Extending a wireless network

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Hi guys

I currently have cable broadband shared around the house with a
wireless 802.11g router. It is fine in most of the house, but my
daughter's bedroom is at the furthest reach from the router and the
connection to it is patchy (keeps losing her MSN connection!)

I was wondering whether it would be possible to get an extra USB
802.11g adapter for my PC in my bedroom and then use that in point to
point mode to connect to my daughters, and then bridge the connection
to my good quality link to the router. So basically my daughter would
access the Internet through two hops, one to my PC and one from there
to the router.

Would this work? If so, can anyone give any tips about how to set it
up on the two PCs. We are both running XP Home SP2. Would we use a
network bridge or Internet Connection Sharing?

Any help much appreciated.

Sue
10 answers Last reply
More about extending wireless network
  1. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    suswaze@hotmail.com wrote:
    > I currently have cable broadband shared around the house with a
    > wireless 802.11g router. It is fine in most of the house, but my
    > daughter's bedroom is at the furthest reach from the router and the
    > connection to it is patchy (keeps losing her MSN connection!)

    If you have a low signal, a reflector will likely fix the problem.

    http://www.freeantennas.com EZ-12, printed on photo paper for thick stock,
    with aluminum foil glued to the sail, provides a substantial boost in
    signal. http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/EZ12-windsurfer.jpg

    You could put one on the router, and anotheron the PC, if it has a stick
    antenna. You didn't say what was in your daughter's room.

    On one PCI card, I added a "Hawking HAI6SDA Directional 6dBi 2.4GHz Antenna"
    http://www.hawkingtech.com/prodSpec.php?ProdID=143

    --
    ---
    Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
  2. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    Why not think about using WDS ( Wireless Distribution Services ) ?
    Specifically for scenarios like yours.
    Scenario:

    Internal PCs ( x However many ) <-----> Internal Router <-----> External
    Router <-----> Cable Modem

    The Internal Router acts as a bridge to the external.
    You need to make sure both routers are from the same manufacturer.
    Your thoughts re Network Bridging/ICS are also viable options.

    The reason I prefer using WDS for this is that it's alot easier to move a
    router from place to place rather than a PC. If you move house for example,
    you can figure out where to strategically place your
    routers rather than being forced to make sure PC1 is in "firing range" of
    PC2.
    It also scales well, you want/need more distance, just buy another router
    and add it to the chain.
    WDS is supported on even the cheapest routers these days.

    Rgds, S

    <dold@XReXXExten.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
    news:dgqb4f$sh9$2@blue.rahul.net...
    > suswaze@hotmail.com wrote:
    >> I currently have cable broadband shared around the house with a
    >> wireless 802.11g router. It is fine in most of the house, but my
    >> daughter's bedroom is at the furthest reach from the router and the
    >> connection to it is patchy (keeps losing her MSN connection!)
    >
    > If you have a low signal, a reflector will likely fix the problem.
    >
    > http://www.freeantennas.com EZ-12, printed on photo paper for thick
    > stock,
    > with aluminum foil glued to the sail, provides a substantial boost in
    > signal. http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/EZ12-windsurfer.jpg
    >
    > You could put one on the router, and anotheron the PC, if it has a stick
    > antenna. You didn't say what was in your daughter's room.
    >
    > On one PCI card, I added a "Hawking HAI6SDA Directional 6dBi 2.4GHz
    > Antenna"
    > http://www.hawkingtech.com/prodSpec.php?ProdID=143
    >
    > --
    > ---
    > Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
    >
  3. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:05:15 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reachnet@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Why not think about using WDS ( Wireless Distribution Services ) ?

    Reasons why NOT to use WDS.
    1. It only works with compatible chipsets and preferably identical
    model access points. Note that the original poster did not specify
    their equipment list and therefore may also need to replace their
    existing router with a WDS compatible router.
    2. The extra access point or router costs more than a better antenna.
    The added reflector types are almost free.
    3. I cuts the maximum throughput in half (which is usually not a
    problem with DSL intenet access but does cause trouble with client to
    client file transfers).
    4. Since everything has to be on the same SSID and channel, the extra
    radio just creates that much extra interference.
    5. It's apparently not very good in the presence of interefence.
    Lose one packet and each WDS access point has to repeat it twice,
    which really cuts down on the available air time.
    6. WDS repeaters tend to require omni antennas located at midpoint.
    Omnis are somewhat more sensitive to multipath and reflections than
    directional antennas.
    7. Some buggy implimentations of WDS interfere with the use of WPA.
    This is finally being fixed on current firmware releases.
    8. Setup is a bit complex, but not overwhelming.

    http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=7


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  4. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    Thanks guys for all your help. As a single mum I am struggling a bit
    with all this, but hopefully I now have some ideas to look into and
    come up with a solution.

    Sue
  5. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    Jeff,

    Inline..

    "Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
    news:ai13j1916ok1hm8hncmj61pi0l3mqhos0a@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:05:15 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reachnet@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Why not think about using WDS ( Wireless Distribution Services ) ?
    >
    > Reasons why NOT to use WDS.
    > 1. It only works with compatible chipsets and preferably identical
    > model access points. Note that the original poster did not specify
    > their equipment list and therefore may also need to replace their
    > existing router with a WDS compatible router.

    May or may not - but not giving them the option to make an informed opinion
    is wrong.
    Neither you nor I know what he has.Why do you make the assumption he
    shouldn't be infomed as neither of us know ?

    > 2. The extra access point or router costs more than a better antenna.
    > The added reflector types are almost free.

    Here in the UK, you can easily get routers that cost roughly 30 quid which
    support WDS.
    If he can't afford that he's free to come back and say so - it's not for you
    or I to tell him
    what is/isn't right for him. That's *HIS* choice.
    Yeah it does cost more but can give you more flexibility - just depends how
    you want to look at it.

    > 3. I cuts the maximum throughput in half (which is usually not a
    > problem with DSL intenet access but does cause trouble with client to
    > client file transfers).

    True - but if you're being rate limited by your ISP, that *MAY* be
    irrelevant.
    e.g. 2 * 54Mbps routers - cut connection rate in half- if you're still only
    being fed
    data by your ISP at 10Mbps ( which is the max NTL here support/will support
    in the perceivable future) even if the rate is being halved by WDS, that
    will be irrelevant.
    What do you mean causes trouble with client to client file transfers ?

    > 4. Since everything has to be on the same SSID and channel, the extra
    > radio just creates that much extra interference.

    True again - but usually not to the extent that it interfers with much else.
    WDS is an IETF/IEEE derived standard. Why should it cause any more problems
    than normal radio broadcast signals, assuming the Vendors have implemented
    it correctly ?

    I've used WDS succesfully in the past, and am currently doing so with no
    problems at all (based on what I need it to do).

    > 5. It's apparently not very good in the presence of interefence.
    > Lose one packet and each WDS access point has to repeat it twice,
    > which really cuts down on the available air time.

    I think we're going over the score here - the scenario was for a home user.
    Most home users won't give a monkey's chuff about whether the TCP/IP stack
    has to do resends,
    so long as performance isn't impaired to an unnacceptable level..If this was
    a business scenario then I'd agree with you.

    > 6. WDS repeaters tend to require omni antennas located at midpoint.
    > Omnis are somewhat more sensitive to multipath and reflections than
    > directional antennas.

    Yeah and ??? Does that mean WDS doesn't work then ??

    > 7. Some buggy implimentations of WDS interfere with the use of WPA.
    > This is finally being fixed on current firmware releases.

    Fair point.

    > 8. Setup is a bit complex, but not overwhelming.

    Hmm.. Not too bad if you research it enough.

    >
    > http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=7
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    > 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    > Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  6. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:50:35 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reachnet@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >> Reasons why NOT to use WDS.
    >> 1. It only works with compatible chipsets and preferably identical
    >> model access points. Note that the original poster did not specify
    >> their equipment list and therefore may also need to replace their
    >> existing router with a WDS compatible router.

    >May or may not - but not giving them the option to make an informed opinion
    >is wrong.

    To the best of my knowledge, nobody has offered to send me money and
    make their purchasing decisions for them. I only supply the facts,
    numbers, technology, and detail. Users make their own decisions.

    >Neither you nor I know what he has.Why do you make the assumption he
    >shouldn't be infomed as neither of us know ?

    Nope. I supplied far more information about the relative merits of
    WDS than you did. You supplies a one line suggestion without the
    slightest substantiation and without explaining the limitations and
    potential problems with WDS.

    >> 2. The extra access point or router costs more than a better antenna.
    >> The added reflector types are almost free.

    >Here in the UK, you can easily get routers that cost roughly 30 quid which
    >support WDS.
    >If he can't afford that he's free to come back and say so - it's not for you
    >or I to tell him
    >what is/isn't right for him. That's *HIS* choice.

    Agreed. Could you cite the exact line in my posting where I hinted,
    told, demanded, or otherwise suggested what's "right"?

    >Yeah it does cost more but can give you more flexibility - just depends how
    >you want to look at it.

    That's true. I didn't list the advantages of WDS because I thought
    you would supply the necessary detail. After all, it is your
    suggestion.

    >> 3. I cuts the maximum throughput in half (which is usually not a
    >> problem with DSL intenet access but does cause trouble with client to
    >> client file transfers).

    >True - but if you're being rate limited by your ISP, that *MAY* be
    >irrelevant.
    >e.g. 2 * 54Mbps routers - cut connection rate in half- if you're still only
    >being fed
    >data by your ISP at 10Mbps ( which is the max NTL here support/will support
    >in the perceivable future) even if the rate is being halved by WDS, that
    >will be irrelevant.

    I believe I said that but thanks for the details. Generally, the
    802.11g wireless network runs faster than the typical US broadband
    connections. It seems the UK cable broadband is considerably faster,
    so it might still be a problem.

    >What do you mean causes trouble with client to client file transfers ?

    Client to client transfers are not rate capped like broadband
    connections. They should go at the full speed of the wireless
    devices. For example, a 54Mbit/sec connection to an access point will
    run at about 20-25Mbits/sec thruput when run through a single access
    point (or wireless router).

    However, when you add a WDS store and forward repeater, only one of
    the two access points can transmit at a time (i.e. simplex operation),
    thereby cutting the maximum bandwidth in half. The same 54Mbit/sec
    connection at the end points of a WDS system will only have about
    10-12Mbits/sec at best. My measurement with two WRT54G routers and
    Sveasoft Alchemy can only do about 8Mbits/sec. I'm not sure why and
    unfortunately don't have the time to investigate.

    More commonly, the client radios cannot maintain a 54Mbit/sec
    connection and connect at lower speed. This would be expected as WDS
    repeaters are rarely deployed in situations where there is an adequate
    signal or clear path. So, the thruput can be even less than
    10-12Mbits/sec or less. This may be adequate for many users, but I've
    seen a few complaints where users were expecting much faster client to
    client performance through WDS.

    You might want to spend some time reading:
    http://www.smallworks.com/archives/00000072.htm
    It's on the scaleability of mesh networks but the same principles
    apply to WDS networks. I don't agree with everything on the page, but
    the analysis and references are good enough to cover the major points.

    >> 4. Since everything has to be on the same SSID and channel, the extra
    >> radio just creates that much extra interference.

    >True again - but usually not to the extent that it interfers with much else.

    Huh? There are at least 3 radios on the same channel in the same
    airspace. Two access points connected with WDS and a client radio.
    Interference between these is exactly the same as if you had placed a
    non-WDS access point on the same channel in the vicinity. The FCC
    does not allow synchronous operation between access points or clients
    so the interference is always there. I typically see about 10-20%
    resends at the MAC (radio) level using the "wl" command on the WRT54G
    radios. That's not too horrible but it's also not that good.

    >WDS is an IETF/IEEE derived standard.

    WDS is not clearly defined in IEEE 802.11b/g specs. I can cite
    chapter and verse if you're interested. WDS in it's current
    implimentation was thrown together by Broadcom, using their best guess
    as to what the IEEE was thinking. Atheros did the same with less
    success. That's why it only works with compatible chipsets. Please
    note that http://www.wi-fi.org does not certify Wi-Fi devices for WDS
    compliance.
    http://certifications.wi-fi.org/wbcs_certified_products.php?TID=2

    >Why should it cause any more problems
    >than normal radio broadcast signals, assuming the Vendors have implemented
    >it correctly ?

    See above. The interference problem has nothing to do with the WDS
    implimentation. It's the increased number of active transmitters on
    the channel in a given airspace that causes problems.

    >I've used WDS succesfully in the past, and am currently doing so with no
    >problems at all (based on what I need it to do).

    Any benchmarks?

    >> 5. It's apparently not very good in the presence of interefence.
    >> Lose one packet and each WDS access point has to repeat it twice,
    >> which really cuts down on the available air time.

    >I think we're going over the score here - the scenario was for a home user.
    >Most home users won't give a monkey's chuff about whether the TCP/IP stack
    >has to do resends,
    >so long as performance isn't impaired to an unnacceptable level..If this was
    >a business scenario then I'd agree with you.

    I could write quite a bit about what home and business users really
    want. Initially, they all want fabulous performance and copious
    features. That lasts about a month or so. When I arrive, they are
    more than happy to dump all the goodies and garbage for a major
    improvement in reliability. Flakey wireless connectivity is the
    surest way to screw up reliability.

    >> 6. WDS repeaters tend to require omni antennas located at midpoint.
    >> Omnis are somewhat more sensitive to multipath and reflections than
    >> directional antennas.

    >Yeah and ??? Does that mean WDS doesn't work then ??

    Read what I wrote. I said that they are "somewhat more sensitive..."
    not that they would totally fail to operate.

    >> 7. Some buggy implimentations of WDS interfere with the use of WPA.
    >> This is finally being fixed on current firmware releases.
    >
    >Fair point.
    >
    >> 8. Setup is a bit complex, but not overwhelming.
    >
    >Hmm.. Not too bad if you research it enough.

    I did. That's why I included the URL below so she could see what she
    would be dealing with.

    >> http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=7

    Any more questions or comments?


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  7. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    suswaze@hotmail.com wrote:
    > Hi guys
    >
    > I currently have cable broadband shared around the house with a
    > wireless 802.11g router. It is fine in most of the house, but my
    > daughter's bedroom is at the furthest reach from the router and the
    > connection to it is patchy (keeps losing her MSN connection!)
    >
    > I was wondering whether it would be possible to get an extra USB
    > 802.11g adapter for my PC in my bedroom and then use that in point to
    > point mode to connect to my daughters, and then bridge the connection
    > to my good quality link to the router. So basically my daughter would
    > access the Internet through two hops, one to my PC and one from there
    > to the router.
    >
    > Would this work? If so, can anyone give any tips about how to set it
    > up on the two PCs. We are both running XP Home SP2. Would we use a
    > network bridge or Internet Connection Sharing?
    >
    > Any help much appreciated.

    Is the connection in your daughter's PC currently a USB adapter, or a
    PCI card?

    With a USB adapter, and a long cable, you should be able to position the
    access point for a better signal than you get with the antenna from a
    PCI card. You could also try a directional antenna if the USB adapter
    has a connection for one (some do, many do not).
  8. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    "Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
    news:mf94j1t1leldb317d18h2mpogm4eh3jqp5@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:50:35 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reachnet@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> Reasons why NOT to use WDS.
    >>> 1. It only works with compatible chipsets and preferably identical
    >>> model access points. Note that the original poster did not specify
    >>> their equipment list and therefore may also need to replace their
    >>> existing router with a WDS compatible router.
    >
    >>May or may not - but not giving them the option to make an informed
    >>opinion
    >>is wrong.
    >
    > To the best of my knowledge, nobody has offered to send me money and
    > make their purchasing decisions for them. I only supply the facts,
    > numbers, technology, and detail. Users make their own decisions.
    >

    Yes they do. For me though that's about informed choice/opinion.
    The reason I mentioned WDS is that personally I've found it more
    reliable/efficient/inexpensive than using
    bridging/ICS- taking the load off the CPU and it scales alot better. Like
    any technology, it does have its downsides,
    but you as a user evaluate those downsides against what you need it to
    do/it's suitability for the task.

    >>Neither you nor I know what he has.Why do you make the assumption he
    >>shouldn't be infomed as neither of us know ?
    >
    > Nope. I supplied far more information about the relative merits of
    > WDS than you did. You supplies a one line suggestion without the
    > slightest substantiation and without explaining the limitations and
    > potential problems with WDS.

    Yes - but why is the "Bull in a China Shop" approach - bombarding users with
    tech information you're not sure they'll even understand beter
    than taking it slower and trying to ascertain what level of knowledge is
    actually going to be valuable to them ?
    If you notice, the poster was a single mum - I doubt she's ever heard of
    WDS, so what would be the point in hitting that user with info
    about Omin-directional antennas if they don't understand what the **** that
    is ?

    >
    >>> 2. The extra access point or router costs more than a better antenna.
    >>> The added reflector types are almost free.

    Ok. True.

    >
    >>Here in the UK, you can easily get routers that cost roughly 30 quid which
    >>support WDS.
    >>If he can't afford that he's free to come back and say so - it's not for
    >>you
    >>or I to tell him
    >>what is/isn't right for him. That's *HIS* choice.
    >
    > Agreed. Could you cite the exact line in my posting where I hinted,
    > told, demanded, or otherwise suggested what's "right"?

    The "tone" of your email was "here's reasons not to use WDS" - negative but
    factual - not here's what you could do with WDS, which is slightly more
    optimistic.

    >
    >>Yeah it does cost more but can give you more flexibility - just depends
    >>how
    >>you want to look at it.
    >
    > That's true. I didn't list the advantages of WDS because I thought
    > you would supply the necessary detail. After all, it is your
    > suggestion.

    I didn't specifically for the reason staed above.

    >
    >>> 3. I cuts the maximum throughput in half (which is usually not a
    >>> problem with DSL intenet access but does cause trouble with client to
    >>> client file transfers).
    >
    >>True - but if you're being rate limited by your ISP, that *MAY* be
    >>irrelevant.
    >>e.g. 2 * 54Mbps routers - cut connection rate in half- if you're still
    >>only
    >>being fed
    >>data by your ISP at 10Mbps ( which is the max NTL here support/will
    >>support
    >>in the perceivable future) even if the rate is being halved by WDS, that
    >>will be irrelevant.
    >
    > I believe I said that but thanks for the details. Generally, the
    > 802.11g wireless network runs faster than the typical US broadband
    > connections. It seems the UK cable broadband is considerably faster,
    > so it might still be a problem.
    >

    Like anything, transmission rates will depend primarily on what ISP you are
    signed up to, but in Britain it isn't exactly fast ( not if you compare it
    with the likes of Sweden for example).
    In the UK, NTL have just recently offered a 10MB service, most users still
    haven't been upgraded and are currently on either 1/2/3MB connections so the
    argument for the use of WDS is arguably even stronger-again depending on how
    you want to look at it.

    >>What do you mean causes trouble with client to client file transfers ?
    >
    > Client to client transfers are not rate capped like broadband
    > connections. They should go at the full speed of the wireless
    > devices. For example, a 54Mbit/sec connection to an access point will
    > run at about 20-25Mbits/sec thruput when run through a single access
    > point (or wireless router).
    >
    > However, when you add a WDS store and forward repeater, only one of
    > the two access points can transmit at a time (i.e. simplex operation),
    > thereby cutting the maximum bandwidth in half. The same 54Mbit/sec
    > connection at the end points of a WDS system will only have about
    > 10-12Mbits/sec at best. My measurement with two WRT54G routers and
    > Sveasoft Alchemy can only do about 8Mbits/sec. I'm not sure why and
    > unfortunately don't have the time to investigate.
    >
    > More commonly, the client radios cannot maintain a 54Mbit/sec
    > connection and connect at lower speed. This would be expected as WDS
    > repeaters are rarely deployed in situations where there is an adequate
    > signal or clear path. So, the thruput can be even less than
    > 10-12Mbits/sec or less. This may be adequate for many users, but I've
    > seen a few complaints where users were expecting much faster client to
    > client performance through WDS.

    Ok - that's valuable info thanks - that much I didn't know.
    >
    > You might want to spend some time reading:
    > http://www.smallworks.com/archives/00000072.htm
    > It's on the scaleability of mesh networks but the same principles
    > apply to WDS networks. I don't agree with everything on the page, but
    > the analysis and references are good enough to cover the major points.

    When I get time, I'll try and get round to it.

    >
    >>> 4. Since everything has to be on the same SSID and channel, the extra
    >>> radio just creates that much extra interference.
    >
    >>True again - but usually not to the extent that it interfers with much
    >>else.
    >
    > Huh? There are at least 3 radios on the same channel in the same
    > airspace. Two access points connected with WDS and a client radio.
    > Interference between these is exactly the same as if you had placed a
    > non-WDS access point on the same channel in the vicinity. The FCC
    > does not allow synchronous operation between access points or clients
    > so the interference is always there. I typically see about 10-20%
    > resends at the MAC (radio) level using the "wl" command on the WRT54G
    > radios. That's not too horrible but it's also not that good.

    I bow to your superior knowledge.

    >
    >>WDS is an IETF/IEEE derived standard.
    >
    > WDS is not clearly defined in IEEE 802.11b/g specs. I can cite
    > chapter and verse if you're interested. WDS in it's current
    > implimentation was thrown together by Broadcom, using their best guess
    > as to what the IEEE was thinking. Atheros did the same with less
    > success. That's why it only works with compatible chipsets. Please
    > note that http://www.wi-fi.org does not certify Wi-Fi devices for WDS
    > compliance.
    > http://certifications.wi-fi.org/wbcs_certified_products.php?TID=2
    >
    >>Why should it cause any more problems
    >>than normal radio broadcast signals, assuming the Vendors have implemented
    >>it correctly ?
    >
    > See above. The interference problem has nothing to do with the WDS
    > implimentation. It's the increased number of active transmitters on
    > the channel in a given airspace that causes problems.
    >
    >>I've used WDS succesfully in the past, and am currently doing so with no
    >>problems at all (based on what I need it to do).
    >
    > Any benchmarks?

    No.

    >
    >>> 5. It's apparently not very good in the presence of interefence.
    >>> Lose one packet and each WDS access point has to repeat it twice,
    >>> which really cuts down on the available air time.
    >
    >>I think we're going over the score here - the scenario was for a home
    >>user.
    >>Most home users won't give a monkey's chuff about whether the TCP/IP stack
    >>has to do resends,
    >>so long as performance isn't impaired to an unnacceptable level..If this
    >>was
    >>a business scenario then I'd agree with you.
    >
    > I could write quite a bit about what home and business users really
    > want. Initially, they all want fabulous performance and copious
    > features. That lasts about a month or so. When I arrive, they are
    > more than happy to dump all the goodies and garbage for a major
    > improvement in reliability. Flakey wireless connectivity is the
    > surest way to screw up reliability.

    True.

    >
    >>> 6. WDS repeaters tend to require omni antennas located at midpoint.
    >>> Omnis are somewhat more sensitive to multipath and reflections than
    >>> directional antennas.
    >
    >>Yeah and ??? Does that mean WDS doesn't work then ??
    >
    > Read what I wrote. I said that they are "somewhat more sensitive..."
    > not that they would totally fail to operate.
    >
    >>> 7. Some buggy implimentations of WDS interfere with the use of WPA.
    >>> This is finally being fixed on current firmware releases.
    >>
    >>Fair point.
    >>
    >>> 8. Setup is a bit complex, but not overwhelming.
    >>
    >>Hmm.. Not too bad if you research it enough.
    >
    > I did. That's why I included the URL below so she could see what she
    > would be dealing with.
    >
    >>> http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=7
    >
    > Any more questions or comments?

    Nope.

    >
    >
    > --
    > Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    > 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    > Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  9. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    Steve Berry wrote:

    > Jeff,
    >
    > See the end.
    >
    <SNIP>
    >
    > All noted I did find this educational even if it wasn't how I expected it
    > was going to be.
    > Don't bother with next week - guess you're busy.;)
    >
    Lawdamercy! Bottom posting is good, but the whole point is to EDIT!
    --
    derek
  10. Archived from groups: (More info?)

    Apols - was a last minute before bed thing.

    S

    "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
    news:me8d03-909.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca...
    > Steve Berry wrote:
    >
    >> Jeff,
    >>
    >> See the end.
    >>
    > <SNIP>
    >>
    >> All noted I did find this educational even if it wasn't how I expected it
    >> was going to be.
    >> Don't bother with next week - guess you're busy.;)
    >>
    > Lawdamercy! Bottom posting is good, but the whole point is to EDIT!
    > --
    > derek
Ask a new question

Read More

Connectivity Routers Wireless Network Connection Wireless Networking