On Sun, 23 May 2010 18:42:02 -0600, "Roger 2008" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
>"Char Jackson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 02:35:47 -0600, "Roger 2008" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >The neat part about that setup is I can plug a device into the Linksys
>> >Access Point and then it gets it's internet from the Wireless-G Router.
>>
>> The setup I described does that, too.
>
>Oh yeah you are right it does but in my case there is no network cable
>running between the Wireless Access Point and the Wireless-G Router.
True, and that can be a big benefit. Unfortunately, it comes at a very
high cost of wrecking the wireless throughput.
>I wanted to try and setup a bridge instead of a repeater but I would have
>needed two Linksys Access Points for that so I setup a repeater instead.
Understood. I'm in the same boat, but in my case I only needed wired
access in the distant room, rather than wired/wireless, so a bridge
worked for me.
>Under normal circumstances the wireless Access Point adds a wireless Access
>point to a wired network. I have it setup so the wireless Access Point
>gives me wireless access into an existing wireless network. That works
>great for devices I have on another floor of the house that aren't wireless
Yep, I have one of my WRT54GL's doing (nearly) the same thing. dd-wrt
calls it Client mode, or Client Bridge if you want to simply extend
the existing network without creating a new subnet.
>and it extends the range of my wireless network to include the driveway at
>the same time.
In my case, I don't have the luxury of giving up half (or more) of my
throughput as a result of running a repeater, so I didn't have much
choice. Repeaters have their place, though.
Anyway, I hope the OP got what he/she needs and is moving ahead.
|