D-Link DWL800+ Repeater Woe

My D-Link DI-624 can't reach the far end of my house reliably. So I got
a DWL800+ to act as a repeater. That gives me plenty of signal strength
but I can't connect my two computers with D-Link adapters (one desktop
with a DWL-520 PCI card and one laptop with a DWL-G650 cardbus adapter)
to the network when the DWL800+ is on. But I can connect my Thinkpad
T43. It's driving me nuts and D-Link can't solve the issue.

The drivers are the most recent and the TCP/IP and similar settings are
identical on each system. Any ideas?

Thanks for reading.

On 11 Jul 2005 23:10:03 -0700, "Jay Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>My D-Link DI-624 can't reach the far end of my house reliably. So I got
>a DWL800+ to act as a repeater.

I couldn't find anything called a DWL800+ but did find a DWL-800AP+
repeater. It comes in Rev A and Rev B hardware, which use quite
different RF chips and therefore have a mixed bag of compatiblility
issues. Assuming Rev B, there are some notes in the Version 2.00
firmware that implies that some DWL-G650 connectivity issues were
fixed.

http://support.dlink.com/products/vi...00AP%2B%5FrevB

>That gives me plenty of signal strength
>but I can't connect my two computers with D-Link adapters (one desktop
>with a DWL-520 PCI card and one laptop with a DWL-G650 cardbus adapter)
>to the network when the DWL800+ is on. But I can connect my Thinkpad
>T43. It's driving me nuts and D-Link can't solve the issue.
>
>The drivers are the most recent and the TCP/IP and similar settings are
>identical on each system. Any ideas?

Yep. Chipset incompatibility along with proprietary (and buggy)
protocols and timing used for repeating. It's a common problem that
even the same manufacturer can't make all their products work with
store-n-forward repeaters. I find it amusing that I can take TWO back
to back access points, from almost any random manufacturer, and build
a working repeater, but can't do the same with an integrated product.

Note the list of DWL-800AP+ "compatible" access points:

http://support.dlink.com/faq/view.as...dwl%2D800ap%2B
The DI-624 is not on the list. Different chipset. It also mentions
that the DI-624 was not supported in the earlier 1.30 firmware, but
doesn't indicate if that was ever fixed. Looking at the release notes
for 2.00, I don't think it was.

Near as I can guess(tm), you're limited to devices that use the TI
ACX100 chipset (which is roughly what the "+" means). I'm not sure if
the TI TNETW1130 chipset used in some mutations of the DWL-650+ is
compatible with the earlier ACX100 chipset. Probably not.

If you absolutely must use a repeater, kindly get one that supports
802.11g and not an 802.11b only unit. If you have money to spend, get
*TWO* ordinary access points (or routers setup as access points), wire
them back to back, put them on different channels with different
SSID's, and you'll get a guaranteed to work repeater, that can play
full duplex and will therefore not slow you down with store and
forward. However, at that point, it's probably easier to just run a
CAT5 cable and just add an extra access point.



--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2005 23:10:03 -0700, "Jay Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >My D-Link DI-624 can't reach the far end of my house reliably. So I got
> >a DWL800+ to act as a repeater.
>
> I couldn't find anything called a DWL800+ but did find a DWL-800AP+
> repeater. It comes in Rev A and Rev B hardware, which use quite
> different RF chips and therefore have a mixed bag of compatiblility
> issues. Assuming Rev B, there are some notes in the Version 2.00
> firmware that implies that some DWL-G650 connectivity issues were
> fixed.
>
> http://support.dlink.com/products/vi...00AP%2B%5FrevB
>
> >That gives me plenty of signal strength
> >but I can't connect my two computers with D-Link adapters (one desktop
> >with a DWL-520 PCI card and one laptop with a DWL-G650 cardbus adapter)
> >to the network when the DWL800+ is on. But I can connect my Thinkpad
> >T43. It's driving me nuts and D-Link can't solve the issue.
> >
> >The drivers are the most recent and the TCP/IP and similar settings are
> >identical on each system. Any ideas?
>
> Yep. Chipset incompatibility along with proprietary (and buggy)
> protocols and timing used for repeating. It's a common problem that
> even the same manufacturer can't make all their products work with
> store-n-forward repeaters. I find it amusing that I can take TWO back
> to back access points, from almost any random manufacturer, and build
> a working repeater, but can't do the same with an integrated product.
>
> Note the list of DWL-800AP+ "compatible" access points:
>
> http://support.dlink.com/faq/view.as...dwl%2D800ap%2B
> The DI-624 is not on the list. Different chipset. It also mentions
> that the DI-624 was not supported in the earlier 1.30 firmware, but
> doesn't indicate if that was ever fixed. Looking at the release notes
> for 2.00, I don't think it was.
>
> Near as I can guess(tm), you're limited to devices that use the TI
> ACX100 chipset (which is roughly what the "+" means). I'm not sure if
> the TI TNETW1130 chipset used in some mutations of the DWL-650+ is
> compatible with the earlier ACX100 chipset. Probably not.
>
> If you absolutely must use a repeater, kindly get one that supports
> 802.11g and not an 802.11b only unit. If you have money to spend, get
> *TWO* ordinary access points (or routers setup as access points), wire
> them back to back, put them on different channels with different
> SSID's, and you'll get a guaranteed to work repeater, that can play
> full duplex and will therefore not slow you down with store and
> forward. However, at that point, it's probably easier to just run a
> CAT5 cable and just add an extra access point.
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

I tried to respond to Jeff once and it didn't take. So here it is
again...

Words almost fail me with respect to your knowledge, Jeff. You nailed
the issue that has baffled several D-Link techs for many telephone
conference hours and took a huge time bite out of my week. I am truly
impressed and grateful for your help.

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Yep. Chipset incompatibility along with proprietary (and buggy)
>protocols and timing used for repeating.

As always, Jeff Is Right! 8*)

If it's anything like the DWL-G800AP, run screaming. I got a three of
them for use where running wires was a real pain, and spent so much
time screwing around with them that I finally got a router and
hard-wired them. Just completely bizzarre things like "when you roam
from the repeater to the AP, the AP hangs and must be power cycled".
I've sworn off D-Link products as a result.

>However, at that point, it's probably easier to just run a
>CAT5 cable and just add an extra access point.

This is almost always the right answer. In fact, where at all
possible, I recommend wiring desktops, as WiFi has too many posssible
problems and interference sources to be very reliable.

On 12 Jul 2005 23:41:01 -0700, "Jay Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I tried to respond to Jeff once and it didn't take. So here it is
>again...
>
>Words almost fail me with respect to your knowledge, Jeff. You nailed
>the issue that has baffled several D-Link techs for many telephone
>conference hours and took a huge time bite out of my week. I am truly
>impressed and grateful for your help.

I guess that makes up for a few wrong answers and bad guesses.
Thanks.

If you really wanna do the repeater thing, WDS (wireless distribution
system) was invented for the purpose. However, as before, little of
your existing hardware supports the WDS protocol. Oh, just add some
future entertainment value, WDS and WPA encryption are usually
mutually exclusive. I would run the CAT5 cable and forget the
repeater.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

I've already noted that I was impressed by Jeff's knowledge and
willingness to help. This subsequent post just reinforces that
impression. And thanks to William for weighing in with more good
insights.

Given the choice, I would certainly be hard wiring. Unfortunately (at
least in this context), I own one of the few Florida homes built to
withstand whatever nature can throw at it. Part of that construction
involves foot-thick concrete almost everywhere. At least I don't panic
when each new tropical storm pops up. But running new wiring is not a
trivial undertaking.

Thanks again for the input, fellows.

Best wishes,

Jay

"Jay Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Given the choice, I would certainly be hard wiring. Unfortunately (at
>least in this context), I own one of the few Florida homes built to
>withstand whatever nature can throw at it. Part of that construction
>involves foot-thick concrete almost everywhere. At least I don't panic
>when each new tropical storm pops up. But running new wiring is not a
>trivial undertaking.

Ah, I know the problem. Another related problem is that those same
walls will stop WiFi signals in their tracks, so you'll need to find
coverage patterns and AP or repeater locations that will give you the
coverage you want. I hate to suggest it, but attic spaces may give
you the best results. The least amount of fun during installation
(especially if you have friends with cameras), but the best coverage.
http://gallery.compusmiths.com/album...1541.sized.jpg

A house I'm helping design will have lots of Cat5 everywhere, with PoE
APs in several ceiling spaces, though this is obviously much easier in
the design phase...

William wrote:
> A house I'm helping design will have lots of Cat5 everywhere, with PoE
> APs in several ceiling spaces, though this is obviously much easier in
> the design phase...

Conduit. Put openings in the building that can be used later.
I'm sure there are well designed homes from the sixties that have lots of
wire pulled for futuristic expansion, but it's not cat5, not coax, and
certainly not fibre.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>William wrote:
>> A house I'm helping design will have lots of Cat5 everywhere, with PoE
>> APs in several ceiling spaces, though this is obviously much easier in
>> the design phase...
>
>Conduit. Put openings in the building that can be used later.
>I'm sure there are well designed homes from the sixties that have lots of
>wire pulled for futuristic expansion, but it's not cat5, not coax, and
>certainly not fibre.

That's true, but the conduit they use here is the flexible NMT stuff,
and pulling new <something> thru a couple of hundred feet of that
would be essentially impossible. I'm contemplating hard conduit
between hub areas in strategic closets, but conduit to every outlet
would be very difficult. Lots to think about, though, thanks!

Concrete does give new meaning to the term "Cast In Stone", though,
doesn't it?