Add 2nd Router(as switch) & WAP to Wired Router

Greetings,

I have a wired network setup in my house because the layout prevented a
wireless signal to the most remote computers without multiple boosters.
There are 4 computers currently on the network. Two computers are in the
office where the cable modem & 4-port SMC 7004VMC reside. Two cables were
run to the other end of the house to each of my children's bedrooms to a
wall socket. Everything works fine. I know I can piggy-back a 2nd wired
router (SMC 7004 I have laying around) with a crossover adapter attached LAN
port to LAN port with DHCP disabled in the SMC 7004. Earlier in the year I
had done this while I was building a 5th computer & temporarily hooked it to
the network with both routers connected directly together in the same room.
Now I must move the 2nd computer in the office to the other end of the house
just across the hallway where my daughter's computer is hooked to the wired
network at the wall.

Questions:

- Would I be able to attach the 2nd router via a LAN port & crossover
adapter to my daughter's CAT-5 wall plug, turn off DHCP, plug my daughter's
computer directly into the 2nd router & plug in a WAP to another LAN port
on the router to network the computer across the hall after adding a
wireless NIC?

-Instead of buying a WAP, would it be cheaper or make more sense to buy a
wireless router equipped with direct LAN ports instead of a WAP? Would both
the computer connected by cable & the wireless computer be able to access
the network/internet with DHCP disabled? I do understand that, depending on
which new wireless router, the interface with the CAT-5 wall plug may be
different (via WAN or LAN port, with or without a crossover cable).

Anyway, I am an amateur & probably over-thinking this. Maybe instead of
asking how to make my solutions work, I should ask how would you experts
solve this problem.

Thanks,

Rich

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:22:46 -0700, "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Greetings,
>
>I have a wired network setup in my house because the layout prevented a
>wireless signal to the most remote computers without multiple boosters.
>There are 4 computers currently on the network. Two computers are in the
>office where the cable modem & 4-port SMC 7004VMC reside. Two cables were
>run to the other end of the house to each of my children's bedrooms to a
>wall socket. Everything works fine. I know I can piggy-back a 2nd wired
>router (SMC 7004 I have laying around) with a crossover adapter attached LAN
>port to LAN port with DHCP disabled in the SMC 7004. Earlier in the year I
>had done this while I was building a 5th computer & temporarily hooked it to
>the network with both routers connected directly together in the same room.
>Now I must move the 2nd computer in the office to the other end of the house
>just across the hallway where my daughter's computer is hooked to the wired
>network at the wall.
>
>Questions:
>
>- Would I be able to attach the 2nd router via a LAN port & crossover
>adapter to my daughter's CAT-5 wall plug, turn off DHCP, plug my daughter's
>computer directly into the 2nd router & plug in a WAP to another LAN port
>on the router to network the computer across the hall after adding a
>wireless NIC?

Yes, that should work. Both the daughters PC and the WAP should plug into the
router's lan ports with straight patch cables.

>-Instead of buying a WAP, would it be cheaper or make more sense to buy a
>wireless router equipped with direct LAN ports instead of a WAP? Would both
>the computer connected by cable & the wireless computer be able to access
>the network/internet with DHCP disabled? I do understand that, depending on
>which new wireless router, the interface with the CAT-5 wall plug may be
>different (via WAN or LAN port, with or without a crossover cable).

Pretty much every soho wireless router has wired lan ports (except for some
USB-based crapola), and wireless routers tend to be cheaper than WAPs (indeed,
in the past I've seen cases where a wireless router was very nearly free once
discounts and rebates were considered). As to whether the wireless section
will function as desired in all such routers if the router doesn't have it's
wan port connected, I can't say. Hopefully someone else can recommend a
specific model that they have successfully used in such fashion - or you can
find this for yourself via Googling it to death ;-)

cheers

/daytripper

"daytripper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:22:46 -0700, "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>I have a wired network setup in my house because the layout prevented a
>>wireless signal to the most remote computers without multiple boosters.
>>There are 4 computers currently on the network. Two computers are in the
>>office where the cable modem & 4-port SMC 7004VMC reside. Two cables were
>>run to the other end of the house to each of my children's bedrooms to a
>>wall socket. Everything works fine. I know I can piggy-back a 2nd wired
>>router (SMC 7004 I have laying around) with a crossover adapter attached
>>LAN
>>port to LAN port with DHCP disabled in the SMC 7004. Earlier in the year I
>>had done this while I was building a 5th computer & temporarily hooked it
>>to
>>the network with both routers connected directly together in the same
>>room.
>>Now I must move the 2nd computer in the office to the other end of the
>>house
>>just across the hallway where my daughter's computer is hooked to the
>>wired
>>network at the wall.
>>
>>Questions:
>>
>>- Would I be able to attach the 2nd router via a LAN port & crossover
>>adapter to my daughter's CAT-5 wall plug, turn off DHCP, plug my
>>daughter's
>>computer directly into the 2nd router & plug in a WAP to another LAN port
>>on the router to network the computer across the hall after adding a
>>wireless NIC?
>
> Yes, that should work. Both the daughters PC and the WAP should plug into
> the
> router's lan ports with straight patch cables.
>
>>-Instead of buying a WAP, would it be cheaper or make more sense to buy a
>>wireless router equipped with direct LAN ports instead of a WAP? Would
>>both
>>the computer connected by cable & the wireless computer be able to access
>>the network/internet with DHCP disabled? I do understand that, depending
>>on
>>which new wireless router, the interface with the CAT-5 wall plug may be
>>different (via WAN or LAN port, with or without a crossover cable).
>
> Pretty much every soho wireless router has wired lan ports (except for
> some
> USB-based crapola), and wireless routers tend to be cheaper than WAPs
> (indeed,
> in the past I've seen cases where a wireless router was very nearly free
> once
> discounts and rebates were considered). As to whether the wireless section
> will function as desired in all such routers if the router doesn't have
> it's
> wan port connected, I can't say. Hopefully someone else can recommend a
> specific model that they have successfully used in such fashion - or you
> can
> find this for yourself via Googling it to death ;-)
>
> cheers
>
> /daytripper

I pretty much decided that a new wireless router for ~$80 would be the way
to go. The point you bring up about whether the wireless ports would work
without the WAP connected momentarily crossed my mind. Thank you for
pointing that out. I decided on buying locally so I can return what doesn't
work. I'm planning to buy a Linksys WRT160N Ultra RangePlus Wireless-N
Broadband Router. This statement under product features:

"Router can act as a DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) server,
which enables another computer to be added to the network without manually
assigning it a unique IP address"

did not come with a caveat that turning off DHCP will disable the wireless
function & reduce it to a 4-port wired switch. Anyway, if it does, it will
go right back to Best Buy.
I will Google as recommended.
Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Regards,
Rich

Rich wrote:
> Questions:
>
> - Would I be able to attach the 2nd router via a LAN port & crossover
> adapter to my daughter's CAT-5 wall plug, turn off DHCP, plug my
> daughter's computer directly into the 2nd router & plug in a WAP to
> another LAN port on the router to network the computer across the hall
> after adding a wireless NIC?
>
> -Instead of buying a WAP, would it be cheaper or make more sense to buy
> a wireless router equipped with direct LAN ports instead of a WAP? Would
> both the computer connected by cable & the wireless computer be able to
> access the network/internet with DHCP disabled? I do understand that,
> depending on which new wireless router, the interface with the CAT-5
> wall plug may be different (via WAN or LAN port, with or without a
> crossover cable).

Yes, it makes much more sense to just buy a wireless router than a wired
router + wireless access point. In fact, it's hard to find wired-only
routers anymore these days, since most wireless routers also have a
wired component.

Also, it looks like router makers are figuring out that people are
buying secondary routers for use as simply bridges. So many of them have
a single-click option built in to disable their DHCP and WAN
functionality. On my D-link WBR-2310 router, the feature is called
"Enable Access Point Mode", but it could called anything similar by
other router makers. The idea is that they realize that DHCP will be
provided by the primary router, which would also be the one directly
connecting to the broadband connection; while the secondary router will
pass off all of those complex duties to the primary, and just act as a
simple switch or a bridge for the primary.

> Anyway, I am an amateur & probably over-thinking this. Maybe instead of
> asking how to make my solutions work, I should ask how would you experts
> solve this problem.


Another thing you mentioned is that you will be taking a CAT5 cable from
one of the house to the other end. I don't know if you already have that
cable snaked through the house, or if it's something you plan to do. If
it's something you are planning to do, then you might want to save
yourself some labor and buy a Home Powerline Ethernet solution. These
are basically a couple of adapters that plug into a house's powerline
sockets and use them to send data signals to each other directly through
the powerlines. They connect to the computers via CAT5 cables on both
ends. The difference between this and routing a single CAT5 is that you
don't have to snake a long CAT5 all of the way across the house, just a
couple of shorter CAT5's and let the rest flow through the powerplugs.
I'm using that solution here, exactly for routing data between primary
and secondary routers. I use a D-link DHP-301 Powerline Ethernet kit
myself, which includes two of these adapters right in the box, but I
think similar (and maybe better?) kits might be available from Linksys
or Netgear or others.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:49595010$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Rich wrote:
>> Questions:
>>
>> - Would I be able to attach the 2nd router via a LAN port & crossover
>> adapter to my daughter's CAT-5 wall plug, turn off DHCP, plug my
>> daughter's computer directly into the 2nd router & plug in a WAP to
>> another LAN port on the router to network the computer across the hall
>> after adding a wireless NIC?
>>
>> -Instead of buying a WAP, would it be cheaper or make more sense to buy a
>> wireless router equipped with direct LAN ports instead of a WAP? Would
>> both the computer connected by cable & the wireless computer be able to
>> access the network/internet with DHCP disabled? I do understand that,
>> depending on which new wireless router, the interface with the CAT-5 wall
>> plug may be different (via WAN or LAN port, with or without a crossover
>> cable).
>
> Yes, it makes much more sense to just buy a wireless router than a wired
> router + wireless access point. In fact, it's hard to find wired-only
> routers anymore these days, since most wireless routers also have a wired
> component.
>
> Also, it looks like router makers are figuring out that people are buying
> secondary routers for use as simply bridges. So many of them have a
> single-click option built in to disable their DHCP and WAN functionality.
> On my D-link WBR-2310 router, the feature is called "Enable Access Point
> Mode", but it could called anything similar by other router makers. The
> idea is that they realize that DHCP will be provided by the primary
> router, which would also be the one directly connecting to the broadband
> connection; while the secondary router will pass off all of those complex
> duties to the primary, and just act as a simple switch or a bridge for the
> primary.
>
>> Anyway, I am an amateur & probably over-thinking this. Maybe instead of
>> asking how to make my solutions work, I should ask how would you experts
>> solve this problem.
>
>
> Another thing you mentioned is that you will be taking a CAT5 cable from
> one of the house to the other end. I don't know if you already have that
> cable snaked through the house, or if it's something you plan to do. If
> it's something you are planning to do, then you might want to save
> yourself some labor and buy a Home Powerline Ethernet solution. These are
> basically a couple of adapters that plug into a house's powerline sockets
> and use them to send data signals to each other directly through the
> powerlines. They connect to the computers via CAT5 cables on both ends.
> The difference between this and routing a single CAT5 is that you don't
> have to snake a long CAT5 all of the way across the house, just a couple
> of shorter CAT5's and let the rest flow through the powerplugs. I'm using
> that solution here, exactly for routing data between primary and secondary
> routers. I use a D-link DHP-301 Powerline Ethernet kit myself, which
> includes two of these adapters right in the box, but I think similar (and
> maybe better?) kits might be available from Linksys or Netgear or others.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Actually my son & daughter's rooms were already hard-wired 4 years ago at
the other end of the house. I tried wireless at that time but the multiple
90 degree angles and distance caused the signal to die by the time it
reached the kitchen about half the distance & 1 90 degree turn. I then tried
the powerline option. Unfortunately, the house has 2 breaker boxes & the
network could not transverse the box which, of course, serviced the kids'
rooms. The powerline adapter worked as far as the wireless from the cable
entry point in my office.
This all started because my company wanted me to set up a separate cable
line to work at home. He connected a totally separate line to the pedestal
tap & connected it directly to my computer & downloaded at 15-20Mbs. When I
insert the SMC7004BR or 7004VBR, the speed drops to between 6 & 7Mbs. These
routers are 6 years old. Do they go bad? Any way, I purchased a Linksys
WRT160N to replace the main router. Now I get the full 15-20Mbs over the
wired network. I installed a wireless card in the computer that will
eventually be moved & it gets 6-7Mbs about 10 feet away from the router in
the same room. I appreciate that you confirmed that a wireless router will
function as a WAP if DHCP is disabled & connected LAN to LAN port. Since the
signal drops off before the final potential locations that the computer
needs to be moved to, I will now purchase a 2nd Linksys WRT160N , plug it in
the wall on the other side of the house, disable DHCP & use it as a WAP. The
added benefit of doing this is that my daughter can now use her I-Touch all
the way in her bedroom & the kids have a WII down that end of the house that
I am told can connect wirelessly to the internet also. Between the new
wireless router in the office & a new wireless router configured as a WAP in
one of the kids' rooms, my wife should be able to move her desktop out of
the office & acquire a signal wherever she ends up.
BTW, the Linksys WRT160N comes with a CD installation guide that walks you
through both replacing your old router or hooking it up to use with your old
router....very clear & helpful.

Thanks for your input.

Regards,

Rich

Rich wrote:
> Actually my son & daughter's rooms were already hard-wired 4 years ago
> at the other end of the house. I tried wireless at that time but the
> multiple 90 degree angles and distance caused the signal to die by the
> time it reached the kitchen about half the distance & 1 90 degree turn.
> I then tried the powerline option. Unfortunately, the house has 2
> breaker boxes & the network could not transverse the box which, of
> course, serviced the kids' rooms. The powerline adapter worked as far as
> the wireless from the cable entry point in my office.

Actually, I have run into this issue too, and it sounds like your
situation is very similar to what I saw before. I have a friend's
brother who ones a large single-story bungalow which he had added an
extension to turn into his office. They were having sporadic WiFi
connection problems at the other end of the house. But the extension and
the main house were on separate breaker boxes, and the powerline
Ethernet wouldn't work across the boxes. So the solution we came up with
was just a more powerful WiFi router. We ended up purchasing Linksys
WRT300N router which had a parabolic directional antenna on it, and
pointing the antenna towards that end of the house. The previous router
was a G-router.

> This all started because my company wanted me to set up a separate cable
> line to work at home. He connected a totally separate line to the
> pedestal tap & connected it directly to my computer & downloaded at
> 15-20Mbs. When I insert the SMC7004BR or 7004VBR, the speed drops to
> between 6 & 7Mbs. These routers are 6 years old. Do they go bad?

They don't go bad, they just start out bad.

I've found that routers are severely underengineered for the jobs they
are intended to do; they are underpowered and/or undercooled. I've got a
dual router setup not so much because my house is so big that I can't
get a single router to cover my whole house, but because I'm
job-splitting amongst them. My primary router is tasked with just
connecting to the Internet and assigning DHCP addresses to the
computers, but its wireless radio has been disabled. The secondary
router is tasked with just providing wireless access. This is the setup
that I've found to be most stable.

The job of just providing wireless services is really something that
should be done by one device alone. The WiFi radio broadcasting adds a
lot of heat the system, and then when you add in the computational
muscle needed to provide security encryption protocols like WEP or WPA,
you already have an overheating candidate. Then you add the task of
routing and DHCP into the mix, and you really shouldn't expect a lot of
reliability out of the router. I've had routers that lock up after just
3 hours of operation, sometimes just 10 minutes later they lock up
again. One solution to this is to simply unplug the power to the router
for 5 or 10 minutes and let it cool down. The other solution was where I
just split up their tasks.


Yousuf Khan

<SNIP>
>
> They don't go bad, they just start out bad.

Actually someone in another newsgroup pointed something out to me that I had
forgotten. Both routers are 10Mb so 6 to mob was OK. They had functioned
without a hitch for over 6 years. So they didn't go bad, bandwidth just
overtook them :-)

Thanks,

Rich

Rich wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>>
>> They don't go bad, they just start out bad.
>
> Actually someone in another newsgroup pointed something out to me that I
> had forgotten. Both routers are 10Mb so 6 to mob was OK. They had
> functioned without a hitch for over 6 years. So they didn't go bad,
> bandwidth just overtook them :-)

Was your old router that old that they only had 10Mbps connections on
their WAN? Usually they come with 10/100 selectable connections these days.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:495c04db$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Rich wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> They don't go bad, they just start out bad.
>>
>> Actually someone in another newsgroup pointed something out to me that I
>> had forgotten. Both routers are 10Mb so 6 to mob was OK. They had
>> functioned without a hitch for over 6 years. So they didn't go bad,
>> bandwidth just overtook them :-)
>
> Was your old router that old that they only had 10Mbps connections on
> their WAN? Usually they come with 10/100 selectable connections these
> days.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Purchased when cable was first installed in my old home in NJ in 2002.
Cablevision (Optimum Online) gave 1 speed: ~10Mbs. They would download a
test file from their server at ~1.1-1.2MBs. When I moved to Phoenix in 2004,
Cox offered 6Mbs & the test file download speed was about 600Kbs. Then Cox
upped their maximum download speed (with "Powerboost" for large files) to
9Mbs. My download speed never increased from about 6.3MBs. Then Cox
eliminated that tier & implemented a mandatory upgrade to 12Mbs for $5 more
per month & my download speed never increased beyond ~6Mbs. Since I
routinely achieved between 9-10MBs in NJ from these routers, I just assumed
it was the age of Cox infrastructure or something. Since I wasn't getting
anymore speed for the increase, I downgraded to the economy tier of 1.5Mbs
for $20 less. However, it became evident that with 4 computers on the
network, 2 adolescent playing Runescape & the adults using YouTube or
streaming something, there was a noticeable lack of bandwidth. So I just
relented & switched back to the 12Mbs service & received half the download
speed. I finally called Cox about it & both their automated system check & a
live rep indicated that my modem (Motorola 5100) settings were not quite
right & something was wrong with it & a technician would be sent. I told
them that I already had one coming for a new install of a 2nd account & she
said that he would check it out. Meanwhile, all the settings from the modem
were in range....excellent, actually. The installer ran a completely
separate line at my request underground to a separate tap in the pedestal.
He connected the new modem for the 2nd account directly to my computer & I
immediately received between 15-22Mbs. I then connected the old line, which
had 1 split before the modem, to my Motorola 5100 directly to the computer &
received the same crazy fast speed. I couldn't believe it, I immediately
purchased the 2 new routers, shelved the trust old ones & got the same high
speeds through the new modem. Even the desktop that was moved to wireless
gets 6Mbs from the router set up as a WAP 2 rooms away, about 30 feet.

Rich