Linksys WAP54G v. WRT54G - Which one?

I need to add wireless capability to my existing home network. I have a
D-Link DI-704P router that seems to be working fine so technically I only
need a WAP. However, the prices on the Linksys WAP and router are comparable
(identical in many places).

First, let's assume I don't want to replace my existing router. Does it make
any sense (and is it possible/reasonable) to configure the WRT54G as a WAP
only? Basically, if I only want/need a WAP, is there any significant
functional differences between these two devices that would lead me to one
or the other? I admit that buying more than I need (i.e. the router) doesn't
necessarily make sense but that's why I'm asking.

Second, is there soemthing compelling in the the WRT54G that should make me
consider more seriously replacing my existing router? A couple of months ago
I had a bad experience with a D-Link DI-624 wireless router (wired client
disconnects, couldn't get VPN to work, etc.) which is why I am leaning
towards a WAP at this point (and non DLink equipment). My router location is
also not great so a WAP gives me more flexibility in placement.

TIA for any guidance.

Douglas Gallant




Douglas Gallant

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:43:21 GMT, "Douglas Gallant" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

I'm an idiot, so I blurt, but mean well. Blurt 1on't ask such tech
questions without basic info-machine,OS,network components,
ISP...whatever you'd ask.


>I need to add wireless capability to my existing home network.

Define.

>I have a
>D-Link DI-704P router that seems to be working fine

Had to look that up. So all wired.

>>so technically I only
>need a WAP. However, the prices on the Linksys WAP and router are comparable
>(identical in many places).

whatever that means. Golly...had to look up WAP

>
>First, let's assume I don't want to replace my existing router.

Assuming the DI-704P is not wireless, you have to buy one. Not to
replace, but unless you have, I guess, 5 or more machines, you'll
have an extra router.

>Does it make
>any sense (and is it possible/reasonable) to configure the WRT54G as a WAP
>only?

I'm not clever enough to do that, but I'm pretty sure that it will be
all WAP as long as you don't plug another machine into one of the four
ports in the back. I've seen, but can't quote, posts on linking
routers.

> Basically, if I only want/need a WAP, is there any significant
>functional differences between these two devices that would lead me to one
>or the other?

which two?

> I admit that buying more than I need (i.e. the router) doesn't
>necessarily make sense but that's why I'm asking.
>
>Second, is there soemthing compelling in the the WRT54G that should make me
>consider more seriously replacing my existing router?

Happens to be the one we bought in Sept, with a laptp, so we could
work on 1st floor, vs 3rd, where desktop and router are. Works great.


> A couple of months ago
>I had a bad experience with a D-Link DI-624 wireless router (wired client
>disconnects, couldn't get VPN to work, etc.) which is why I am leaning
>towards a WAP at this point (and non DLink equipment). My router location is
>also not great so a WAP gives me more flexibility in placement.

No, either router must come off the ISP feed. Unless I just don't
understand
>
>TIA for any guidance.
>
>Douglas Gallant
>

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:43:21 GMT, Douglas Gallant spoketh

>I need to add wireless capability to my existing home network. I have a
>D-Link DI-704P router that seems to be working fine so technically I only
>need a WAP. However, the prices on the Linksys WAP and router are comparable
>(identical in many places).
>
>First, let's assume I don't want to replace my existing router. Does it make
>any sense (and is it possible/reasonable) to configure the WRT54G as a WAP
>only? Basically, if I only want/need a WAP, is there any significant
>functional differences between these two devices that would lead me to one
>or the other? I admit that buying more than I need (i.e. the router) doesn't
>necessarily make sense but that's why I'm asking.
>
>Second, is there soemthing compelling in the the WRT54G that should make me
>consider more seriously replacing my existing router? A couple of months ago
>I had a bad experience with a D-Link DI-624 wireless router (wired client
>disconnects, couldn't get VPN to work, etc.) which is why I am leaning
>towards a WAP at this point (and non DLink equipment). My router location is
>also not great so a WAP gives me more flexibility in placement.
>
>TIA for any guidance.
>
>Douglas Gallant
>

Yes, it is possible to configure the WRT as a simple access point.
Connect one of the LAN ports on the WRT to your network, disable the
DHCP server on the WRT and you should be good to go.

Is there any compelling reason to swap out your existing router with the
WRT? Well, the router part shouldn't be any worse or better than what
you already have. But, I believe the WRT supports QoS (Quality of
service) when using an alternative firmware. This is handy for bandwidth
throttling if you are using (or planning to use) VoIP or need to
dedicate bandwidth to certain services.

So, which one do you pick? Well, that's entirely up to you. You can use
the WRT both as a router and a simple access point. It may not support
all the wireless modes of the WAP, but if all you need is one access
point for you wireless laptop(s) to connect to, then you may not need
any other modes...



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

On 12/7/04 1:24 PM, Lars M. Hansen wrote:

> Yes, it is possible to configure the WRT as a simple access point.
> Connect one of the LAN ports on the WRT to your network, disable the
> DHCP server on the WRT and you should be good to go.

Can you run the WRT as a WAP even with the LinkSys official firmware?

Thanks.

"meATprivacyDOTnet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 12/7/04 1:24 PM, Lars M. Hansen wrote:
>
> > Yes, it is possible to configure the WRT as a simple access point.
> > Connect one of the LAN ports on the WRT to your network, disable
the
> > DHCP server on the WRT and you should be good to go.
>
> Can you run the WRT as a WAP even with the LinkSys official
firmware?

Think or the WRT as a router a switch and an Wap all in one box. You
can use
all of it or just parts of it. The difference in the WRT WAP and the
WAP WAP
is the WAP54G can act as a bridge, AP Client, Repeater or a AP , (Wap
= Ap =Wap)
whereas the WRT will only act as an AP.
..

On 12/7/04 8:33 PM, Airhead wrote:

> Think or the WRT as a router a switch and an Wap all in one box. You
> can use
> all of it or just parts of it. The difference in the WRT WAP and the
> WAP WAP
> is the WAP54G can act as a bridge, AP Client, Repeater or a AP , (Wap
> = Ap =Wap)
> whereas the WRT will only act as an AP.

That makes sense, Thanks.

Douglas Gallant wrote:
> I need to add wireless capability to my existing home network. I have a
> D-Link DI-704P router that seems to be working fine so technically I only
> need a WAP. However, the prices on the Linksys WAP and router are comparable
> (identical in many places).
>
> First, let's assume I don't want to replace my existing router. Does it make
> any sense (and is it possible/reasonable) to configure the WRT54G as a WAP
> only? Basically, if I only want/need a WAP, is there any significant
> functional differences between these two devices that would lead me to one
> or the other? I admit that buying more than I need (i.e. the router) doesn't
> necessarily make sense but that's why I'm asking.
>
> Second, is there soemthing compelling in the the WRT54G that should make me
> consider more seriously replacing my existing router? A couple of months ago
> I had a bad experience with a D-Link DI-624 wireless router (wired client
> disconnects, couldn't get VPN to work, etc.) which is why I am leaning
> towards a WAP at this point (and non DLink equipment). My router location is
> also not great so a WAP gives me more flexibility in placement.
>
> TIA for any guidance.
>
> Douglas Gallant
>
>
If your existing router is suffice for your needs, then go with the AP.
It doesn't make sense to buy another router just to configure it as
an AP unless you have a secific reason to do so. I've made that mistake.