| Home | Register | Members | Search | Links |
 |
| Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:50:48 -0500, Char Jackson <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote: >On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:51:39 -0500, Tony Martin ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: > >>Configuration Data: >> >>WRT54G Router >>Default IP: 192.168.1.1 >> >>1st WRE54G Expander: >>Default IP: 192.168.1.240 >>Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0 >>Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 >> >>2nd WRT54G Expander: >>Default IP: 192.168.1.241 >>Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0 >>Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 [OR] 192.168.1.240 ??? >> >>The Questions ??? >> >>Can both Expanders use the WRT54G's gateway IP? >>i.e. the Router is in the center of two expanders each on >>opposite sides. Example: >> >>WRE54G(1).........30feet..................[WRT54G]..........30feet................WRE54G(2) >> >>OR >> >>does the 2nd expander need to use the gateway IP >>of the first expander? Example: >> >>[WRT54G]...............30feet..............WRE54G(1)....., ,,....30feet............WRE54G(2) >> >>TIA >>Tony > >They would both use 192.168.1.1 as the gateway IP. I can't help >thinking your throughput is going to suck, though. I believe it gets >cut in half when you use a single repeater, so two repeaters does >what, cut it by 4? Or even worse? You might do a lot better if you can >replace the repeaters with Ethernet cables, powerline networking, or >dedicated access point/client pairs that would operate on different >channels from each other to reduce/avoid interference. Thanks for the other suggestions however I already purchased the two expanders and am trying to make do. Signal degradation is somewhat why I asked the question. I was told it was also possible to daisy chain the expanders, i.e. make the first the gateway for the next one farthest out. Sounds like you are saying NO?? Im amazed at how many opinions are out there. I guess I will just have to try the possibilities and monitor the results. I currently use just one of these expanders about 40 feet away from the wireless router that acts as its gateway and that works perfect. No noticeable loss of bandwidth or drop outs. Users seem to either love these expanders or hate them. Maybe its a case of the Fox calling the grapes sour because they don't know how to configure them. Personally I prefer knowing the facts before I become a test pilot  TIA, Tony |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:04:31 -0500, Tony Martin
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: >On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:50:48 -0500, Char Jackson <(E-Mail Removed)> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:51:39 -0500, Tony Martin >><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: >> >>>Configuration Data: >>> >>>WRT54G Router >>>Default IP: 192.168.1.1 >>> >>>1st WRE54G Expander: >>>Default IP: 192.168.1.240 >>>Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0 >>>Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 >>> >>>2nd WRT54G Expander: >>>Default IP: 192.168.1.241 >>>Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0 >>>Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 [OR] 192.168.1.240 ??? >>> >>>The Questions ??? >>> >>>Can both Expanders use the WRT54G's gateway IP? >>>i.e. the Router is in the center of two expanders each on >>>opposite sides. Example: >>> >>>WRE54G(1).........30feet..................[WRT54G]..........30feet................WRE54G(2) >>> >>>OR >>> >>>does the 2nd expander need to use the gateway IP >>>of the first expander? Example: >>> >>>[WRT54G]...............30feet..............WRE54G(1)....., ,,....30feet............WRE54G(2) >>> >>>TIA >>>Tony >> >>They would both use 192.168.1.1 as the gateway IP. I can't help >>thinking your throughput is going to suck, though. I believe it gets >>cut in half when you use a single repeater, so two repeaters does >>what, cut it by 4? Or even worse? You might do a lot better if you can >>replace the repeaters with Ethernet cables, powerline networking, or >>dedicated access point/client pairs that would operate on different >>channels from each other to reduce/avoid interference. > >Thanks for the other suggestions however I already purchased the >two expanders and am trying to make do. Nothing like buying first and figuring out later. I've probablydone it myself a few times, but I try not to. >Signal degradation is somewhat why I asked the question. I was told >it was also possible to daisy chain the expanders, i.e. make the first >the gateway for the next one farthest out. Sounds like you are saying >NO?? Im amazed at how many opinions are out there. I guess I will >just have to try the possibilities and monitor the results. Yes, you can daisy chain them if you need to, but your diagram above made it look like one is hanging off in one direction while the other is hanging off in the opposite direction. If you do need to daisy chain them, then yes, the gateway IP of the second one will be the IP of the first one, while the gateway IP of the first one will be the IP of the router. >I currently use just one of these expanders about 40 feet away from >the wireless router that acts as its gateway and that works perfect. >No noticeable loss of bandwidth or drop outs. I guess it depends on what and how you're testing. If this is all about Internet access, then you might be OK, depending on how fast your Internet connection is; i.e., how much of a bottleneck it is. If you do intraLAN file transfers across the daisy-chained link, you'll likely be disappointed. I recommend tools such as jperf or iperf (google them) for throughput testing. Under the best conditions, an 801.11g wireless connection should net about 24 Megabits per second. Add a range expander, AKA repeater, and throughput should be cut in half because the repeater can't receive and send at the same time, so now you're down to a theoretical 12Mbps. Add a second repeater daisy-chained and you'd be down to about 6Mbps, but that's ignoring all of the interference flying around, so you're more likely down to 2-3Mbps, if that. >Users seem to either love these expanders or hate them. Maybe its >a case of the Fox calling the grapes sour because they don't know how >to configure them. Personally I prefer knowing the facts before I >become a test pilot I'm in the camp that says use a range expander as a last resort. Every other way of expanding a network is probably better, IMHO. But by all means, go for it! It's all about learning what works, and you may be pleasantly surprised. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:49:34 -0500, Char Jackson <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote: >On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:04:31 -0500, Tony Martin ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: > >>On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:50:48 -0500, Char Jackson <(E-Mail Removed)> >>wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:51:39 -0500, Tony Martin >>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: >>> >>>>Configuration Data: >>>> >>>>WRT54G Router >>>>Default IP: 192.168.1.1 >>>> >>>>1st WRE54G Expander: >>>>Default IP: 192.168.1.240 >>>>Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0 >>>>Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 >>>> >>>>2nd WRT54G Expander: >>>>Default IP: 192.168.1.241 >>>>Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0 >>>>Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 [OR] 192.168.1.240 ??? >>>> >>>>The Questions ??? >>>> >>>>Can both Expanders use the WRT54G's gateway IP? >>>>i.e. the Router is in the center of two expanders each on >>>>opposite sides. Example: >>>> >>>>WRE54G(1).........30feet..................[WRT54G]..........30feet................WRE54G(2) >>>> >>>>OR >>>> >>>>does the 2nd expander need to use the gateway IP >>>>of the first expander? Example: >>>> >>>>[WRT54G]...............30feet..............WRE54G(1)....., ,,....30feet............WRE54G(2) >>>> >>>>TIA >>>>Tony >>> >>>They would both use 192.168.1.1 as the gateway IP. I can't help >>>thinking your throughput is going to suck, though. I believe it gets >>>cut in half when you use a single repeater, so two repeaters does >>>what, cut it by 4? Or even worse? You might do a lot better if you can >>>replace the repeaters with Ethernet cables, powerline networking, or >>>dedicated access point/client pairs that would operate on different >>>channels from each other to reduce/avoid interference. >> >>Thanks for the other suggestions however I already purchased the >>two expanders and am trying to make do. > >Nothing like buying first and figuring out later. I've probably>done it myself a few times, but I try not to. > >>Signal degradation is somewhat why I asked the question. I was told >>it was also possible to daisy chain the expanders, i.e. make the first >>the gateway for the next one farthest out. Sounds like you are saying >>NO?? Im amazed at how many opinions are out there. I guess I will >>just have to try the possibilities and monitor the results. > >Yes, you can daisy chain them if you need to, but your diagram above >made it look like one is hanging off in one direction while the other >is hanging off in the opposite direction. If you do need to daisy >chain them, then yes, the gateway IP of the second one will be the IP >of the first one, while the gateway IP of the first one will be the IP >of the router. > >>I currently use just one of these expanders about 40 feet away from >>the wireless router that acts as its gateway and that works perfect. >>No noticeable loss of bandwidth or drop outs. > >I guess it depends on what and how you're testing. If this is all >about Internet access, then you might be OK, depending on how fast >your Internet connection is; i.e., how much of a bottleneck it is. If >you do intraLAN file transfers across the daisy-chained link, you'll >likely be disappointed. > >I recommend tools such as jperf or iperf (google them) for throughput >testing. > >Under the best conditions, an 801.11g wireless connection should net >about 24 Megabits per second. Add a range expander, AKA repeater, and >throughput should be cut in half because the repeater can't receive >and send at the same time, so now you're down to a theoretical 12Mbps. >Add a second repeater daisy-chained and you'd be down to about 6Mbps, >but that's ignoring all of the interference flying around, so you're >more likely down to 2-3Mbps, if that. > >>Users seem to either love these expanders or hate them. Maybe its >>a case of the Fox calling the grapes sour because they don't know how >>to configure them. Personally I prefer knowing the facts before I >>become a test pilot > >I'm in the camp that says use a range expander as a last resort. Every >other way of expanding a network is probably better, IMHO. But by all >means, go for it! It's all about learning what works, and you may be >pleasantly surprised. Sorry for my lame diagrams lol the 2nd one was to illustrate the daisy chain. Since you have been kind enough to share your knowledge info let explain further. I have a home network with 5 PCs, one is the server with the WRT54G, two are wired vi cat5 cable and two are wireless, with one of those two needing the expander because its located on the far end (60 feet away) of the house. This all works great. I am a Ham radio operator and have an outhouse we affectionately refer to as a Ham Shack. This is located 150 feet from the house. My little hotspot locator gives me 1 green led right up to the outside wall of the shack (which is enough to just make a connection) but once I move inside the signal goes red. Thus I want to place the 2nd expander on an outside wall of the main house (where I get 3 green bars) that faces towards the shack and should give a usable signal inside the shack. I could run a cat5 out there but it would be difficult and Im lazy, "so, there it is" as the Austrian King often said. 73 and thanks again for your feedback! Tony |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Wireless-G Range Expander(Linksys wre54g) sporadic loss of internet connection | John | Wireless Internet | 11 | 02-25-2006 09:01 PM |
| WRE54G Linksys Wireless Range Extender | Peter | Wireless Internet | 3 | 11-13-2005 04:31 PM |
| Linksys Wireless G Range Extender WRE54G | Simon Willcox | Wireless Networks | 2 | 10-11-2005 05:41 PM |
| WRE54G Range Expander | William Boyd | Wireless Internet | 11 | 03-27-2005 08:58 PM |
| Wireless Range expanders | CathDoc | Broadband Hardware | 1 | 12-21-2004 07:13 PM |
Linear Mode
