Two wifi routers...

On 26/05/2011 20:29, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:irjn46$ajp$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 25/05/2011 12:30, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>> "Michael Chare" <mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
[snip]
>>>> I have two routers connected together by their LAN ports.
>>>>
>>>> DHCP is switched off in the router without a Wan connection, and both
>>>> routers use the same SSID and password. (But then I don't have any
>>>> cable routers.)
>>>
>>> That just seems weird to me. Do both have wireless clients? Curious to
>>> know more...
>>
>> Seems perfectly normal to me - it means the router without a WAN
>> connection is acting purely as a bridge between each of its LAN ports
>> and its wireless interface.
>>
>> Although Michael's configuration uses an extra LAN port, it means that
>> you only have a single network of all wired and wireless devices. I
>> expect the OP's suggestion would work fine for most Internet access
>> but has the limitation that connecting to devices attached (physically
>> or by wireless) to Router 2 from those attached to Router 1 would
>> require port forwarding to be configured on Router 2.
>
> I think I get it. He's effectively using the second WAP as a switch (all
> connections on the same subnet), not a router (mediating between two
> different subnets).

Yes.

> If I'm right about this, then if all the devices are
> picking up from the same DHCP server,then port-forwarding might not be
> needed?

Yes; port forwarding is not needed (for communication between LAN
devices) because there is only one network.

> I was also puzzled that both used the same SSID and key. Although I
> believe the physical-layer protocol is based on a MAC-address (or
> something like that - note vagueness of understanding!), I think I've
> read that SSIDs can cause conflicts if they are duplicated within
> broadcast range - unless one is configured as a repeater.

Having APs configured with the same SSID is absolutely fine provided it
doesn't make a difference which of the APs a client associates with; put
another way, provided all the APs are part of the same network. This
requirement means a client can assume it is free to switch between them
according to changing signal conditions.

For the same reason, there will be problems if the APs are not all on
the same network: it expects to be able to, but can't, switch between
the APs.

Alex

"Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:irt39h$nu$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 26/05/2011 20:29, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>> "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:irjn46$ajp$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On 25/05/2011 12:30, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>>> "Michael Chare" <mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
> [snip]
>>>>> I have two routers connected together by their LAN ports.
>>>>>
>>>>> DHCP is switched off in the router without a Wan connection, and both
>>>>> routers use the same SSID and password. (But then I don't have any
>>>>> cable routers.)
>>>>
>>>> That just seems weird to me. Do both have wireless clients? Curious to
>>>> know more...
>>>
>>> Seems perfectly normal to me - it means the router without a WAN
>>> connection is acting purely as a bridge between each of its LAN ports
>>> and its wireless interface.
>>>
>>> Although Michael's configuration uses an extra LAN port, it means that
>>> you only have a single network of all wired and wireless devices. I
>>> expect the OP's suggestion would work fine for most Internet access
>>> but has the limitation that connecting to devices attached (physically
>>> or by wireless) to Router 2 from those attached to Router 1 would
>>> require port forwarding to be configured on Router 2.
>>
>> I think I get it. He's effectively using the second WAP as a switch (all
>> connections on the same subnet), not a router (mediating between two
>> different subnets).
>
> Yes.
>
>> If I'm right about this, then if all the devices are
>> picking up from the same DHCP server,then port-forwarding might not be
>> needed?
>
> Yes; port forwarding is not needed (for communication between LAN devices)
> because there is only one network.
>
>> I was also puzzled that both used the same SSID and key. Although I
>> believe the physical-layer protocol is based on a MAC-address (or
>> something like that - note vagueness of understanding!), I think I've
>> read that SSIDs can cause conflicts if they are duplicated within
>> broadcast range - unless one is configured as a repeater.
>
> Having APs configured with the same SSID is absolutely fine provided it
> doesn't make a difference which of the APs a client associates with; put
> another way, provided all the APs are part of the same network. This
> requirement means a client can assume it is free to switch between them
> according to changing signal conditions.
>
> For the same reason, there will be problems if the APs are not all on the
> same network: it expects to be able to, but can't, switch between the APs.
>
> Alex

There's certainly more to all this than has met my eye. I'd be interested
to read a discussion of these issues, if you have a reference?
Phil

"Jake" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hNmdndo4-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Can I do this...
>
> Connect two wifi routers for the purposes of having two wireless networks
> in different parts of the house.
>
> Router 1 (Dell Truemobile 2300), DHCP on, cable from cable modem attached
> to Dell's WAN port, IP range 192.168.2.x, SSID Name: Network 1
>
> Router 2 (Netgear WGR614v6) DHCP on, cable from Dell's LAN 4 port going to
> Netgear's WAN port, IP range 192.168.1.x, SSID Name: Network 2.
>
> Or do I have to configure them differently?


I use a 2wire 2700HGV for my broadband connection. I currently have three
wireless routers plugged into it via a network cable that runs through my
house. They provide wireless access in and around the house wherever I want
my laptop to be. I just plugged them all in and let them configure
themselves. Maybe I got lucky but they just work. From time to time I have
plugged another wireless router in to test for someone and this has worked
OK as well. Maybe I just got lucky!

Peter Crosland

On 29/05/2011 12:23, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:irt39h$nu$(E-Mail Removed)...
[snip]
>> Having APs configured with the same SSID is absolutely fine provided
>> it doesn't make a difference which of the APs a client associates
>> with; put another way, provided all the APs are part of the same
>> network. This requirement means a client can assume it is free to
>> switch between them according to changing signal conditions.
>>
>> For the same reason, there will be problems if the APs are not all on
>> the same network: it expects to be able to, but can't, switch between
>> the APs.
>
> There's certainly more to all this than has met my eye. I'd be
> interested to read a discussion of these issues, if you have a reference?

Sorry, no - the above is just from conversations with a colleague in the
IT department at work - a university with hundreds of APs providing good
wireless coverage throughout numerous buildings, all using the same SSID.

Alex