How to boost our Linksys WRT150N's signal -- across the house?
dgates
EAST SIDE OF HOUSE: in an add-on "office" room separated by thick
walls). This DSL line leads to a Linksys WRT150N router, which is
connected one computer and three TiVos.
WEST SIDE OF HOUSE: in the living room. This DSL line leads to a
Linksys WRT300N router, which is connected to one laptop, and one
color printer.
We are about to get rid of Line #2, the DSL line in the living room,
leaving only the DSL line in the office, and we would like all devices
to be connected to that one router. However, the wireless signal gets
very weak as it travels through the thick walls of the add-on room and
across the house.
Can we increase that signal -- either by boosting it at the source, or
by adding something like a "repeater" somewhere in the middle of the
house?
Years ago, we had some kind of "booster" device that connected
directly to our old router. The old router had removable antennae,
and this booster device sat right on top of it, connected to the
router by two wires. The booster looked almost exactly like the
router -- blue, and about the same size. It had its own antennae.
I notice that the antennae don't come off of our current WRT150N, so
that might hurt the "booster" idea.
Another solution...? We're about to have a spare WRT300N just sitting
around. Perhaps we could park that somewhere in the middle of the
house and it could pass the signal along...?
However, I've heard comments like "Adding a repeater splits the signal
in half."
The number one use for our bandwidth, by a longshot, will be from the
computer in the office, the one about six feet from the WRT150N. The
only other devices that might even come close would be the TiVos --
say, if we watch YouTube videos, or decide to watch a Netflix movie on
demand.
I hope I've provided enough information for someone to help us with
our choice. Do we already have all the devices we need, or do we need
to buy some additional "booster" or "repeater?"
Thanks in advance.
John Navas
in <j1idl4lgom027c2jb...@4ax.com>:
>Currently, we have two DSL lines:
>
>EAST SIDE OF HOUSE: in an add-on "office" room separated by thick
>walls). This DSL line leads to a Linksys WRT150N router, which is
>connected one computer and three TiVos.
>
>WEST SIDE OF HOUSE: in the living room. This DSL line leads to a
>Linksys WRT300N router, which is connected to one laptop, and one
>color printer.
>
>We are about to get rid of Line #2, the DSL line in the living room,
>leaving only the DSL line in the office, and we would like all devices
>to be connected to that one router. However, the wireless signal gets
>very weak as it travels through the thick walls of the add-on room and
>across the house.
>
>Can we increase that signal -- either by boosting it at the source, or
>by adding something like a "repeater" somewhere in the middle of the
>house?
Best solution: Use powerline networking to connect the WRT300N as an
access point (not router) in the living room to the WRT150N in the
office. Put them on non-overlapping channels with the same SSID.
Repeaters cut speed in half by retransmitting everything, and can be a
security hassle.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
Ari®
http://bluwiki.com/go/WirelessPenisNavas
John, what is all of that about?
--
Meet Ari! http://tr.im/1fa3
"To get concrete results, you have to be confrontational".
Jeff Liebermann
12:30AM. My appologies if my brain is not quite functional.
>Currently, we have two DSL lines:
>
>EAST SIDE OF HOUSE: in an add-on "office" room separated by thick
>walls).
Thick walls are bad for RF.
>This DSL line leads to a Linksys WRT150N router, which is
>connected one computer and three TiVos.
>
>WEST SIDE OF HOUSE: in the living room. This DSL line leads to a
>Linksys WRT300N router, which is connected to one laptop, and one
>color printer.
>
>We are about to get rid of Line #2, the DSL line in the living room,
>leaving only the DSL line in the office, and we would like all devices
>to be connected to that one router. However, the wireless signal gets
>very weak as it travels through the thick walls of the add-on room and
>across the house.
Yep. This is not a good use for wireless. Some other method of
connecting the two routers will be necessary.
>Can we increase that signal -- either by boosting it at the source, or
>by adding something like a "repeater" somewhere in the middle of the
>house?
Nope.
1. It probably won't go thorugh the thick wall any better. Increasing
the power at one end of the link doesn't magically do the same for the
other end. You would need two of these repeaters (one at each router)
in order for it to work.
2. MIMO (802.11n) doesn't like repeaters. That's another reason why
the antennas are non-removeable. MIMO requires seperate paths between
the antennas with slightly different delays. Unfortunately this only
increases the speed, not the range. As soon as you have a marginal
signal quality, the wireless access point will revert to 802.11g
speeds ( <54mbits/sec). If the signal quality really sucks, then it
can easily go down to 802.11b speeds, and finally hit bottom at
1Mbit/sec.
3. Store and forward repeaters reduce the maximum speed by half for
each hop. Actually, it's usually worse than half. I don't think
you'll like that.
>Years ago, we had some kind of "booster" device that connected
>directly to our old router. The old router had removable antennae,
>and this booster device sat right on top of it, connected to the
>router by two wires. The booster looked almost exactly like the
>router -- blue, and about the same size. It had its own antennae.
Those are still around. As previously mentioned, you'll need one at
each end. Even so, I don't think it will work through the thick wall.
>I notice that the antennae don't come off of our current WRT150N, so
>that might hurt the "booster" idea.
Yep. MIMO (802.11n) routers usually do that.
>Another solution...? We're about to have a spare WRT300N just sitting
>around. Perhaps we could park that somewhere in the middle of the
>house and it could pass the signal along...?
Sure, lots of alternatives. Have your credit card handy.
>However, I've heard comments like "Adding a repeater splits the signal
>in half."
It reduces the MAXIMUM speed in half (or less). For example, if you
manage to squeeze a 12Mbit/sec wireless direct connection through your
thick wall, you'll get a theoretical maximum thruput (50% reduction
due to protocol overhead). Add a repeater in the middle, and you cut
that in half again for a maximum thruput of 3Mbits/sec. As I
mentioned, that's under ideal conditions and is usually somewhat less.
>The number one use for our bandwidth, by a longshot, will be from the
>computer in the office, the one about six feet from the WRT150N. The
>only other devices that might even come close would be the TiVos --
>say, if we watch YouTube videos, or decide to watch a Netflix movie on
>demand.
That's a fairly typical mix. Netflix is a big bandwidth user.
>I hope I've provided enough information for someone to help us with
>our choice. Do we already have all the devices we need, or do we need
>to buy some additional "booster" or "repeater?"
Yeah, fairly good description. The distance between the two routers
would have been useful. Some suggestions:
1. Run CAT5 ethernet cable between the two routers. This is the best
and fastest alternative. The WRT150N goes to the DSL modem and gets
to play router. The WRT300N acts as an ethernet switch, wireless
access point, and has the router section disabled. Note that any
wireless router can be uses as an access point:
<http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To#Use_a_wireless_router_as_a_wireless_access_point>
Having a wireless connection at each end of the house might be handy
if you have laptops and PDA's with wireless. Also, put the two
wireless routers on different non-overlapping channels (1, 6, 11) so
that they don't interefere with each other.
2. If you have any other runs of wire between routers (i.e. phone
wire, 25 pair bundle, alarm wire, CATV coax, zip cord, junk wire,
barbed wire, etc), you can run ethernet over the 4 wires. Various
common technologies are:
- HomePNA phone line networking
- HomePlug power line networking
- 10Base2 ethernet over coax cable
- 10baseT ethernet over CAT5 or whatever else you can scrounge.
Just about any kind of wire can be bludgeoned into carrying ethernet.
There's also fiber optic cable and media converters, which will work
if you have access to a source of cheap fiber.
I don't wanna explain how all of these work and are used. If one or
more looks interesting, post a reply and I'll fill in the blanks.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
dgates
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:34:51 -0800, dgates <dga...@somedomain.com>
>wrote:
>
>12:30AM. My appologies if my brain is not quite functional.
>
>>Currently, we have two DSL lines:
>>
>>EAST SIDE OF HOUSE: in an add-on "office" room separated by thick
>>walls).
>
>Thick walls are bad for RF.
>
>>This DSL line leads to a Linksys WRT150N router, which is
>>connected one computer and three TiVos.
>>
>>WEST SIDE OF HOUSE: in the living room. This DSL line leads to a
>>Linksys WRT300N router, which is connected to one laptop, and one
>>color printer.
>>
>>We are about to get rid of Line #2, the DSL line in the living room,
>>leaving only the DSL line in the office, and we would like all devices
>>to be connected to that one router. However, the wireless signal gets
>>very weak as it travels through the thick walls of the add-on room and
>>across the house.
>
>Yep. This is not a good use for wireless. Some other method of
>connecting the two routers will be necessary.
>
>>Can we increase that signal -- either by boosting it at the source, or
>>by adding something like a "repeater" somewhere in the middle of the
>>house?
>
>Nope.
>1. It probably won't go thorugh the thick wall any better.
I may have overstated the "thick walls." The primary thick wall is
the one (well, two) separating the add-on office from the rest of the
house.
This morning, I walked around the house, checking how well the signal
strength from the east side of the house (the add-on office) carried
to the other rooms. I measured off the numbers reported by the TiVos,
and by the laptop as I moved it to the two rooms it tends to visit.
Here are the results (and what device reported each result).
East (office):
"94% (excellent)" from a TiVo.
Middle (family & dining room):
"64% (good)" from a TiVo
"2 out of 5 bars" from a laptop
West (living room):
"2 out of 5 bars" from a laptop
South (exercise room):
"41% (marginal)" from a TiVo
>1. (cont'd) Increasing
>the power at one end of the link doesn't magically do the same for the
>other end. You would need two of these repeaters (one at each router)
>in order for it to work.
Maybe I misunderstood how a booster would work. I assume that it's
analogous to one guy yelling to another guy. If you boost the volume
of the yelling guy's voice, you don't need to also boost the other
guy's hearing. No?
>2. MIMO (802.11n) doesn't like repeaters. That's another reason why
>the antennas are non-removeable. MIMO requires separate paths between
>the antennas with slightly different delays. Unfortunately this only
>increases the speed, not the range. As soon as you have a marginal
>signal quality, the wireless access point will revert to 802.11g
>speeds ( <54mbits/sec).
Interesting, now that you mention "marginal" and "G" in the same
sentence. I believe that the TiVo's wireless antenna is only a "G" in
the first place.
>If the signal quality really sucks, then it
>can easily go down to 802.11b speeds, and finally hit bottom at
>1Mbit/sec.
>3. Store and forward repeaters reduce the maximum speed by half for
>each hop. Actually, it's usually worse than half. I don't think
>you'll like that.
>
>>Years ago, we had some kind of "booster" device that connected
>>directly to our old router. The old router had removable antennae,
>>and this booster device sat right on top of it, connected to the
>>router by two wires. The booster looked almost exactly like the
>>router -- blue, and about the same size. It had its own antennae.
>
>Those are still around. As previously mentioned, you'll need one at
>each end. Even so, I don't think it will work through the thick wall.
>
>>I notice that the antennae don't come off of our current WRT150N, so
>>that might hurt the "booster" idea.
>
>Yep. MIMO (802.11n) routers usually do that.
>
>>Another solution...? We're about to have a spare WRT300N just sitting
>>around. Perhaps we could park that somewhere in the middle of the
>>house and it could pass the signal along...?
>
>Sure, lots of alternatives. Have your credit card handy.
I'm about to reply to John Navas's reply, in which he recommends
powerline networking. I gather that would cost a little bit.
>>However, I've heard comments like "Adding a repeater splits the signal
>>in half."
>
>It reduces the MAXIMUM speed in half (or less). For example, if you
>manage to squeeze a 12Mbit/sec wireless direct connection through your
>thick wall, you'll get a theoretical maximum thruput (50% reduction
>due to protocol overhead). Add a repeater in the middle, and you cut
>that in half again for a maximum thruput of 3Mbits/sec. As I
>mentioned, that's under ideal conditions and is usually somewhat less.
Hmm. I'm not good at doing these conversions. The last I checked,
our DSL speed was 384k-1.5M/128k-256k, and DSLReports.com just told me
I was doing 1,271 up and 314 down.
Our DSL speed is probably an important factor for most of the
transfering we'll be doing (something from the internet to a computer
or a TiVo). I'm pretty sure that TiVo-to-TiVo transfers will be less
than 5% of our usage.
I mention all this in case it affects your thinking in terms of the
numbers.
>>The number one use for our bandwidth, by a longshot, will be from the
>>computer in the office, the one about six feet from the WRT150N. The
>>only other devices that might even come close would be the TiVos --
>>say, if we watch YouTube videos, or decide to watch a Netflix movie on
>>demand.
>
>That's a fairly typical mix. Netflix is a big bandwidth user.
>
>>I hope I've provided enough information for someone to help us with
>>our choice. Do we already have all the devices we need, or do we need
>>to buy some additional "booster" or "repeater?"
>
>Yeah, fairly good description. The distance between the two routers
>would have been useful.
I should mention that there's no particular reason the WRT300N router
has to stay on the far west side of the house once we disconnect the
DSL line over there. In fact, I was thinking it should go somewhere
in the middle of the house, somewhere that it can wirelessly receive
the signal from the other router, and be located centrally enough to
transmit it around to the other devices.
Rough estimate of distances...
East: DSL Modem. Signal starts here.
Go through 2 thick walls (or through a door and around a couple
corners).
Middle: 25 feet away in a straight line (through thick walls). Or
about 40 feet, through the door and around corners.
West: About 20 feet further than Middle.
South: 25 to 30 feet away from Middle. It may also get a more direct
signal from the first router shooting out one window, around a single
corner and in another window. So, rather than traveling about 60 or
70 feet through thick walls, the signal might have a shorter path
going out the window and about 40 feet.
25' or 40'
West -- 20' -- Middle --| |-- East
| | |
| ----
25'
|
|
South
I hope that conveys it.
>Some suggestions:
>
>1. Run CAT5 ethernet cable between the two routers. This is the best
>and fastest alternative.
This might be a good idea, although I'm not sure what you mean by
"fastest." It would surely take longer to go under the house (or pay
someone to go under the house) and run CAT5 ethernet cable than to
just stick the WRT300N router in the middle of the house and let it
receive the signal wirelessly.
Or, by "fastest," do you mean the solution that would provide the
fastest transfer speeds once we get it wired up?
>The WRT150N goes to the DSL modem and gets
>to play router. The WRT300N acts as an ethernet switch, wireless
>access point, and has the router section disabled. Note that any
>wireless router can be uses as an access point:
><http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To#Use_a_wireless_router_as_a_wireless_access_point>
Bookmarked. Thank you. Does that only work if the second wireless
router gets its signal from a cable, rather than wirelessly?
>Having a wireless connection at each end of the house might be handy
>if you have laptops and PDA's with wireless. Also, put the two
>wireless routers on different non-overlapping channels (1, 6, 11) so
>that they don't interefere with each other.
I'll have to read up on setting channels, but I suspect it'll be easy
enough.
(Having just looked at the Linksys admin screens under "Wireless >
Basic Wireless Settings," I see that I'll have to set Radio Band to
either Standard or Wide, rather than Auto, then manually set the
Standard and/or Wide Channels.)
>2. If you have any other runs of wire between routers (i.e. phone
>wire, 25 pair bundle, alarm wire, CATV coax, zip cord, junk wire,
>barbed wire, etc), you can run ethernet over the 4 wires. Various
>common technologies are:
>- HomePNA phone line networking
>- HomePlug power line networking
>- 10Base2 ethernet over coax cable
>- 10baseT ethernet over CAT5 or whatever else you can scrounge.
>Just about any kind of wire can be bludgeoned into carrying ethernet.
>There's also fiber optic cable and media converters, which will work
>if you have access to a source of cheap fiber.
>
>I don't wanna explain how all of these work and are used. If one or
>more looks interesting, post a reply and I'll fill in the blanks.
I probably need just a little more convincing that there isn't a
wireless way to do this, perhaps as easily as moving the second router
to the middle of the house.
If a wired run is truly the best way to do it, then I'm still favoring
the method that doesn't involve someone going under the house.
Powerline networking sounds good...
And I guess, with that cue, I should continue these thoughts in a
reply to John Navas's Powerline-themed message.
I hope I haven't talked your ear off. And perhaps you can help me
with the final decision:
Can I meet all my needs with no new cabling and no new devices, simply
by putting the WRT300N router in the middle of the house? Or will I
suffer over the longterm enough that it's worth spending some money
(perhaps to have a professional run an ethernet cable from the east to
west side of our house)?
dgates
Thank you for the reply.
I have some extra detail to offer about our house, and also some extra
questions. But I find that I've already typed most of it in my reply
to Jeff Liebermann's post.
Still, I should ask:
If I tell you that the WRT300N router doesn't have to stay on the far
west side of the house, and that by moving it to the middle of the
house, it will get a not-bad wireless signal from the WRT150N router,
does that change your recommendation?
I'll paste my ASCII diagram, along with a summary of what signal
strength is carried along to each room.
============================================================
East: DSL Modem. Signal starts here.
Middle: 25 feet away in a straight line (through thick walls). Or
about 40 feet, through the door and around corners.
West: About 20 feet further than Middle.
South: 25 to 30 feet away from Middle.
25' or 40'
West -- 20' -- Middle --| |-- East
| | |
| ----
25'
|
|
South
East (office):
"94% (excellent)" from a TiVo.
Middle (family & dining room):
"64% (good)" from a TiVo
"2 out of 5 bars" from a laptop
West (living room):
"2 out of 5 bars" from a laptop
South (exercise room):
"41% (marginal)" from a TiVo
============================================================
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>I may have overstated the "thick walls." The primary thick wall is
>the one (well, two) separating the add-on office from the rest of the
>house.
Never mind the over or under statements. How many walls? What are
the walls made from? Any aluminium foil backed insulation in the
walls?
Rule of thumb: 1 wall is usually no problem. 2 walls are a problem
but can be made to work if sufficiently thin. 3 walls will get you an
unstable and unreliable connection. If there is any foil insulation
in the walls, forget it. Also, RF likes to travel in straight lines,
so count the number of walls along the RF path, not through doorways,
hallways, closets, etc.
>East (office):
>"94% (excellent)" from a TiVo.
>
>Middle (family & dining room):
>"64% (good)" from a TiVo
>"2 out of 5 bars" from a laptop
2 out of 5 is not my idea of good. Lacking real numbers, I would
guess 3 out of 5 bars would be a minimum.
>West (living room):
>"2 out of 5 bars" from a laptop
Same as above. Barely tolerable. As I previously mentioned, you can
make it work with this signal level, but I don't think you'll enjoy
having it drop out every time something moves or changes along the
path.
>South (exercise room):
>"41% (marginal)" from a TiVo
Yep. Still functional but I would hate to measure the speed and
reliability.
>Maybe I misunderstood how a booster would work. I assume that it's
>analogous to one guy yelling to another guy. If you boost the volume
>of the yelling guy's voice, you don't need to also boost the other
>guy's hearing. No?
Close. Place two guys far enough apart so that they can just barely
hear each other. Now, place a 3rd guy in the middle to play repeater.
He listens for one of the other end guy to yell something. When he
hears something with a destination address of the other guy, he saves
the message, turns around, and yells it to the other guy. The reply
goes the same way. The middle guy just stores and plays back the
message.
Now, what's important here is that the end guys can just barely hear
each other. If both the end guys are yelling at the same time, the
middle guy will be confused. If the middle guy is replaying a message
and the originating guy decides to send yet another message, the other
end guy hears both at the same time and gets it muddled. Lots of
other combinations that won't work.
The answer is that only one of the 3 guys can do their yelling at a
time. The means that the repeater monopolizes about twice the air
time as a single transmission directly from end to end. That's where
the bandwidth gets cut in half. Also note that to have it cut exactly
in half, the 3 guys have to have perfect timing. That's rarely the
case and collisions are common. The result is that a repeater
typically reduces maximum thruput by more than half. Also note that
it works best if the end points cannot hear each other.
One solution is to use two radios as a repeater. The link between one
guy and the repeater is one channel. The link between the repeater
and the other guy is on a different channel. With two radios in the
repeater, they can transmit and receive simultaneously, thus
eliminating the 50% max performance hit.
You won't find these at consumer prices, but you can build your own.
All it takes are two wireless ethernet bridge radios and a crossover
ethernet cable. They're also becoming common in wireless mesh
networks to solve the same problem.
Short opinion: Repeaters usually suck.
>Interesting, now that you mention "marginal" and "G" in the same
>sentence.
Yep. Your laptop should give you an indication of connection speed.
Move some traffic, such as streaming audio or video, and start walking
around. Look at the connection speed, which will go up and down. I
doubt if you can maintain 54Mbits/sec farther than about 5 meters away
from the access point. With lots of reflections in the room, probably
less. Once you go through a wall or two, your speed will drop down to
much lower speeds. That's marginal. No way are you going to maintain
a MIMO speed connection with such an arrangement.
>I believe that the TiVo's wireless antenna is only a "G" in
>the first place.
Yes. The AG0100 usb dongle is 802.11b/g with 54mbits/sec max.
>I'm about to reply to John Navas's reply, in which he recommends
>powerline networking. I gather that would cost a little bit.
Before we dive into alternatives, I suggest you consider your
performance and bandwidth requirements. If you're moving video files
between your DVR and computah or running a video server via ethernet,
you're going to need LOTS of bandwidth and performance. I just setup
one of those that required gigabit speeds to be usable. You won't get
that with wireless, but you can get that with CAT5. You also won't
get it with power line, phone line, zip cord, barbed wire, etc. You
can with fiber, but you won't like the price.
Chart of common routers and their maximum performance:
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_wireless/Itemid,200/>
The WRT160N is listed at 43.9mbits/sec max (that's with MIMO active).
You won't get over 25mbits/sec with 802.11g only. Incidentally, there
is quite a bit of really good stuff on this above web site.
The problem with power line networking is that there are several
technologies available. Basically, there's
14mbits/sec (HomePlug 1.0),
85mbit/sec (Homeplug 1.0 Turbo)
200mbit/sec (HomePlug AV)
speeds. The first is useless. I can't seem to find any benchmark
results on the others, but I doubt if you'll get anywhere near the
specified maximum.
Incidentally, for running performance tests, see IPerf and JPerf.
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf>
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/jperf>
<http://openmaniak.com/iperf.php> tutorial
>Hmm. I'm not good at doing these conversions. The last I checked,
>our DSL speed was 384k-1.5M/128k-256k, and DSLReports.com just told me
>I was doing 1,271 up and 314 down.
Ok, I can work with that. Your maximum DSL speed is about
1.5Mbits/sec. If you use a direct wireless connection, you'll need an
error free connection speed of no less than 3Mbits/sec. The closest
is 5.5Mbits/sec. If you add a repeater, you'll need at least
6Mbits/sec. The closest 802.11g speed is 9Mbits/sec.
That works if everything you do goes through the DSL connection and to
the internet. That's possible but rather improbable. For example,
wireless printing, Tivo to PC, PC to PC, running backups over the
network, shared file/video server, and such are all local traffic that
will need to go MUCH faster than DSL speeds. Therefore, with your
office arrangement, I suspect that you'll need much more than the
minimum of 9Mbit/sec thruput.
>Our DSL speed is probably an important factor for most of the
>transfering we'll be doing (something from the internet to a computer
>or a TiVo). I'm pretty sure that TiVo-to-TiVo transfers will be less
>than 5% of our usage.
Is that 5% of the number of megabloats you're moving, or 5% of the
time? I think you'll find the file sizes to be rather huge and the
speed requirements rather high if you're playing video server.
Do you have a Tivo 2 or Tivo 3?
>I mention all this in case it affects your thinking in terms of the
>numbers.
I always think in terms of numbers. Units of measure are also handy.
>>That's a fairly typical mix. Netflix is a big bandwidth user.
Try watching Netflix online on your laptop with a not so great
wireless connection. For extra entertainment, try doing something
else with the wireless at the same time. That's important because
wireless airtime is a shared resource. If two wireless clients are
doing something at the same time, then the available bandwidth gets
split (not necessarily equally).
>I should mention that there's no particular reason the WRT300N router
>has to stay on the far west side of the house once we disconnect the
>DSL line over there.
I think it might be handy to have wireless at both ends of the house.
You have the hardware so use it.
>In fact, I was thinking it should go somewhere
>in the middle of the house, somewhere that it can wirelessly receive
>the signal from the other router, and be located centrally enough to
>transmit it around to the other devices.
That would work were it not for the number of walls in the house. If
you think you can get adequate coverage from a wireless router in the
middle of the house, by all means, try it. However, if you're going
to run CAT5 to the router half way across the house, I suggest you
finish the job and go all the way from end to end.
>Rough estimate of distances...
>
>East: DSL Modem. Signal starts here.
>
>Go through 2 thick walls (or through a door and around a couple
>corners).
>
>Middle: 25 feet away in a straight line (through thick walls). Or
>about 40 feet, through the door and around corners.
>
>West: About 20 feet further than Middle.
>
>South: 25 to 30 feet away from Middle. It may also get a more direct
>signal from the first router shooting out one window, around a single
>corner and in another window. So, rather than traveling about 60 or
>70 feet through thick walls, the signal might have a shorter path
>going out the window and about 40 feet.
>
>
> 25' or 40'
>
>West -- 20' -- Middle --| |-- East
> | | |
> | ----
> 25'
> |
> |
> South
>
>
>I hope that conveys it.
Yep. Too many (thick) walls and no single ideal location. Going
through windows might work, until something gets in the way. Watch
out for low-E window coatings. They block RF. It might be possible
to locate the single router in the South part of the house, and shoot
through windows in both the West and East ends. That might work for a
fixed antenna located in the window, but I doubt it will work for the
laptop with an internal antenna. It's easy enough to try.
I would normally suggest installing directional antennas but your
existing MIMO routers have non-removable antennas.
>>1. Run CAT5 ethernet cable between the two routers. This is the best
>>and fastest alternative.
>
>This might be a good idea, although I'm not sure what you mean by
>"fastest."
With gigabit routers at each end, and less than 100 meters of CAT5,
you can move data at almost 1000mbits/sec. That's really handy for
giant video file transfers and running video servers. Both your
existing routers have built in gigabit switches. With the usual
10/100mbit/sec ethernet switches, you'll get a bit less than
100mbits/sec. Reminder: the BEST you can do with wireless 802.11g is
25mbits/sec.
>It would surely take longer to go under the house (or pay
>someone to go under the house) and run CAT5 ethernet cable than to
>just stick the WRT300N router in the middle of the house and let it
>receive the signal wirelessly.
Ture. Try the relocated router in either the Middle or through
windows at the South. It might work well enough for internet traffic,
but any large file transfers across the wireless LAN are going to be
painfully slow.
Running CAT5 under the house is a messy project. That's what kids are
for. The nice thing is that it always works (unless the kid pounds a
staple through the cable) and requires no tinkering, adjusting,
configuring, tweaking, and swearing that's common with wireless. If
you add up the elapsed time involved, deployment time might be
comparable.
>Or, by "fastest," do you mean the solution that would provide the
>fastest transfer speeds once we get it wired up?
Fastest transfer speeds. Fast is fun.
>><http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To#Use_a_wireless_router_as_a_wireless_access_point>
>
>Bookmarked. Thank you. Does that only work if the second wireless
>router gets its signal from a cable, rather than wirelessly?
Wired via CAT5 ethernet. However, I forgot to mumble something about
WDS repeaters. Looks like the WRT150N and WRT300N do NOT support WDS.
Never mind.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Distribution_System>
>I'll have to read up on setting channels, but I suspect it'll be easy
>enough.
Yep. It's on the wireless page of the router configuration. It's
only necessary to change it in the routers. The clients will
automagically follow the change.
>(Having just looked at the Linksys admin screens under "Wireless >
>Basic Wireless Settings," I see that I'll have to set Radio Band to
>either Standard or Wide, rather than Auto, then manually set the
>Standard and/or Wide Channels.)
All those have to do with MIMO (802.11n). If you use "wide", it's
fixed to channel 6 as it now hogs the entire band. The only way you
can set the channel is to use standard (narrow) bandwidth.
>If a wired run is truly the best way to do it, then I'm still favoring
>the method that doesn't involve someone going under the house.
>Powerline networking sounds good...
I don't have any specific recommendations for power line networking
equipment. My guess is about $100 per end. For $200, I'm sure you
can bribe the neighbors brat into getting filthy under the house.
>Can I meet all my needs with no new cabling and no new devices, simply
>by putting the WRT300N router in the middle of the house?
My guess(tm) is that it will work going through windows at the south
end of the house, but will be flaky and unreliable going through walls
in the middle location.
>Or will I
>suffer over the longterm enough that it's worth spending some money
>(perhaps to have a professional run an ethernet cable from the east to
>west side of our house)?
I don't see that the decision has to be made immediately. You have
enough equipment to do a live test for the wireless arrangement. Try
it, see how it plays, see how stable it runs, and make the
determination. If it's as bad as I predict, then run the wires.
dgates
I may reply in more detail later, but I wanted to reply immediately to
say thank you very much for your time and detailed answers.
We might do some sort of wireless tests first, but I think at this point
we're pretty convinced that we should run the CAT5 across the house.
There may be some subtleties involved. For example, the living room's
router is on the opposite side of the wall as the family room's Tivo, so
if we're running the CAT5 wire already, we might consider having it lead
to jacks on each side of the wall. But those are fairly small decisions
that we can make later.
You mention having a "kid" do the wiring, but I'm pretty sure we want to
hire a professional. Any idea where we might find a guy to come out, run
the cable, install 2 or 3 wall jacks, be professional and trustworthy?
I'm guessing that since you guessed we'd pay the "kid" $200, that you
figure we'll pay the pro a fair amount more than that...?
In any case, even if you don't type another word, thank you very much,
again, for your time and assistance.
John Navas
in <494830011252225779.7884...@news.giganews.com>:
>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>[SNIP]
>I may reply in more detail later, but I wanted to reply immediately to
>say thank you very much for your time and detailed answers.
>
>We might do some sort of wireless tests first, but I think at this point
>we're pretty convinced that we should run the CAT5 across the house.
>
>There may be some subtleties involved. For example, the living room's
>router is on the opposite side of the wall as the family room's Tivo, so
>if we're running the CAT5 wire already, we might consider having it lead
>to jacks on each side of the wall. But those are fairly small decisions
>that we can make later.
>
>You mention having a "kid" do the wiring, but I'm pretty sure we want to
>hire a professional. Any idea where we might find a guy to come out, run
>the cable, install 2 or 3 wall jacks, be professional and trustworthy?
>I'm guessing that since you guessed we'd pay the "kid" $200, that you
>figure we'll pay the pro a fair amount more than that...?
>
>In any case, even if you don't type another word, thank you very much,
>again, for your time and assistance.
Jeff likes CAT5, and so do I, but it's an expensive pain to pull CAT5
and wire up outlets properly.
I'm willing to bet you'll spend less money and I know you'll have a lot
less hassle with powerline networking.
Newegg will sell you two LINKSYS PLE200 (up to 200Mbps) PowerLine AV
Ethernet Adapters for $130 (much less than Jeff's $200).
Jeff Liebermann
>We might do some sort of wireless tests first, but I think at this point
>we're pretty convinced that we should run the CAT5 across the house.
Well, as John points out, you can get HomePlug AV adapters for less
than my guess. It might be a suitable alternative.
<http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=PLE200&show=dd&lnk=showlist>
If you buy some, make sure that they can be returned and be sure to
save all the packaging.
I have a pair of 85MHz SMC boxes that I use for emergencies (like when
the mice chew up the CAT5) and for loaning to customers for testing.
The loans have resulted in mixed results. Some buildings have far too
much conducted EMI (electro magnetic interference) sitting on the
power lines. One test showed that traffic thruput just stopped
whenever the elevator was moving. Since HomePlug is basically BPL
(broadband power line), the noise generated by the HomePlug hardware
trashed one neighbors shortwave ham and CB reception. When I tried it
at my house, my OTA (over the air) TV reception became slightly noisy
on some channels. The nice thing about CAT5 is that you don't have
these kind of ummm.... issues.
>There may be some subtleties involved. For example, the living room's
>router is on the opposite side of the wall as the family room's Tivo, so
>if we're running the CAT5 wire already, we might consider having it lead
>to jacks on each side of the wall. But those are fairly small decisions
>that we can make later.
The right way to do the wiring is one wall jack on every wall going to
the connected equipment from a centrally located ethernet switch.
That's the way most offices are done and is expensive and serious
overkill. A low cost alternative is to use multiple small 5 or 8 port
ethernet switches (also known as the workgroup method). The
dramatically reduces the number of CAT5 wires that need to be run.
However, some planning is necessary. It's an absolute mess trying to
run a wire across a doorway. Normally, there's a wall jack on either
side of a doorway, but there's no guarantee with the workgroup
topology. That means you might need 2 jacks in some rooms, usually on
opposite walls. Another advantage of the workgroup method is that it
can be reconfigured and expanded quite easily. The down side is that
the wiring pretzel can easily become a tangled mess.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/mess01.html>
At a minimum, install one 5 port ethernet switch in the middle of the
house, and one each at the 3 end points. Such switches cost about $40
ea. Then connect the boxes with CAT5.
Incidentally, it's not really necessary to install wall jacks unless
you want to do it right. There are surface mount jacks and "muffins"
that can house the ethernet jack that does not need to be installed
inside the wall. 1/4" hole in the floor (under the molding if
possible) and a short piece of exposed CAT5 going to the jack.
>You mention having a "kid" do the wiring, but I'm pretty sure we want to
>hire a professional. Any idea where we might find a guy to come out, run
>the cable, install 2 or 3 wall jacks, be professional and trustworthy?
>I'm guessing that since you guessed we'd pay the "kid" $200, that you
>figure we'll pay the pro a fair amount more than that...?
The right way is to find a BISCI certified wiring contractor. My
guess(tm) is about $150 per wall outlet for in the wall, and about
$100 per wall jack for surface mount. Since the $.15/ft CAT5e wire is
cheaper than the labor, run extra wires to locations that you think
might be useful in the future.
Electricians can do an adequate job, but usually lack network wiring
and topology experience. Phone jack installers can also do it. I've
done an awful lot of cleanup work on sloppy wiring. Be careful. I
only know the local installers, so I can't offer much help in locating
anyone. You can also get more info on wiring and contractors in
<news:comp.dcom.cabling>
LR
>
> Well, as John points out, you can get HomePlug AV adapters for less
> than my guess. It might be a suitable alternative.
> <http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=PLE200&show=dd&lnk=showlist>
> If you buy some, make sure that they can be returned and be sure to
> save all the packaging.
>
> I have a pair of 85MHz SMC boxes that I use for emergencies (like when
> the mice chew up the CAT5) and for loaning to customers for testing.
> The loans have resulted in mixed results. Some buildings have far too
> much conducted EMI (electro magnetic interference) sitting on the
> power lines. One test showed that traffic thruput just stopped
> whenever the elevator was moving. Since HomePlug is basically BPL
> (broadband power line), the noise generated by the HomePlug hardware
> trashed one neighbors shortwave ham and CB reception. When I tried it
> at my house, my OTA (over the air) TV reception became slightly noisy
> on some channels. The nice thing about CAT5 is that you don't have
> these kind of ummm.... issues.
>
I came across this a while ago and was worth a read although biased.
<http://www.intellon.com/pdfs/whitepaper_PLCPerformanceTesting.pdf>
There was also this on the Solwise forum where it was noted that some
people had noticed a large discrepancy between TCP and UDP throughput.
<http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=41496>
I was one of those who had overheating problems with the Netgear XE103
so am a bit wary of using these if they are left switched on permanently.
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30677/52/>
The HomePlug Powerline Alliance today announced that the IEEE P1901
Working Group approved proposals including key HomePlug technology as
the baseline for an IEEE powerline communications standard last Thursday
at the P1901 Working Group meeting in Kyoto, Japan.
John Navas
<-a-dneGopPlehcTU...@bt.com>:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, as John points out, you can get HomePlug AV adapters for less
>> than my guess. It might be a suitable alternative.
>> <http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=PLE200&show=dd&lnk=showlist>
>> If you buy some, make sure that they can be returned and be sure to
>> save all the packaging.
Good advice, although I think you'll find they work fine.
>> I have a pair of 85MHz SMC boxes that I use for emergencies (like when
>> the mice chew up the CAT5) and for loaning to customers for testing.
>> The loans have resulted in mixed results.
85 MHz isn't Homeplug AV.
>I was one of those who had overheating problems with the Netgear XE103
>so am a bit wary of using these if they are left switched on permanently.
Also not Homeplug AV, and not what is being recommended.
LR
"Best solution: Use powerline networking to connect the WRT300N as an
access point (not router) in the living room to the WRT150N in the
office."
Homeplug AV? Where?
John Navas
<cLKdnVmuarv9hsTU...@bt.com>:
Follow-up post:
Newegg will sell you two LINKSYS PLE200 (up to 200Mbps) PowerLine AV
Ethernet Adapters for $130 (much less than Jeff's $200).
Please do keep up. ;)
LR
"I'm willing to bet you'll spend less money and I know you'll have a lot
less hassle with powerline networking."
fact that you SAID " Powerline Networking" in that post as well and in
neither post did you specify a recommendation only for the use of
"Powerline AV adapters".
Jeff Liebermann
>I came across this a while ago and was worth a read although biased.
><http://www.intellon.com/pdfs/whitepaper_PLCPerformanceTesting.pdf>
I've never played with a HomePlug AV 200mhz system. The above article
shows "typical real world" performance to be 45mbits/sec. That's good
enough for the OP's applications (video and general web browsing).
Also, they use PCATTCP for benchmarking:
<http://www.pcausa.com/Utilities/pcattcp.htm>
which works ok. However, I find the IPeft and JPeft to be more up to
date and far more accurate for higher speeds.
>There was also this on the Solwise forum where it was noted that some
>people had noticed a large discrepancy between TCP and UDP throughput.
><http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=41496>
Yep. I get the same thing with IPerf and JPerf. I have no idea why
or what's going on. (Yet another project). In general, TCP is
accurate, while UDP is a crap shoot. Incidentally, you have to set
both the server and client to UDP (the default is TCP). If different,
the program still belch results, but the thruput is really low.
>I was one of those who had overheating problems with the Netgear XE103
>so am a bit wary of using these if they are left switched on permanently.
Those were one of the first HomePlug products. I agree on the
overheating problem. Not good.
><http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30677/52/>
>The HomePlug Powerline Alliance today announced that the IEEE P1901
>Working Group approved proposals including key HomePlug technology as
>the baseline for an IEEE powerline communications standard last Thursday
>at the P1901 Working Group meeting in Kyoto, Japan.
I was trying to work with products that one can actually. However,
it's great to know that everything available is now instantly obsolete
thanks to the standards process. Argh.
Drivel: A neighbor calls complaining that his router is acting weird.
I tell him to "unplug the router, wait about 30 seconds, plug it back
in, and try again". 4 tries spaced over an hour time and no luck.
When I arrive, I find that he's unplugging the ethernet cable. I can
tell this is going to be a bad week.
John Navas
<UJadndH_SPr0tMTU...@bt.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:48:01 +0000, LR <lr...@privacy.net> wrote in
>> <cLKdnVmuarv9hsTU...@bt.com>:
>>> Homeplug AV? Where?
>>
>> Follow-up post:
>>
>> Newegg will sell you two LINKSYS PLE200 (up to 200Mbps) PowerLine AV
>> Ethernet Adapters for $130 (much less than Jeff's $200).
>>
>> Please do keep up. ;)
>>
>Quote from same post:-
>"I'm willing to bet you'll spend less money and I know you'll have a lot
>less hassle with powerline networking."
>The fact that Newegg will sell Powerline AV adapters does not alter the
>fact that you SAID " Powerline Networking" in that post as well and in
>neither post did you specify a recommendation only for the use of
>"Powerline AV adapters".
That's a pretty lame comeback. :)
Whatever.
John Navas
wrote in <sk9il4h8v76omffg5...@4ax.com>:
>Drivel: A neighbor calls complaining that his router is acting weird.
>I tell him to "unplug the router, wait about 30 seconds, plug it back
>in, and try again". 4 tries spaced over an hour time and no luck.
>When I arrive, I find that he's unplugging the ethernet cable. I can
>tell this is going to be a bad week.
That's why I tell my clients to wait until the lights go out (and stay
out for at least 20 secs) before plugging it back in. ;)
Jeff Liebermann
>><http://www.intellon.com/pdfs/whitepaper_PLCPerformanceTesting.pdf>
>
>I've never played with a HomePlug AV 200mhz system. The above article
>shows "typical real world" performance to be 45mbits/sec. That's good
>enough for the OP's applications (video and general web browsing).
>
>Also, they use PCATTCP for benchmarking:
><http://www.pcausa.com/Utilities/pcattcp.htm>
>which works ok. However, I find the IPeft and JPeft to be more up to
>date and far more accurate for higher speeds.
They stacked the number slightly in their favor:
They're using
64K socket buffers.
5000 source buffers (twice normal)
8760 buffer size (slightly larger than the 8192 default)
My guess(tm) is that using more realistic values, the thruput will be
noticably less. Hmmm... no numbers, no test results, very strange.
dgates
How funny. Somehow, I got the idea (I guess because the two of you
were both listed at the top of the http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi
page) that you (John N) and Jeff L were on the exact same page -- that
if one of you recommended a solution, it was basically both of you
recommending it. In hindsight, it should have been obvious that this
couldn't always be the case.
I'm now leaning back toward the powerline solution, for a couple of
reasons:
1. I get the sense that a lot of Jeff's recommendation for CAT5 was
based on requirements that, on reflection, I don't actually have
(e.g., moving video files between DVR and computer, running a video
server via ethernet).
2. Now that you've given me a model number, I can see that I can buy
two PLE200's (as a PLK200 "kit") at Amazon for $125:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000LJ5B8Q
This compares to something over $400, and many hours of work and
shopping around to do the CAT5 wiring.
The cost and effort involved in "running a CAT5 line across the house"
seems to increase with each conversation, currently about $150 per
wall outlet, plus some amount of topological knowhow.
In short, buying two devices from Amazon, and seeing if they get me
what I need, seems like the much simpler plan. That 4-star rating at
Amazon is very promising, and I suspect that the actual average would
be much higher than that if happy customers were as motivated to post
as unhappy ones.
I'm now re-scanning Jeff's email, looking for possible gotchas. He
mentions:
"Since HomePlug is basically BPL (broadband power line), the noise
generated by the HomePlug hardwaretrashed one neighbors shortwave ham
and CB reception. When I tried it at my house, my OTA (over the air)
TV reception became slightly noisy on some channels."
However, these CB and OTA TV type problems don't seem like they would
apply to me.
My only (mild) concern, after reading nearly all of the 70 Amazon
reviews) is that the originating DSL signal comes from an add-on room.
I know that the circuit breaker for the add-on room is in the same box
as the circuit breakers for the rest of the house. But I wonder if
there isn't some surprise around the corner.
Still, for $125 (which I can presumably get back if I need to return
these) and very little effort, I think I have to try the Powerline
route.
I notice that there's a newer model, a PLK300, which is:
much newer (2008, rather than 2006)
twice as large (10"x9", rather than 4"x5")
a little more expensive ($149, rather than $125)
not as well reviewed at Amazon (3.5 stars from 5 customers, rather
than 4 stars by 74 customers)
presumably faster (300, rather than 200, although it's speed that I
don't think I need).
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001J2ZSL4
Any thoughts on the new model?
Again, thank you both (Jeff and John) for your time and effort. I
actually appreciate the fact that you two don't agree 100%. It's
similar to how I get more out of an Ebert & Whoever movie review when
the two critics don't completely agree, and each offer counterpoints,
rather than a simple, monolithic recommendation.
To follow the movie critic analogy, I think that good reviewers can
lay out so many facts for the viewer that he might decide that he'll
like the movie, even if the reviewers didn't. I believe it was this
way for me with Ebert's thumbs-down review of the original Die Hard.
So, thank you both.
John Navas
in <gj9il4tukvecp87t5...@4ax.com>:
>I notice that there's a newer model, a PLK300, which is:
>
>much newer (2008, rather than 2006)
>twice as large (10"x9", rather than 4"x5")
>a little more expensive ($149, rather than $125)
>not as well reviewed at Amazon (3.5 stars from 5 customers, rather
>than 4 stars by 74 customers)
>presumably faster (300, rather than 200, although it's speed that I
>don't think I need).
>
>http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001J2ZSL4
>
>Any thoughts on the new model?
Since Ethernet limits you to 100 Mbps, I'd go for the LINKSYS PLK200
PowerLine AV Ethernet Adapter Kit, $125 at Newegg with free shipping:
<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124096>
>Again, thank you both (Jeff and John) for your time and effort. ...
Thank you for taking the time and effort to say thanks.
All too many do not bother.
Peter Pan
you may want to think about a plan b... Where my hs internet comes in i have
one wrt and the router part plugged to a powerline bridge, wherever I want
either wired or wireless, i plug in the second part of the powerline bridge
and a 2nd wrt (gives me both wired and wireless wherever I plug in)
as to speed, what ya got, and what you gonna be doing? speed is limited to
the source, use internet via dsl/cable you probably max at 10-12, if however
you will be transferring big stuff from one device to another, you may want
higher speed... does your tivo use wired or wireless? (if wireless, it only
does about 54 max, wired 100), do you xfer large files often, and need high
speed all the time, or do you xfer large files infrequently, and you can
live with lower speed?... how bout the puters you will be using? (wired or
wireless, and what do they support? 10/100/1000 or B/G/N)....
maybe even a plan c... Remember, no matter where you have a plug, or a cat
5/6 connection, your SO will probably want to rearrange the furniture and
put it somewhere else!
(I cheated and in the closets in each room (of our ranch house)/from the
attic, ran power/cat5/phone/coax/etc so it's basically hardwired/easy to do
from the attic/ but out of sight)
LR
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:48:14 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> <http://www.intellon.com/pdfs/whitepaper_PLCPerformanceTesting.pdf>
>> I've never played with a HomePlug AV 200mhz system. The above article
>> shows "typical real world" performance to be 45mbits/sec. That's good
>> enough for the OP's applications (video and general web browsing).
>>
>> Also, they use PCATTCP for benchmarking:
>> <http://www.pcausa.com/Utilities/pcattcp.htm>
>> which works ok. However, I find the IPeft and JPeft to be more up to
>> date and far more accurate for higher speeds.
>
> They stacked the number slightly in their favor:
> They're using
> 64K socket buffers.
> 5000 source buffers (twice normal)
> 8760 buffer size (slightly larger than the 8192 default)
> My guess(tm) is that using more realistic values, the thruput will be
> noticably less. Hmmm... no numbers, no test results, very strange.
>
>
>
"Piggy's" from Solwise
<http://www.solwise.co.uk/net-powerline-av-push-piggy.htm#SPECS>
However I put it on hold due to a variety of info on their Forum.
They use the Intellon chip in the unit and towards the end of 2007 a
f/ware upgrade was issued to comply with "new" CE reg's and the comments
were:-
1."Well it turns out that, in order to meet new CE regulations, the
newer f/w version has got a different emc calibration file. By that I
mean they have some slightly different frequency notching and also
changes to the frequency power densities in order to comply with these
regulations. The effects are that it's possible to get a small amount of
radio interference on the old f/w but with more power and speed. The
newer f/w is less likely to cause interference but has reduced power and
slightly lower speed."
2."Our in house tests show the AV units with ver 2 or later f/w to be up
to 20% slower. TBH it depends upon the quality of the mains. With good
mains the difference is quite small."
3."Okay... I've spoken to Intellon and they say there are no tools
available to end users to do a f/w downgrade. However, we (Solwise),
have managed to get hold of the engineers only tool so that we CAN do
this downgrade for you. Sorry but this software is NOT for general
release - Intellon will NOT be happy at all if we let this software out
of the door."
They were from
<http://www.solwiseforum.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-8391.html>
I suppose like most things you pays your money...
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<7hcil4dhh0lm3u0pu...@4ax.com>:
>Since Ethernet limits you to 100 Mbps, I'd go for the LINKSYS PLK200
>PowerLine AV Ethernet Adapter Kit, $125 at Newegg with free shipping:
><http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124096>
If you want a bargain and don't mind older spec,
TigerDirect.com has the Actiontec MegaPlug 85Mbps Powerline Ethernet
Adapter Kit (two units) for only $70.
<http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4329027&CatId=211>
dgates
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:30:25 -0800, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
><7hcil4dhh0lm3u0pu...@4ax.com>:
>
>>Since Ethernet limits you to 100 Mbps, I'd go for the LINKSYS PLK200
>>PowerLine AV Ethernet Adapter Kit, $125 at Newegg with free shipping:
>><http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124096>
>
>
>If you want a bargain and don't mind older spec,
>TigerDirect.com has the Actiontec MegaPlug 85Mbps Powerline Ethernet
>Adapter Kit (two units) for only $70.
><http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4329027&CatId=211>
Nah, I already ordered the Linksys PLK200.
I've done all the research I want to for a few days. I also ordered a
cordless phone with 3 handsets and an iPhone car recharger.
I'll probably be back in a few days to ask why I can't get our color
printer onto the wireless network, or something like that.
Thanks again.
dgates
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:24:04 -0800, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:30:25 -0800, John Navas
>><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>><7hcil4dhh0lm3u0pu...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>Since Ethernet limits you to 100 Mbps, I'd go for the LINKSYS PLK200
>>>PowerLine AV Ethernet Adapter Kit, $125 at Newegg with free shipping:
>>><http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124096>
>>
>>
>>If you want a bargain and don't mind older spec,
>>TigerDirect.com has the Actiontec MegaPlug 85Mbps Powerline Ethernet
>>Adapter Kit (two units) for only $70.
>><http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4329027&CatId=211>
>
>
>Nah, I already ordered the Linksys PLK200.
Man!
I'm certainly impressed by the good reviews this device gets:
http://www.amazon.com/Actiontec-MegaPlug-Ethernet-Adapter-Twin-Pack/dp/B000QGBC8C
What's the catch? I'd feel a lot less buyer's remorse if you could
tell me that my $125 Linksys devices offer me something that these
don't. Maybe the potential for extra throughput in the future...?
John Navas
in <6dnil45bjivf59t0s...@4ax.com>:
I don't think there is a catch for what you want to do -- I've not used
them myself, but I've heard good things about the Actiontec units.
I would have recommended them in the beginning had I known they were
this much less expensive.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Nah, I already ordered the Linksys PLK200.
You might want to read the 65 assorted reviews on Newegg.com:
<http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16833124096>
Most users are generally satisfied. There are a few gotchas. One I
find amusing is that you have to type in the serial number when
running the install software. However, since it's on the back of the
unit, you can't read it when it's plugged in. Scribble down the
serial numbers before installing.
>I've done all the research I want to for a few days. I also ordered a
>cordless phone with 3 handsets and an iPhone car recharger.
Well, if the cordless phone is on 2.4GHz, you might end up with some
mutual interference with the wireless routers.
>I'll probably be back in a few days to ask why I can't get our color
>printer onto the wireless network, or something like that.
Nope. My guess is you'll be asking how to add a 3rd power line
networking adapter.
Good luck.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
dgates
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:27:43 -0800, dgates <dga...@somedomain.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Nah, I already ordered the Linksys PLK200.
>
>You might want to read the 65 assorted reviews on Newegg.com:
><http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16833124096>
>Most users are generally satisfied. There are a few gotchas. One I
>find amusing is that you have to type in the serial number when
>running the install software. However, since it's on the back of the
>unit, you can't read it when it's plugged in. Scribble down the
>serial numbers before installing.
>
>>I've done all the research I want to for a few days. I also ordered a
>>cordless phone with 3 handsets and an iPhone car recharger.
>
>Well, if the cordless phone is on 2.4GHz, you might end up with some
>mutual interference with the wireless routers.
Not 2.4GHz. 1.9GHz.
I was about to spend $50 or more to replace our handset for our old
Panasonic phone ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001Y4KR4 ) when I
realized that for $71, I could buy a whole new system -- with three
handsets, rather than the two we have now:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LYAX1G
I considered spending a little more for "digital," but I didn't know
exactly what it would get me and I didn't like the reduced battery
life.
>>I'll probably be back in a few days to ask why I can't get our color
>>printer onto the wireless network, or something like that.
>
>Nope. My guess is you'll be asking how to add a 3rd power line
>networking adapter.
>
>Good luck.
Thanks.
John Navas
in <oqsjl4tingk6v141o...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:54:11 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>>Well, if the cordless phone is on 2.4GHz, you might end up with some
>>mutual interference with the wireless routers.
>
>Not 2.4GHz. 1.9GHz.
>
>I was about to spend $50 or more to replace our handset for our old
>Panasonic phone ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001Y4KR4 ) when I
>realized that for $71, I could buy a whole new system -- with three
>handsets, rather than the two we have now:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LYAX1G
>
>I considered spending a little more for "digital," but I didn't know
>exactly what it would get me and I didn't like the reduced battery
>life.
Digital, depending on implementation, would probably give you
substantially clearer sound with substantially less interference. The
best digital cordless phones use spread spectrum technology.
aracARI
> I don't think there is a catch for what you want to do -- I've not used
> them myself, but I've heard good things about the Actiontec units.
>
> I would have recommended them in the beginning had I known they were
> this much less expensive.
You would have recommended them....when you had only /heard/ of them?
--
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
John Navas
wrote in <495a48f6$0$587$c5fe...@reader.usenet4all.se>:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:42:59 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>
>> I don't think there is a catch for what you want to do -- I've not used
>> them myself, but I've heard good things about the Actiontec units.
>>
>> I would have recommended them in the beginning had I known they were
>> this much less expensive.
>
>You would have recommended them....when you had only /heard/ of them?
Sure, with that caveat.
dgates
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:34:51 -0800, dgates <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote
>in <j1idl4lgom027c2jb...@4ax.com>:
>
>>Currently, we have...
>>
>> a Linksys WRT150N router, which is
>>connected one computer and three TiVos.
>>
>>... a Linksys WRT300N router,
>>which is connected to one laptop, and one color printer.
>>
>>we would like all devices
>>to be connected to one router. However, the wireless signal gets
>>very weak as it travels through the thick walls of the add-on room and
>>across the house.
>>
>
>Best solution: Use powerline networking to connect the WRT300N as an
>access point (not router) in the living room to the WRT150N in the
>office. Put them on non-overlapping channels with the same SSID.
Now that I have purchased and received the Linksys PLE200 Powerline AV
Ethernet Adaptors, I see that configuring them is probably not going
to be the challenging part.
The challenging part will be figuring out to do with the WRT300N in
order to "turn it into an access point."
Please forgive me if my questions are a little fuzzy; they're a match
for my current thinking. I'll tell you my current understanding of
what I need to do, and then the questions that I have based on that
understanding.
==================================================
MY CURRENT UNDERSTANDING:
based in large part on a couple of URLs:
http://forums.linksys.com/linksys/board/message?board.id=Wireless_Routers&message.id=17102
http://forums.linksys.com/linksys/board/message?board.id=Wireless_Routers&message.id=8768
Distilled (so far):
Hook up the [input source] to the 300N using the LAN port(s) [on the
300N]. Do not use the internet port on the 300N.
Login to WRT300N (you may need to disconnect you modem/router for some
time).
Set up the Wireless Settings as you prefer.
Configure the device in AP ("Access Point?") mode, you'll need the
wireless SSID, channel and security settings same as your wireless
router.
Change the local IP address of the router to the range of your router,
(specifically, set it to a static IP of 192.168.1.2)
Disable the DHCP server on the WRT300N.
(and disable NAT on the WRT300N, I'm pretty sure)
Put the two wireless routers on different non-overlapping channels (1,
6, 11) so that they don't interfere with each other.
(Wide vs. Standard? If you use "wide", it's fixed to channel 6 as it
now hogs the entire band. The only way you can set the channel is to
use standard (narrow) bandwidth.)
Your WRT300N will work as Access point.
==================================================
MY QUESTIONS:
I just read through the WRT300N manual, and nowhere does it say
"Follow the instructions in this section if you plan to use the
WRT300N as an access point, rather than a router."
Do I need to do some global switcheroo, to tell the device "You are
now an 'access point.' You are no longer a router. Some things that
you think you need to do, you will no longer be doing." ?
It just seems odd to me that both the router and the access point
("AP") might be trying to assign IP addresses -- especially in
different ranges. After all, I'm sure that a couple of the Tivos will
be able to communicate with both the router and the AP; do I really
want both devices trying to assign IP addresses?
(By "router," I mean the WRT150N, and by "AP," I mean the WRT300N, now
being used as an access point.)
Does the AP assign IP addresses? Should I give the first router
permission to assign 101 through 120, and give the AP permission to
assign 121 through 140?
I'm setting the AP to a hard-coded 192.168.1.2 ?
What do I set Subnet Mask to? 255.255.255.0 ?
Do I retype our ISP's settings (Default Gateway, DNS, etc.) into the
AP to make them match what we have entered into the main router?
Of all the existing settings in the Linksys configuration screens, how
many do I have to go into and think about?
Should I basically go through every tab of settings on the AP and set
them to match the router? (e.g., if uPNP is off on the router, then
it's off on the AP, etc.?)
Since I have N devices, don't I want to keep "Wide?" Isn't that more
throughput? Or am I better off changing to "Standard?"
Are there any special steps to take to make sure that our devices (a
laptop and two iPhones that I forgot to mention) can roam, presumably
meaning that they'll get their signal from whichever router or AP is
closer?
==================================================
Basically, I'm just not clear on how to think about two devices -- one
router and one access point. Are they nearly identical, with nearly
identical settings? Or is the access point "dumb," with far fewer
settings, and all of the "heavy lifting" is handled by the main
router?
If someone (and I guess by this point, I'm thinking it'll probably be
a someone named Jeff or John) wants to help unfuzzy my thinking, it
would be much appreciated.
Happy New Years! :-)
John Navas
in <a7bol45he5of3a1pp...@4ax.com>:
>Now that I have purchased and received the Linksys PLE200 Powerline AV
>Ethernet Adaptors, I see that configuring them is probably not going
>to be the challenging part.
>
>The challenging part will be figuring out to do with the WRT300N in
>order to "turn it into an access point."
<http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To#Use_a_wireless_router_as_a_wireless_access_point>
>Please forgive me if my questions are a little fuzzy; they're a match
>for my current thinking. I'll tell you my current understanding of
>what I need to do, and then the questions that I have based on that
>understanding.
>
>
>==================================================
>MY CURRENT UNDERSTANDING:
>
>based in large part on a couple of URLs:
>http://forums.linksys.com/linksys/board/message?board.id=Wireless_Routers&message.id=17102
>http://forums.linksys.com/linksys/board/message?board.id=Wireless_Routers&message.id=8768
>
>
>Distilled (so far):
>
>Hook up the [input source] to the 300N using the LAN port(s) [on the
>300N]. Do not use the internet port on the 300N.
Yes,
>Login to WRT300N (you may need to disconnect you modem/router for some
>time).
>
>Set up the Wireless Settings as you prefer.
>
> Configure the device in AP ("Access Point?") mode, you'll need the
>wireless SSID, channel and security settings same as your wireless
>router.
>
>Change the local IP address of the router to the range of your router,
>(specifically, set it to a static IP of 192.168.1.2)
>Disable the DHCP server on the WRT300N.
Yes.
> (and disable NAT on the WRT300N, I'm pretty sure)
Won't matter.
>Put the two wireless routers on different non-overlapping channels (1,
>6, 11) so that they don't interfere with each other.
Yes.
>(Wide vs. Standard? If you use "wide", it's fixed to channel 6 as it
>now hogs the entire band. The only way you can set the channel is to
>use standard (narrow) bandwidth.)
Use narrow.
>Your WRT300N will work as Access point.
Yes.
>==================================================
>MY QUESTIONS:
>
>I just read through the WRT300N manual, and nowhere does it say
>"Follow the instructions in this section if you plan to use the
>WRT300N as an access point, rather than a router."
Not surprising.
>Do I need to do some global switcheroo, to tell the device "You are
>now an 'access point.' You are no longer a router. Some things that
>you think you need to do, you will no longer be doing." ?
No. Just do the above.
>It just seems odd to me that both the router and the access point
>("AP") might be trying to assign IP addresses -- especially in
>different ranges. After all, I'm sure that a couple of the Tivos will
>be able to communicate with both the router and the AP; do I really
>want both devices trying to assign IP addresses?
No, That's why you need to turn off the 2nd DHCP server.
>(By "router," I mean the WRT150N, and by "AP," I mean the WRT300N, now
>being used as an access point.)
>
>Does the AP assign IP addresses? Should I give the first router
>permission to assign 101 through 120, and give the AP permission to
>assign 121 through 140?
The router assigns addresses through the access point.
>I'm setting the AP to a hard-coded 192.168.1.2 ?
>What do I set Subnet Mask to? 255.255.255.0 ?
255.255.0.0
>Do I retype our ISP's settings (Default Gateway, DNS, etc.) into the
>AP to make them match what we have entered into the main router?
No. The access point is transparent.
>Of all the existing settings in the Linksys configuration screens, how
>many do I have to go into and think about?
Just the above.
>Should I basically go through every tab of settings on the AP and set
>them to match the router? (e.g., if uPNP is off on the router, then
>it's off on the AP, etc.?)
No. Don't make it harder than it is.
>Since I have N devices, don't I want to keep "Wide?" Isn't that more
>throughput? Or am I better off changing to "Standard?"
Wide can cause interference. Stick to narrow,
>Are there any special steps to take to make sure that our devices (a
>laptop and two iPhones that I forgot to mention) can roam, presumably
>meaning that they'll get their signal from whichever router or AP is
>closer?
They should automatically select the stronger signal if the two have the
same SSID.
>Basically, I'm just not clear on how to think about two devices -- one
>router and one access point. Are they nearly identical, with nearly
>identical settings? Or is the access point "dumb," with far fewer
>settings, and all of the "heavy lifting" is handled by the main
>router?
The access point is dumb, and the router does all the lifting.
>If someone (and I guess by this point, I'm thinking it'll probably be
>a someone named Jeff or John) wants to help unfuzzy my thinking, it
>would be much appreciated.
--
dgates
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:20:12 -0800, John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
><http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To#Use_a_wireless_router_as_a_wireless_access_point>
The FAQ says:
"Set IP address (manually)."
By "manually," I assume you still mean using the I.E. and the Linksys
config tools. Can I set the IP address once it's already separated by
the main PC by a router and the Powerline network, or do I need to
temporarily connect it directly to the main computer?
OR... I could do it right now, before I disconnect the WRT300N from
the laptop it currently talks to. Set the IP address and THEN connect
it to the Powerline adapter... ?
By the way, I assume it's "IP Address," not "Internet IP Address" that
I'm setting to 192.168.1.2? (and that I'm changing Internet IP
Address to 0.0.0.0 or something null like that?)
The FAQ says:
"Connect (Ethernet) cable to LAN port, not WAN/Internet port."
By "LAN port(s)," you mean the 4 ports that I think of as output
ports? as opposed to the one port labeled "Internet" that I think of
as the only input port?
The FAQ says:
"May need to use crossover type cable."
Should I assume that with the Powerline networking in place, I won't
need to use a crossover type cable? (Two cables came with the two
powerline devices; I don't think either is crossover.)
The FAQ says:
"Disable any wireless-to-wired isolation feature."
I don't really know what this means at all.
Other little notes:
>>It just seems odd to me that both the router and the access point
>>("AP") might be trying to assign IP addresses -- especially in
>>different ranges.
>
>No, That's why you need to turn off the 2nd DHCP server.
Ah, so that's what I'm doing when I turn off DHCP. Okay.
>>Do I retype our ISP's settings (Default Gateway, DNS, etc.) into the
>>AP to make them match what we have entered into the main router?
>
>No. The access point is transparent.
Won't there still be form fields on the config screens to enter all
these values? (In fact, they'll probably be populated full of the
old, out-of-date values.)
If I'm *not* entering any values, then do I make sure the form fields
are blank, or set to 0.0.0.0?
>>Of all the existing settings in the Linksys configuration screens, how
>>many do I have to go into and think about?
>
>Just the above.
>
>
>>Are there any special steps to take to make sure that our devices (a
>>laptop and two iPhones that I forgot to mention) can roam, presumably
>>meaning that they'll get their signal from whichever router or AP is
>>closer?
>
>They should automatically select the stronger signal if the two have the
>same SSID.
>
>
>>Basically, I'm just not clear on how to think about two devices...
>
>The access point is dumb, and the router does all the lifting.
Excellent. Thanks again.
John Navas
in <rthol4d6q57mu788l...@4ax.com>:
>Thanks for the quick reply. A couple questions on the FAQ...
>
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:20:12 -0800, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>><http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To#Use_a_wireless_router_as_a_wireless_access_point>
>
>The FAQ says:
>"Set IP address (manually)."
>
>By "manually," I assume you still mean using the I.E. and the Linksys
>config tools.
Correct,
>Can I set the IP address once it's already separated by
>the main PC by a router and the Powerline network, or do I need to
>temporarily connect it directly to the main computer?
Temporarily connect it to any computer, or
>OR... I could do it right now, before I disconnect the WRT300N from
>the laptop it currently talks to. Set the IP address and THEN connect
>it to the Powerline adapter... ?
Correct.
>By the way, I assume it's "IP Address," not "Internet IP Address" that
>I'm setting to 192.168.1.2?
The access point must have a non-conflicting address on the same subnet,
one that isn't being handed out by the DHCP server, so if router DHCP is
handing out (say) 192.168.1.2 - 192.168.1.254, then the access point
could be 192.168.2.1, with the subnet mask 255.255.0.0 configured in the
router.
>(and that I'm changing Internet IP
>Address to 0.0.0.0 or something null like that?)
No need to mess with the Internet address.
>The FAQ says:
>"Connect (Ethernet) cable to LAN port, not WAN/Internet port."
>
>By "LAN port(s)," you mean the 4 ports that I think of as output
>ports? as opposed to the one port labeled "Internet" that I think of
>as the only input port?
Correct.
>The FAQ says:
>"May need to use crossover type cable."
>
>Should I assume that with the Powerline networking in place, I won't
>need to use a crossover type cable? (Two cables came with the two
>powerline devices; I don't think either is crossover.)
Probably not.
>The FAQ says:
>"Disable any wireless-to-wired isolation feature."
>
>I don't really know what this means at all.
Look in the menus of the WRT300N for any isolation features, and turn
OFF any that you find.
>Other little notes:
>
>>>It just seems odd to me that both the router and the access point
>>>("AP") might be trying to assign IP addresses -- especially in
>>>different ranges.
>>
>>No, That's why you need to turn off the 2nd DHCP server.
>
>Ah, so that's what I'm doing when I turn off DHCP. Okay.
Correct.
>>>Do I retype our ISP's settings (Default Gateway, DNS, etc.) into the
>>>AP to make them match what we have entered into the main router?
>>
>>No. The access point is transparent.
>
>Won't there still be form fields on the config screens to enter all
>these values? (In fact, they'll probably be populated full of the
>old, out-of-date values.)
>
>If I'm *not* entering any values, then do I make sure the form fields
>are blank, or set to 0.0.0.0?
Just ignore them -- they don't matter.
>>>Of all the existing settings in the Linksys configuration screens, how
>>>many do I have to go into and think about?
>>
>>Just the above.
>>
>>>Are there any special steps to take to make sure that our devices (a
>>>laptop and two iPhones that I forgot to mention) can roam, presumably
>>>meaning that they'll get their signal from whichever router or AP is
>>>closer?
>>
>>They should automatically select the stronger signal if the two have the
>>same SSID.
>>
>>>Basically, I'm just not clear on how to think about two devices...
>>
>>The access point is dumb, and the router does all the lifting.
>
>Excellent. Thanks again.
1. Before you start on the WRT300N, wire a computer to the remote
powerline adapter and test it thoroughly to be sure powerline networking
is working well.
2. Then wire the computer to the WRT300N (LAN port) to the powerline
adapter to be sure that is working well.
3. Then test the wireless on the WRT300N with all security (router and
access point) turned OFF.
4. Then turn security ON. Use the same strong WPA PSK key on the router
and the access point. No other security matters.
5. Test everything.
6. Roaming between router and access point may not work seamlessly with
a computer still powered up -- you may have to power down and back up,
or just disable and re-enable Wi-Fi, to change associations.
dgates
Here's my status, as of 1/1/09, 2:20 PM.
I have this much of the signal connected:
from DSL modem
to router
to powerline network adapters (connected via powerline)
to access point (AP).
From there, I'm getting a little iffy -- about whether the access
point is transmitting wirelessly, about whether the iPhones are able
to roam, and what to do about our 6-year-old laptop not supporting WPA
or WPA2.
I'll post a couple comments below, then ask a couple more questions.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:13:53 -0800, John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:56:33 -0800, dgates <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote
>in <rthol4d6q57mu788l...@4ax.com>:
>
>>Thanks for the quick reply. A couple questions on the FAQ...
>>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:20:12 -0800, John Navas
>><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>><http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To#Use_a_wireless_router_as_a_wireless_access_point>
>>By the way, I assume it's "IP Address," not "Internet IP Address" that
>>I'm setting to 192.168.1.2?
>
>The access point must have a non-conflicting address on the same subnet,
>one that isn't being handed out by the DHCP server, so if router DHCP is
>handing out (say) 192.168.1.2 - 192.168.1.254, then the access point
>could be 192.168.2.1, with the subnet mask 255.255.0.0 configured in the
>router.
>
>>(and that I'm changing Internet IP
>>Address to 0.0.0.0 or something null like that?)
>
>No need to mess with the Internet address.
I had no choice but to put something in. The Linksys software demands
5 fields of information (under "Setup > Basic Setup," with the
dropdown set to Static IP). I'll list them here and tell you what I
put in each one.
Right under the "Static IP" dropdown:
Internet IP Address: 192.168.1.2
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 (my best guess)
Under "Network Setup > Router IP":
IP Address: 192.168.1.2 (should this have been "192.168.1.1?")
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
I think I might have screwed up with putting a 2 instead of a 1 in
that second "IP Address" field.
>>The FAQ says:
>>"Disable any wireless-to-wired isolation feature."
>>
>>I don't really know what this means at all.
>
>Look in the menus of the WRT300N for any isolation features, and turn
>OFF any that you find.
Okay. The only place I saw the word "isolation" is under "Wireless >
Advanced Wireless Settings > AP Isolation." That is disabled on both
the router and the access point.
>>>>Do I retype our ISP's settings (Default Gateway, DNS, etc.) into the
>>>>AP to make them match what we have entered into the main router?
>>>
>>>No. The access point is transparent.
>>
>>Won't there still be form fields on the config screens to enter all
>>these values? (In fact, they'll probably be populated full of the
>>old, out-of-date values.)
>>
>>If I'm *not* entering any values, then do I make sure the form fields
>>are blank, or set to 0.0.0.0?
>
>Just ignore them -- they don't matter.
Okay. They have been ignored (left at their default settings, which
is 0.0.0.0).
>>>>Of all the existing settings in the Linksys configuration screens, how
>>>>many do I have to go into and think about?
>>>
>>>Just the above.
>>>
>>>>Are there any special steps to take to make sure that our devices (a
>>>>laptop and two iPhones that I forgot to mention) can roam, presumably
>>>>meaning that they'll get their signal from whichever router or AP is
>>>>closer?
>>>
>>>They should automatically select the stronger signal if the two have the
>>>same SSID.
Hmm... More on roaming in a minute.
>1. Before you start on the WRT300N, wire a computer to the remote
>powerline adapter and test it thoroughly to be sure powerline networking
>is working well.
I did this. Streaming YouTube over the powerline connection was no
problem.
>2. Then wire the computer to the WRT300N (LAN port) to the powerline
>adapter to be sure that is working well.
I can now connect to both routers from the one main computer in the
office. I've got their configuration screens open right now. ".1.1"
in IE and ".1.2" in Firefox, just to keep my own head straight.
>3. Then test the wireless on the WRT300N with all security (router and
>access point) turned OFF.
Hmm. Actually, I went straight to secure mode.
>4. Then turn security ON. Use the same strong WPA PSK key on the router
>and the access point. No other security matters.
Hmm... More on WPA, WPA2, PSK, PSK2, etc. in a minute.
>5. Test everything.
>
>6. Roaming between router and access point may not work seamlessly with
>a computer still powered up -- you may have to power down and back up,
>or just disable and re-enable Wi-Fi, to change associations.
Notes (starting with the biggest issue, then working down):
I discovered that our 6-year-old laptop doesn't seem to support WPA or
WPA2. However, a networking friend once gave us a WPC300N wireless-n
notebook adapter which I'll research. If it seems that it will offer
us any kind of WPA, then I'll install it.
If not, then I think the laptop will have to settle for simply
plugging into ethernet cables (attached to powerline adapters) in each
of the two main rooms it likes to visit.
=====
In an attempt to solve some early problem I was having, I reset the
WRT300N to factory defaults, then began entering fresh settings from
there.
=====
After saving certain changes on the new 192.168.1.2 (usually changes
on the Wireless tab), I can no longer connect to it until I go
manually reboot it (by unplugging it). (Could this in some way be
related to setting one of the IP addresses incorrectly on the Basic
Setup tab?)
=====
My WRT150N has these (wireless) Security Mode options:
WEP
WPA Personal
WPA2 Personal
WPA Enterprise
WPA2 Enterprise
(and a couple others)
The WRT300N has those same options, except that it lists "PSK" in
place of "WPA" for those 4 options.
I'm thinking that PSK2 and WPA2 in some way synonymous or
compatible... ? But I don't know why the two Linksys routers would
report them differently.
=====
I don't know a perfect way to test that the access point is actually
providing any wireless signal. Walking around the house with our
iPhones, trying to read their signals, is a little flaky. It seems
like the ideal way to test would be to somehow turn off the wireless
signal on the main router (without just unplugging it from the wall).
But I don't know how to do that.
Instead, I just walked out the front door, across the street and down
one house, to the limit of where our WiFi network will reach, then
asked my girlfriend to unplug the access point. When she did, I lost
my connection to WiFi, so I'll take that to mean that the wireless
signal is working.
I'll do some more tests in a bit, such as checking the signal strength
of the Tivos to see if they've improved since last reporting in at
"Good" and "Marginal."
=====
For now, it seems like the number one question involves what to do
about the WEP-only laptop, and will the Wireless-N Notebook Adapter
get us some WPA-level security?
I'm open to any input (especially if I've made any obvious errors),
but otherwise I think I'm well on my way to getting this handled.
Thanks again.
Dave
John Navas
in <s8gql4h5dsgrgv18q...@4ax.com>:
>I have this much of the signal connected:
>
>from DSL modem
>to router
>to powerline network adapters (connected via powerline)
>to access point (AP).
>
>From there, I'm getting a little iffy -- about whether the access
>point is transmitting wirelessly,
Easily tested with the SSID -- change it to "my access point" on the
access point, and see if that's visible (along with the SSID of the
router) in your wireless clients. Go back to the same SSID when you
have it all working, or stick with different SSIDs for manual roaming.
>about whether the iPhones are able
>to roam,
Seamless roaming is problematic -- many clients try to stubbornly hang
on to a uselessly weak signal even though a much stronger signal is
available.
>and what to do about our 6-year-old laptop not supporting WPA
>or WPA2.
Seriously consider getting a PCMCIA or USB Wi-Fi adapter that supports
WPA PSK (Personal).
>>No need to mess with the Internet address.
>
>I had no choice but to put something in.
Put anything in -- doesn't matter.
>The Linksys software demands
>5 fields of information (under "Setup > Basic Setup," with the
>dropdown set to Static IP). I'll list them here and tell you what I
>put in each one.
>
>Right under the "Static IP" dropdown:
>
>Internet IP Address: 192.168.1.2
>Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
>Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 (my best guess)
>
>
>Under "Network Setup > Router IP":
>
>IP Address: 192.168.1.2 (should this have been "192.168.1.1?")
>Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
>
>I think I might have screwed up with putting a 2 instead of a 1 in
>that second "IP Address" field.
Follow my instructions.
>>1. Before you start on the WRT300N, wire a computer to the remote
>>powerline adapter and test it thoroughly to be sure powerline networking
>>is working well.
>
>I did this. Streaming YouTube over the powerline connection was no
>problem.
Great.
>>2. Then wire the computer to the WRT300N (LAN port) to the powerline
>>adapter to be sure that is working well.
>
>I can now connect to both routers from the one main computer in the
>office. I've got their configuration screens open right now. ".1.1"
>in IE and ".1.2" in Firefox, just to keep my own head straight.
That's not what I said. Make sure a computer wired to the WRT300N (LAN
port) can access the Internet.
>>3. Then test the wireless on the WRT300N with all security (router and
>>access point) turned OFF.
>
>Hmm. Actually, I went straight to secure mode.
Bad idea. Follow my instructions to the letter.
>>5. Test everything.
Did wireless work or not on both the router and the access point?
>I discovered that our 6-year-old laptop doesn't seem to support WPA or
>WPA2. However, a networking friend once gave us a WPC300N wireless-n
>notebook adapter which I'll research. If it seems that it will offer
>us any kind of WPA, then I'll install it.
Good.
>If not, then I think the laptop will have to settle for simply
>plugging into ethernet cables (attached to powerline adapters) in each
>of the two main rooms it likes to visit.
OK.
>After saving certain changes on the new 192.168.1.2 (usually changes
>on the Wireless tab), I can no longer connect to it until I go
>manually reboot it (by unplugging it). (Could this in some way be
>related to setting one of the IP addresses incorrectly on the Basic
>Setup tab?)
I really don't know. You didn't follow my instructions, and I can't
follow what you posted.
>My WRT150N has these (wireless) Security Mode options:
Don't mess with security until it's completely working.
>I don't know a perfect way to test that the access point is actually
>providing any wireless signal.
Unique SSID. See above.
Take things one step at a time.
Peter Pan
>>> Currently, we have...
>>>
>>> a Linksys WRT150N router, which is
>>> connected one computer and three TiVos.
>>>
>>> ... a Linksys WRT300N router,
>>> which is connected to one laptop, and one color printer.
>>>
>>> we would like all devices
>>> to be connected to one router. However, the wireless signal gets
>>> very weak as it travels through the thick walls of the add-on room
>>> and across the house.
>>>
what series tivos? series 1 and 2/3 until the fall update s2's only did
wep, now 2 for sure does wep/wpa, i hear 3 does too, haven't heard about
1's yet)
(i have 3 S2's, 2 with wireless only b/g supported, and one with a
usb/ethernet converter).. I use the wireless for the devices that support
wpa, 2 s2 tivos, 3 laptops, tablet, pda, and the wired as an ethernet bridge
from the linksys wrt to one tivo in the sunroom that won't get wireless (one
part of the powerline bridge plugs into the router part of the 300 and an ac
outlet, other upstairs in an ac socket and to the ethernet/usb port of the
3rd tivo, not wireless so it doesn't need wpa or wep)
among other things to keep in mind, want wep or wpa, are you lucky enuf not
to need wireless for all your devices?
at any rate, is there some reason you want to complicate things? do you know
if you need wep or wpa? why do you want to figger out how to hobble/kill one
of your devices? Do you need/want seamless roaming on the same ssid? rather
than roaming on two ssid's? Forget n, tivos are b/g only (not sure about
iphone), and your unamed laptop(s) may/may not do n either.....you say you
have 'N' devices, there are no N standards yet, and shile some are actually
pre-n and will play nice with other pre n's.. some won't.... i'd suggest you
consider what exactly you do have first and set it up to work with what you
have, rather than what you'd like/heard about.....
dgates
Okay, it's all done! We now have all of our devices connected, in
some way or another to a single DSL line, and they're all receiving a
nice, strong signal.
I doubt that anyone is waiting with baited breath to hear about it,
but I figured I should post one final time to give feedback and
thanks.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:24:27 -0800, John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:03:31 -0800, dgates <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote
>in <s8gql4h5dsgrgv18q...@4ax.com>:
>
>>I have this much of the signal connected:
>>
>>from DSL modem
>>to router
>>to powerline network adapters (connected via powerline)
>>to access point (AP).
>>
>>From there, I'm getting a little iffy -- about whether the access
>>point is transmitting wirelessly...
>
>Easily tested with the SSID -- change it to "my access point" on the
>access point, and see if that's visible (along with the SSID of the
>router) in your wireless clients.
A few times in this thread, we bumped into a problem that happens when
an expert tries to explain things to an amateur: their level of
understanding is so different that it's hard for each of them to
picture what the other one knows.
The amateur can't see which detail is important and which isn't, so
he'll fixate on something that the expert knows he can ignore. And
the expert has such a deeply ingrained knowledge, that he literally
can't picture which parts the amateur doesn't know.
In this case, I got all the way through the process without realizing
that it was even possible to change the SSID on the access point to
something other than the same one on the router.
However, I found other ways to test that the access point was sending
a signal. For example, the Linksys adapter software I had to install
on the laptop gives a clear display, showing the router's SSID at
channel 1 as a different entry than the access point's channel 6
entry, each with different signal strengths.
>Go back to the same SSID when you have it
>all working, or stick with different SSIDs for manual roaming.
I'm still not sure how the access point will know which router it is
supposed to talk to if I give them different SSIDs. Through the
passphrase maybe? Or maybe my understanding of how they work together
is still too incomplete. In any case, everything is working with them
using the same SSID.
>>about whether the iPhones are able to roam,
>
>Seamless roaming is problematic -- many clients try to stubbornly hang
>on to a uselessly weak signal even though a much stronger signal is
>available.
This is definitely an "expert vs. amateur" issue. I started this
thread, simply looking to boost the signal from one router. Then
suddenly found that I was learning about how to configure wireless
access points across powerline networks, and issues like manual vs.
seamless roaming.
I had previously never used the work "roaming" except when thinking
about how much it costs to make a call from my cell phone while I'm in
another state.
Again, fortunately, everything is working with both devices using the
same SSID.
>>and what to do about our 6-year-old laptop not supporting WPA
>>or WPA2.
>
>Seriously consider getting a PCMCIA or USB Wi-Fi adapter that supports
>WPA PSK (Personal).
Done. Thanks.
>>>No need to mess with the Internet address.
>>
>>I had no choice but to put something in.
>
>Put anything in -- doesn't matter.
Another "expert vs. amateur" issue. I found myself looking at a
screen that looks something like this:
http://www.cnet.com.au/story_media/339274148/wireless-network-setup-5.gif
The screen demanded that I enter some value into every field, and I
couldn't tell which fields were important and which weren't. They
were already populated with numbers (from the access point's previous
life as a router) and I, the amateur, couldn't see how to *not* fill
them out with numbers.
On the other hand, you, the expert, know that... well, I'm not sure
what you know. Hence the "expert vs. amateur" situation. But I
*think* that what you know that the device will ignore the numbers
entered into certain of those fields.
>>The Linksys software demands
>>5 fields of information (under "Setup > Basic Setup," with the
>>dropdown set to Static IP). I'll list them here and tell you what I
>>put in each one.
>>
>>Right under the "Static IP" dropdown:
>>
>>Internet IP Address: 192.168.1.2
>>Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
>>Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 (my best guess)
>>
>>
>>Under "Network Setup > Router IP":
>>
>>IP Address: 192.168.1.2 (should this have been "192.168.1.1?")
>>Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
>>
>>I think I might have screwed up with putting a 2 instead of a 1 in
>>that second "IP Address" field.
>
>Follow my instructions.
[I'll delete a couple of paragraphs here.]
>>>3. Then test the wireless on the WRT300N with all security (router and
>>>access point) turned OFF.
>>
>>Hmm. Actually, I went straight to secure mode.
>
>Bad idea. Follow my instructions to the letter.
This was definitely an "expert vs. amateur" moment, where, to the
expert, it's clear what the amateur should do when reading an
instruction that says "test the wireless on the WRT300N with all
security (router and access point) turned off."
The amateur doesn't know what it would mean to turn the security off.
(maybe simply deleting the passphrase in each setup screen? but
somewhere here, my mental model of how the router and the access point
know that they're supposed to be on the same network is falling
apart.)
In any case, the amateur has already taken a couple days of the
expert's time, and suddenly finds that he's got two choices: Leave it
all working as it is now, or start asking a whole new round of
questions.
>Did wireless work or not on both the router and the access point?
Wireless works on both devices. Thanks.
>>After saving certain changes on the new 192.168.1.2 (usually changes
>>on the Wireless tab), I can no longer connect to it until I go
>>manually reboot it (by unplugging it). (Could this in some way be
>>related to setting one of the IP addresses incorrectly on the Basic
>>Setup tab?)
>
>I really don't know. You didn't follow my instructions, and I can't
>follow what you posted.
I can believe that you can't follow what I posted. "Expert vs.
amateur" again.
In any case, things are working well now. I was a little shaky on
what exactly I was doing at certain steps, but it's all okay now.
Everything is working. The Tivos are getting much improved signals,
we have two iPhones that can receive wi-fi from more rooms than
before, and even a couple printers that are now on the single network,
accessible from both computers.
By the way, I've been on both sides of the "expert vs. amateur"
spectrum. When I'm helping my mom or dad do something on their
computer, and I have to trust their descriptions over the phone of
what they're seeing, it can be difficult.
So I thank you again for your time. And as a little extra thanks...
Have you seen this video?
The Website Is Down: Sales Guy vs. Web Dude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcQ7RkyBoBc
When I first started watching it, my jaw dropped at its 10-minute
running time, but after about 60 seconds, I realized that it was worth
the running time.
I guess I'll leave that video as my final thought on the "expert vs.
amateur" topic, and my final thanks as well.
dgates
I'm pretty sure I'm done with all this. (Please check out the long
reply I just posted.) However, you put some time into typing a few
thoughts, so I'll respond to them.
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:27:33 -0500, "Peter Pan"
<PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote:
>
>>>> Currently, we have...
>>>>
>>>> a Linksys WRT150N router, which is
>>>> connected one computer and three TiVos.
>>>>
>>>> ... a Linksys WRT300N router,
>>>> which is connected to one laptop, and one color printer.
>>>>
>>>> we would like all devices
>>>> to be connected to one router. However, the wireless signal gets
>>>> very weak as it travels through the thick walls of the add-on room
>>>> and across the house.
>>>>
>
>what series tivos?
Two series 3's (well, HD Tivos anyway) and one series 2.
>series 1 and 2/3 until the fall update s2's only did
>wep, now 2 for sure does wep/wpa, i hear 3 does too, haven't heard about
>1's yet)
They all do WPA.
>among other things to keep in mind, want wep or wpa, are you lucky enuf not
>to need wireless for all your devices?
I'm not sure what you're asking, but each of the three TiVos has its
own Tivo-branded wireless G adapter that gets it on our home network.
>at any rate, is there some reason you want to complicate things? do you know
>if you need wep or wpa?
I believe that I want WPA for any device that has to get on our
network wirelessly.
>why do you want to figger out how to hobble/kill one
>of your devices?
I'm not sure which device you were referring to here. I'm hesitant to
take a guess and then type an answer based on that guess. (Do you
mean connecting the Tivos to the network wirelessly?)
>Do you need/want seamless roaming on the same ssid? rather
>than roaming on two ssid's?
Now that you mention it, the Tivos certainly aren't going to do much
roaming. Nor are the printers. But I think the iPhones enjoy getting
a good connection in each room.
>Forget n, tivos are b/g only (not sure about
>iphone), and your unamed laptop(s) may/may not do n either.....you say you
>have 'N' devices, there are no N standards yet, and shile some are actually
>pre-n and will play nice with other pre n's.. some won't...
For the moment, we have three "N devices," each from Linksys. They
seem to play nice with each other.
>i'd suggest you
>consider what exactly you do have first and set it up to work with what you
>have, rather than what you'd like/heard about...
Thanks again for the input. If you want to elaborate on which device
you think I'm hobbling, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts,
although I suspect that I'm done finessing this for now.
For now, I think it's time for us to learn how our new Panasonic
phones work.
Peter Pan
> I'm pretty sure I'm done with all this. (Please check out the long
> reply I just posted.) However, you put some time into typing a few
> thoughts, so I'll respond to them.
>
>
> Thanks again for the input. If you want to elaborate on which device
> you think I'm hobbling, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts,
> although I suspect that I'm done finessing this for now.
>
> For now, I think it's time for us to learn how our new Panasonic
> phones work.
no biggie, heck it works, and since you have s2's and s3's you don't have to
worry about gotchas.. until the fall update, the tivo wireless only
supported wep (they added wpa in the fall software update, don't know about
s1 tivos, nor directivo's)... (my pda only supports wep, so when I changed
from wep to wpa after the tivo software update had to figger out what worked
and what didn't anymore)
That unit (both the 150 and 300 default to b/g/n (compatibility with b/g
devices), it's only when you make them n ONLY that the tivos won't see/work
with em, and you run into the my n and their n definitions problems)
not sure what version of iphone you have, but the one i have works on b/g
compatibility, not n only.... same with my tablet and pda (and the pda only
work on b/g wep)
at any rate, the hobbling was in reference to your making changes for
seemless roaming... I just have two different ssid's and plug the second
into the router part of the first (no changing ip addresses, or
disabling/hobblng, parts of a wap/router to make it a wap only)
like i said, heck it works for you, there is no right/wrong/only one way to
do it, just wanted to warn you about some gotchas I ran into, in case they
applied/made sense in your situation.....
just out of cuurioity, what Panasonic phones?
dgates
<PeterPa...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote:
>dgates wrote:
>> For now, I think it's time for us to learn how our new Panasonic
>> phones work.
>
>just out of cuurioity, what Panasonic phones?
==============================
(pasting from another post)
I was about to spend $50 or more to replace our handset for our old
Panasonic phone ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001Y4KR4 ) when I
realized that for $71, I could buy a whole new system -- with three
handsets, rather than the two we have now:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LYAX1G
I considered spending a little more for "digital," but I didn't know
exactly what it would get me and I didn't like the reduced battery
life.
==============================
New thoughts:
I'm not sure we're happy with the sound quality of the new phones. I
guess that I was so busy thinking about networking that I was hoping I
could just take it easy on the phone decision, figuring that any
new-ish phone with good Amazon reviews would be good enough.
Now that they're here, I'm starting to wonder. For example, our old
phones were 5.8 GHz. The new ones are 1.9 GHz. Does a higher number
of GHz mean better sound quality? I hadn't even considered that when
I was purchasing. (In fact, if you had asked me, I would have
reported that our old phones must be 2.4 GHz.)
I was just so happy to see that over 500 reviewers gave the phone an
average rating of 4.5 stars that I figured I was done. I read up a
bit, mostly comparing this phone to a model that was similar but
"digital," and decided that I didn't know what digital would get me,
and that I wanted 17 hours of talk time rather than 5 hours.
I didn't read up on whether the new phone had more than one voicemail
box, or what exactly I was giving up by not going "digital," or
whether the GHz was an indication of signal strength, or simply what
frequency it broadcast on, etc.
Now that I've got the network set up, I'll probably see if there's a
Panasonic that seems to stomp the one we bought, and consider doing an
exchange.
dgates
wrote:
Just in case you can't get enough on the topic of Panasonic phones,
here are the two Panasonic phones I see at Amazon that are probably a
little better than our new one.
Ours:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Handset-Cordless-Answering-KX-TG1033S
$15 more and "digital":
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Expandable-Digital-Cordless-Answering/dp/B00138BEV2
$30 more and "titanium":
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Expandable-Titanium-Cordless-Answering/dp/B00138HODY
These other two models offer some features that ours don't:
- talking caller ID, which I hear is actually handy
- call block, which would help with any callers who bug us repeatedly
- backlit keypads
- phone book stored in base (rather than in each handset)
- programmable night mode (certain phones won't ring during certain
hours)
- Clarity Booster ("combines two voice paths helping the handset to
improve clarity in an area where there may otherwise be interference")
I can't be sure if "Clarity Booster," or any of the other features
mean better sound or not, but the features themselves sound good
enough that we should probably upgrade, if we don't mind the shipping
hassle.
They all use the latest "Dect 6.0" technology. I don't know if that's
good or not.
They're all 1.9 GHz, rather than 5.8 GHz. I don't know if that's bad
or not.
Kim Clay
wrote:
>- backlit keypads
Worth its weight in gold if you ever try to dial where there is not
lots of light!!!!!!!!
I _really_ miss this feature as its missing from my current home
phone.
Peter Pan
> I didn't read up on whether the new phone had more than one voicemail
> box, or what exactly I was giving up by not going "digital," or
> whether the GHz was an indication of signal strength, or simply what
> frequency it broadcast on, etc.
>
>
the GHZ says what frequency it works on, not usually a major problem, but
they used to use the same freq's (2.4 GHZ) as networks, some are still sold
at that freq, and sometimes caused errors in wireless networks, and
interference with tivo wireless g's.....
just an aside, something I found sort of handy, some have headset jacks
(work with some of the same headsets/earpeices for cell phones).. nice to be
able to put it in your pocket and still talk hands free while you
cook/clean/watch tv/putter...
At any rate (Another aside) they now make combo cell/wifi phones, since you
are movin on up in technology, thought you may be looking at those (new app
for iphone does cell when away from net, voip when network
available/connected... you (I think/I forget a lot) mentioned something
about already having iphones, thought you may have checked out that app)
John Navas
in <79p2m45s5cbviielm...@4ax.com>:
>New thoughts:
>
>I'm not sure we're happy with the sound quality of the new phones. I
>guess that I was so busy thinking about networking that I was hoping I
>could just take it easy on the phone decision, figuring that any
>new-ish phone with good Amazon reviews would be good enough.
The best phones are digital spread spectrum.
I use and recommend Panasonic Gigarange.
Some of the analog and basic digital phones are pretty bad.
Be sure any cordless phones are not on 2.4 GHz,
or they can cause serious grief with your Wi-Fi.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas
in <79p2m45s5cbviielm...@4ax.com>:
>(pasting from another post)
>
>I was about to spend $50 or more to replace our handset for our old
>Panasonic phone ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001Y4KR4 ) when I
>realized that for $71, I could buy a whole new system -- with three
>handsets, rather than the two we have now:
"If it seems too good to be true, it probably is."
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LYAX1G
>
>I considered spending a little more for "digital," but I didn't know
>exactly what it would get me and I didn't like the reduced battery
>life.
Non-digital phones tend to be poor.
John Navas
in <pqe1m4tin8rch8738...@4ax.com>:
>Okay, it's all done! We now have all of our devices connected, in
>some way or another to a single DSL line, and they're all receiving a
>nice, strong signal.
Great!
>>Easily tested with the SSID -- change it to "my access point" on the
>>access point, and see if that's visible (along with the SSID of the
>>router) in your wireless clients.
>
>A few times in this thread, we bumped into a problem that happens when
>an expert tries to explain things to an amateur: their level of
>understanding is so different that it's hard for each of them to
>picture what the other one knows.
>
>The amateur can't see which detail is important and which isn't, so
>he'll fixate on something that the expert knows he can ignore. And
>the expert has such a deeply ingrained knowledge, that he literally
>can't picture which parts the amateur doesn't know.
Fair criticism -- guilty as charged. I'm often too terse, depending on
the other party to ask questions as needed, and I tend to assume you've
read the Wireless Wiki. ;)
>In this case, I got all the way through the process without realizing
>that it was even possible to change the SSID on the access point to
>something other than the same one on the router.
>
>However, I found other ways to test that the access point was sending
>a signal. For example, the Linksys adapter software I had to install
>on the laptop gives a clear display, showing the router's SSID at
>channel 1 as a different entry than the access point's channel 6
>entry, each with different signal strengths.
Good.
>>Go back to the same SSID when you have it
>>all working, or stick with different SSIDs for manual roaming.
>
>I'm still not sure how the access point will know which router it is
>supposed to talk to if I give them different SSIDs. Through the
>passphrase maybe? Or maybe my understanding of how they work together
>is still too incomplete.
If a device has profiles of two different SSIDs, it should select the
network with the stronger signal. What it won't do is roam from one to
the other -- it will stay connected unless and until it loses that
connection whereupon it will start over on a new connection. With the
same SSID there is at least some chance that a device will roam
seamlessly to the strongest signal, although implementation of roaming
is imperfect and spotty.
>In any case, everything is working with them
>using the same SSID.
Then don't mess with it. ;)
>On the other hand, you, the expert, know that... well, I'm not sure
>what you know. Hence the "expert vs. amateur" situation. But I
>*think* that what you know that the device will ignore the numbers
>entered into certain of those fields.
They won't come into play in your configuration, so it doesn't matter
what you have to put in them -- just do whatever it takes to make the
interface happy.
>The amateur doesn't know what it would mean to turn the security off.
>(maybe simply deleting the passphrase in each setup screen? but
>somewhere here, my mental model of how the router and the access point
>know that they're supposed to be on the same network is falling
>apart.)
Most interfaces have a setting for "security off" or "open network".
That, plus not setting MAC address filtering, SSID off, etc, all of
which are non-default, so they would only be on if you did it.
>So I thank you again for your time. And as a little extra thanks...
>Have you seen this video?
>
>The Website Is Down: Sales Guy vs. Web Dude:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcQ7RkyBoBc
>
>When I first started watching it, my jaw dropped at its 10-minute
>running time, but after about 60 seconds, I realized that it was worth
>the running time.
>
>I guess I'll leave that video as my final thought on the "expert vs.
>amateur" topic, and my final thanks as well.
Cute, all too true, and thank you for taking the time to say "thanks" --
most users don't bother. Here's my own favorite on the expert vs
amateur issue:
A Day in the Life of Phone Support
[Based on a true story. Names have been changed to protect the not so
innocent.]
HOTLINE: Cut-rate Computers -- we cut corners to cut prices -- how may I
help you?
CALLER: My computer won't work!
HOTLINE: What seems to be the problem?
CALLER: It won't work.
HOTLINE: What do you see on your screen?
CALLER: Nothing.
HOTLINE: Is the screen dark?
CALLER: No.
HOTLINE: What does it look like?
CALLER: Black.
HOTLINE: OK -- are there any lights on the front of the system unit?
CALLER: I have no idea.
HOTLINE: Why not?
CALLER: What's a system unit?
HOTLINE: That's the other big box that you got from the computer store.
Are there any lights?
CALLER: No.
HOTLINE: Try pushing the power button. That's the round button right in
the middle.
CALLER: Nothing.
HOTLINE: Are you sure it's plugged in?
CALLER: Of course I am -- what do you take me for?
HOTLINE: Calm down, sir. Please humor me just to be sure.
CALLER: I can't tell for sure.
HOTLINE: Why not?
CALLER: I can't tell.
HOTLINE: Look around behind the system unit -- er, the big box -- and
see if there's a cord plugged into the wall.
CALLER: I still can't tell.
HOTLINE: Why not?
CALLER: It's too dark.
HOTLINE: Turn on a light.
CALLER: Can't do that.
HOTLINE: Why not?
CALLER: The power has been out for over an hour.
[long silence]
HOTLINE: Sir, I know how to fix your problem.
CALLER: You do? Terrific!
HOTLINE: Do you still have all the boxes your computer came in?
CALLER: Yes.
HOTLINE: Pack it all up and take it back to the computer store.
CALLER: What should I tell them?
HOTLINE: Tell them you're too dumb to own a computer!
<<>>