Access Point or Router

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

> This has been puzzling me for a while, why would one buy an AP over a
> router since the router provides the more functionality in addition to
> what the AP already offers when configured correctly. Yet, routers cost

Um, because I already have a router?!

Or how about, because there's not enough coverage from the router
located badly where the cable/dsl enters the property so use another AP
elsewhere.

David.

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

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:07:44 +0100, David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>
>Or how about, because there's not enough coverage from the router
>located badly where the cable/dsl enters the property so use another AP
>elsewhere.


Is an AP hard wired to the router? Or, how are they connected?

My router is at one end of my house and I am unable to connect when at
the other end and looking for a solution to improve my signal strength
throughout the house.

TIA

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

http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/webmaster/print.p...
WLAN Routers vs. APs
There may be some confusion over the difference between WLAN routers
and access points. The main thing to remember is that access points
allow wireless clients access to a single network, while WLAN routers
allow clients to browse a number of different networks. The router
always takes the IP address into account to make decisions on how to
forward (i.e., route) the packet; whereas, access points generally
ignore the IP address and forward all packets.

In addition, WLAN routers implement the Network Address Translation
(NAT) protocol that enables multiple network devices to share a single
IP address, which are generally provided by the Internet service
provider (ISP). WLAN routers also have the ability to provide
port-based control, firewall management and Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol (DHCP) services for all devices. These functions make the
WLAN router much more versatile than an access point.



On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 05:42:10 GMT, Elliot English
<eenglish_ca@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>This has been puzzling me for a while, why would one buy an AP over a
>router since the router provides the more functionality in addition to
>what the AP already offers when configured correctly. Yet, routers cost
>less. What is the advantage of an AP, do they offer more range
>typically? I'm looking to add one to my home networking, since right now
>I'm only using an ad-hoc setup to provide access to my wired network for
>my laptop through another wifi card on a wired computer. Any suggestions
>on what I should do to increase signal range, excluding moving stuff
>about or buying an antenna/relayer. What brands/models offer the best
>range in addition to whether a router or an AP would be better in terms
>of range. Thanks.
>
>Elliot English

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

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:51:38 GMT, Doug Jamal spoketh

>http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/webmaster/print.p...
>WLAN Routers vs. APs
>There may be some confusion over the difference between WLAN routers
>and access points. The main thing to remember is that access points
>allow wireless clients access to a single network, while WLAN routers
>allow clients to browse a number of different networks. The router
>always takes the IP address into account to make decisions on how to
>forward (i.e., route) the packet; whereas, access points generally
>ignore the IP address and forward all packets.
>
>In addition, WLAN routers implement the Network Address Translation
>(NAT) protocol that enables multiple network devices to share a single
>IP address, which are generally provided by the Internet service
>provider (ISP). WLAN routers also have the ability to provide
>port-based control, firewall management and Dynamic Host Configuration
>Protocol (DHCP) services for all devices. These functions make the
>WLAN router much more versatile than an access point.
>


This is not very accurate. A wireless access point grants wireless
clients the same access to networks as any wired client has. So, if
there are several subnets (routed or bridge) on the LAN, then any client
(wired or wireless) will have the same access to all subnets (unless
specific rules exists saying otherwise).

A "wireless router" is a misnomer. With very few exceptions, they don't
do any "wireless routing". It's simply a two-in-one unit; a router and a
wireless access point. Also, the wireless routers have limitations WRT
their wireless functions. IIRC, they'll function only as an AP, while
many APs can be configured as bridges, repeaters and clients.

Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)

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

A wireless router is four devices: a wireless access point, an Ethernet
switch, a layer 2 bridge between 802.3 and 802.11, and a router.

You can use it as a pure Ethernet switch, a pure access point, a bridged
local network, or a routed, bridged local network.

"Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
news:fdpie01hr2n6vvv1ba722o8q4b4jqr4i1d@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:51:38 GMT, Doug Jamal spoketh
>
> >http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/webmaster/print.p...
> >WLAN Routers vs. APs
> >There may be some confusion over the difference between WLAN routers
> >and access points. The main thing to remember is that access points
> >allow wireless clients access to a single network, while WLAN routers
> >allow clients to browse a number of different networks. The router
> >always takes the IP address into account to make decisions on how to
> >forward (i.e., route) the packet; whereas, access points generally
> >ignore the IP address and forward all packets.
> >
> >In addition, WLAN routers implement the Network Address Translation
> >(NAT) protocol that enables multiple network devices to share a single
> >IP address, which are generally provided by the Internet service
> >provider (ISP). WLAN routers also have the ability to provide
> >port-based control, firewall management and Dynamic Host Configuration
> >Protocol (DHCP) services for all devices. These functions make the
> >WLAN router much more versatile than an access point.
> >
>
>
> This is not very accurate. A wireless access point grants wireless
> clients the same access to networks as any wired client has. So, if
> there are several subnets (routed or bridge) on the LAN, then any client
> (wired or wireless) will have the same access to all subnets (unless
> specific rules exists saying otherwise).
>
> A "wireless router" is a misnomer. With very few exceptions, they don't
> do any "wireless routing". It's simply a two-in-one unit; a router and a
> wireless access point. Also, the wireless routers have limitations WRT
> their wireless functions. IIRC, they'll function only as an AP, while
> many APs can be configured as bridges, repeaters and clients.
>
> Lars M. Hansen
> http://www.hansenonline.net
> (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)

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

> Is an AP hard wired to the router? Or, how are they connected?

Depends! You would normally add a wired AP off the router or depending on brands you might be able to wirelessly repeat the wireless signal off the router.

David.