multipe wireless routers in same LAN ?

Multiple wireless routers/hubs in the same LAN may be the best soulution to
a large office space ?
Any thoughts on issues/problems welcome. I can just run a cable 200 feet
and drop another router
off, then chop up the subnet - say have a DHCP server on each wireless
router - one from say 192.168.0.2 to 0.100 and the other from 0.101 to
..200 -

barret bonden <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Multiple wireless routers/hubs in the same LAN may be the best
> soulution to a large office space ?
> Any thoughts on issues/problems welcome. I can just run a cable 200
> feet and drop another router
> off, then chop up the subnet - say have a DHCP server on each
> wireless router - one from say 192.168.0.2 to 0.100 and the other
> from 0.101 to .200 -

I'd suggest looking at something like the SonicPoint wireless from
SonicWALL - you can manage multiple, identically named, WAPs from a single
SonicWALL (running their enhanced OS) for pretty seamless coverage. Beyond
that, I think you can also get consumer-grade WAPs that have a 'repeater'
feature, to accomplish the same thing. But I'm a big fan of SonicWALL stuff.
They've also got way more power & more security options than any of the
consumer stuff, yet don't cost all that much. Don't use multiple wireless
*routers* though.

There is difference between an "nat router" that has a built in WAP -vs- a
true stand-alone WAP. You extend/expand the reach of a wireless system by
adding more WAPs,...not "routers".

"Wireless" is not a "network",...it is an "area" where the radio signal is
effective and functional and is identified by the SSID of the WAP that
created the "area",...you can create a gazzillion "areas" using a gazillion
WAPs,...and yet it is still all the same "network".

Typically you would spead out several WAPs around the business with a bit of
overlap between each one to prevent dead spots. Whether these WAPs are tied
to the same subnet or a different subnet is totally irrelevant.

If you have less than 254 Hosts then everything can be in one subnet. The
need for a subnet is determined by the number of Hosts loading it down,..it
has nothing to do with the medium the data travels over (copper, fiber,
"air"). Subnets should not grow above 254 Hosts.

Do not be confused by:
WAPs
Wireless Bridges
Wireless "routers" (nat box and a WAP built into same device)
Wireless Repeaters (speed reduced by 1/2)
Cisco Wireless Workgroup Bridge

These are all different things, are for different purposes, and do not do
the same thing.


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

"barret bonden" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:47d08b0e$0$25060$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Multiple wireless routers/hubs in the same LAN may be the best soulution
> to a large office space ?
> Any thoughts on issues/problems welcome. I can just run a cable 200 feet
> and drop another router
> off, then chop up the subnet - say have a DHCP server on each wireless
> router - one from say 192.168.0.2 to 0.100 and the other from 0.101 to
> .200 -
>

"barret bonden" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:47d08b0e$0$25060$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Multiple wireless routers/hubs in the same LAN may be the best soulution
> to a large office space ?
> Any thoughts on issues/problems welcome. I can just run a cable 200 feet
> and drop another router
> off, then chop up the subnet - say have a DHCP server on each wireless
> router - one from say 192.168.0.2 to 0.100 and the other from 0.101 to
> .200 -

If you use multiple routers with multiple subnets you won't be able to share
files or printers or run network applications between the subnets. Is this
really what your want? It's very unusual. The way we usually do this is to
use multiple WAP's configured for wireless roaming - same SSID, staggered
channels, only one central DHCP server.
Multiple routers to create separate subnets is sometimes used to
intentionally segregate networks (e.g. in a building with multiple tenants)
but not within one company.

Hi
The best way to provide Wireless coverage is by laying few CAT6 cables to
central locations in the house, install Access Points, or Cable/DSL Routers
configured as an Access Points (http://www.ezlan.net/router_AP.html ), and
connect them to the Main Router.

You do not want (cannot/hate/your client hate) to lay Cables.

Buy a Pair of Wireless Routers that can do WDS (Zexel, SMC, Balkan have
models that do WDS as is out of the Box.

Using a Laptop loaded with Netstumbler, do a Wireless survey in the house,
http://www.netstumbler.com/downloads/

According to the Nets tumbler’s signal strength reading, identify spots that
have strong signal. and spot with weak, or No signal.

Evaluate how you can cover the space and start placing WDS units.

Additional Wireless Routers in WDS Mode (Wireless Network - Configuration
Modes. ) has to be placed in spots were the signal is good about Half way to
the dead spots.

How many WDS units are needed? It depends on your specific environment (that
is a good the reason to buying WDS units one at the time, try it, and decide
on the Next step).

Otherwise.
Extending Distance - http://www.ezlan.net/Distance.html
Wireless Router as an AP - http://www.ezlan.net/router_AP.html
Wireless Modes - http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Modes.html
Wireless Bridging - http://www.ezlan.net/bridging.html
Hi Gain Antenna - http://www.ezlan.net/antennae.html

If the content of the above is foreign to you should consider hiring a
consultant for this job.
Jack (MVP-Networking).


"barret bonden" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:47d08b0e$0$25060$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Multiple wireless routers/hubs in the same LAN may be the best soulution
> to a large office space ?
> Any thoughts on issues/problems welcome. I can just run a cable 200 feet
> and drop another router
> off, then chop up the subnet - say have a DHCP server on each wireless
> router - one from say 192.168.0.2 to 0.100 and the other from 0.101 to
> .200 -
>