wireless router or router+WAP

I am buying a house that is prewired with CAT-5 everywhere. The cable comes
into the house in a metal closet from whence all in-house wiring emanates,
so I can't put a wireless router there (signal wouldn't get out due to
metal, I think). There will be two computers in the immediate future, one a
wired desktop and the other a laptop for which I intend to buy a card to use
wireless. They will be in close proximity to each other in the family room,
so for right now I could... cable into house to modem in metal closet
wired to the outlet in the family room, and then hook up the wireless
router. But... Later if I want to add another wired computer in, say, a
bedroom, I would have to have a router in the metal closet. At that point,
the wireless router would be serving simply as a WAP.

So, is there any problem with that? Would I have to turn something "off" in
the wireless router (e.g., a firewall) so that the wired computer in the
bedroom could see the wireless computer in the living room (which would then
be 2 routers away. Sorry for the newbie questions. I haven't got a clue,
but then that is why I am here asking)

In essence, is it better to buy (1) a router and a WAP now (Router in metal
closet, from which I could connect to any/all rooms, and WAP in the family
room), or (2) a wireless router now (In the family room) and a router later
if needed? I see that a WAP and a wireless router go for about the same
price, so is there any downside to option 2? Other possibilities I am
missing?

TIA for any help,

Affie

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:06:09 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , "afsoun"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

<snip scenario>

>Would I have to turn something "off" in
>the wireless router (e.g., a firewall) so that the wired computer in the
>bedroom could see the wireless computer in the living room (which would then
>be 2 routers away.

I have pretty much the same setup and all I did was turn off DHCP on
the wireless router and re-IP it (the two routers had the same default
address).

>In essence, is it better to buy (1) a router and a WAP now (Router in metal
>closet, from which I could connect to any/all rooms, and WAP in the family
>room), or (2) a wireless router now (In the family room) and a router later
>if needed?

I'd get the wireless router, and see if it actually works for you. I
switched to the router + wrouter setup because the wireless signal was
useless except in the same room as the router, and I really wanted it
in the garden.


Mark McIntyre


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Why not put a router in the closet and wap on any of the cat5 connections in
whatever room gives you the best coverage? Multiple waps if needed. Am I
missing something? Sounds like a networker's dream.

"Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Why not put a router in the closet and wap on any of the cat5
connections in
> whatever room gives you the best coverage? Multiple waps if
needed. Am I
> missing something? Sounds like a networker's dream.

Sorry, sometimes I am so verbose that I don't make any sense.
What you say is what I was trying to describe in my method (1).
The only question is that I think right now I could get away with
a single wireless router, and maybe could add to that later as
needed, and if that would be reasonable/cost efficient thing to do
(single wireless router now, then perhaps later buy a router, and
use the wireless router simply as a WAP, if that is possible).

Thanks,

Affie