably want to use the same SSID on both routers, even though you
    >> likely won't be able to roam due to the different manufacturers.
    >
    > He will be able to roam; he just won't be able to do WDS. But he doesn't
    > need WDS, because he can connect the two APs via Ethernet.

    I believe this is wrong. There is no standard for any Distribution System,
    not just Wireless Distribution Systems. IEEE 802.11F is in trials, but it's
    not standardized yet.

    Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Ron Bandes <RunderscoreBandes@yah00.com> wrote:

    > I believe this is wrong. There is no standard for any Distribution System,
    > not just Wireless Distribution Systems. IEEE 802.11F is in trials, but it's
    > not standardized yet.

    I believe you don't understand that the term "roaming" normally refers
    to multiple access points connected to the same wired network and having
    the same SSID and encryption key. Whether or not it's standardized, it
    works with access points of different brands, as they don't need to
    communicate with one another wirelessly.
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless Wireless Router Wireless Networking