How to expand the range of a WLAN?
Dominik Schmidt
I'd like to expand the range of a wireless network.
The problem is that I'm not allowed to change the configuration of the
Access Point.
I tried it with a Linksys WAP54G. First of all, I configured the WAP54G to
connect as repeater to another Linksys (a test device, not to the "problem
AP"). I only had to enter the MAC address of my test AP. After this, all
computers had a better signal to the test network.
Then I tried to use my Linksys as repeater for tbe "problem" AP.
I entered its (problem AP's) MAC in the config interface.
The Linksys device immediately changed its settings (SSID was set to the
SSID from the AP...). The signal was much better and I could still connect
to the network.
But I didn't get an IP via DHCP. So I configured the IP settings manually,
but I could not communicate within the network. Only the connection to my
Linksys repeater worked.
I assume this has something to do with the chipsets. The problem AP is a
Cisco Business AP.
But why is it so complicated to connect a repeater to an AP with another
chipset?
Thanks for any hint
Char Jackson
<dominik...@gmx.net> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'd like to expand the range of a wireless network.
>The problem is that I'm not allowed to change the configuration of the
>Access Point.
Probably the easiest way is to just set up an additional access point.
Do you have a wired connection available where you could stick a new
AP?
>I tried it with a Linksys WAP54G. First of all, I configured the WAP54G to
>connect as repeater to another Linksys (a test device, not to the "problem
>AP"). I only had to enter the MAC address of my test AP. After this, all
>computers had a better signal to the test network.
I would avoid the repeater mode and go for the true AP function. I
think you'll have much better luck there.
>Then I tried to use my Linksys as repeater for tbe "problem" AP.
>I entered its (problem AP's) MAC in the config interface.
>The Linksys device immediately changed its settings (SSID was set to the
>SSID from the AP...). The signal was much better and I could still connect
>to the network.
>But I didn't get an IP via DHCP. So I configured the IP settings manually,
>but I could not communicate within the network. Only the connection to my
>Linksys repeater worked.
>
>I assume this has something to do with the chipsets. The problem AP is a
>Cisco Business AP.
>But why is it so complicated to connect a repeater to an AP with another
>chipset?
Not sure what led you to believe it has anything to do with different
chipsets. I'm about 99% sure it's just configuration issues. Make it
easy and add an access point where you need additional coverage. Since
you can't mess with the existing AP, that leaves out swapping its
antenna(s) for better ones.
Dominik Schmidt
Thanks for your reply!
> Probably the easiest way is to just set up an additional access point.
> Do you have a wired connection available where you could stick a new
> AP?
No, unfortunately this is not possible. At least currently I have to use
the wireless connection to the Cisco AP. I can't change anything with the
cables from the Cisco AP.
> I would avoid the repeater mode and go for the true AP function. I
> think you'll have much better luck there.
It would also be ok, if I could install a second WLAN.
Maybe one AP configured as AP-Client, which connects to the Cisco network.
This AP Client would have to be connected to a second AP (crosslink cable)
and this second AP would work as normal Access Point.
The network traffic would have to be translated with NAT (like a router).
If that works, I'd connect a very good antenna to the second AP.
But I tried to connect my Linksys device as AP client to the network. This
didn't work...
> Not sure what led you to believe it has anything to do with different
> chipsets.
That's because I've heard very often about this difficulty with different
chipsets.
And additionaly because my Linksys AP could work as repeater with another
Linksys AP, but not with the Cisco AP.
> I'm about 99% sure it's just configuration issues. Make it
> easy and add an access point where you need additional coverage. Since
> you can't mess with the existing AP, that leaves out swapping its
> antenna(s) for better ones.
That's the problem. I can't add a second AP.
Char Jackson
<dominik...@gmx.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:42:20 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>Thanks for your reply!
>
>> Probably the easiest way is to just set up an additional access point.
>> Do you have a wired connection available where you could stick a new
>> AP?
>
>No, unfortunately this is not possible. At least currently I have to use
>the wireless connection to the Cisco AP. I can't change anything with the
>cables from the Cisco AP.
Ok, in that case, go to Plan B - I like your idea to run back-to-back
AP's, one acting as a client to the existing network and the other
acting as a new AP to extend the existing network. Naturally, I'm
assuming that you have permission to extend the network in this way
and that you are aware of the security implications, etc. I've seen
people get fired (where I work) for setting up a rogue AP.
>> I would avoid the repeater mode and go for the true AP function. I
>> think you'll have much better luck there.
>
>It would also be ok, if I could install a second WLAN.
>Maybe one AP configured as AP-Client, which connects to the Cisco network.
>This AP Client would have to be connected to a second AP (crosslink cable)
>and this second AP would work as normal Access Point.
>The network traffic would have to be translated with NAT (like a router).
Just use a regular straight-through Ethernet cable, not a crossover.
Put the new AP on a non-conflicting channel and give it a unique SSID.
Use proper security, at least as good as the existing LAN so you don't
become an entry point for hackers. The AP-AP setup could be a
transparent bridge or a second level of NAT, but my vote would be the
transparent bridge since it's easier.
>If that works, I'd connect a very good antenna to the second AP.
Sure, if necessary. It could also be that the new AP can be placed
where it services the entire area without any additional work. The
Ethernet cable connecting the two AP's can be as long as you need it
to be, up to the standard limit of about 100 meters.
>
>But I tried to connect my Linksys device as AP client to the network. This
>didn't work...
I assume it didn't work because of the specific security method
they're using on the Cisco network? As far as I know, the WAP54G can
act as a Client, but it may not be able to speak all of the right
security protocols.
James Egan
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:32:35 -0400, f/fgeorge <ffge...@yourplace.com>
wrote:
>Anyway Linksys talks to Linksys but talking to a Netgear is out
>of the question, no standards you see.
Not a good example. Some Linksys equipment will talk very happily to
some netgear equipment. I have here a linksys wrt54g (running dd-wrt
firmware) repeating a netgear dg834gt with no issues. Both have
broadcom chipsets.
Jim.
Dominik Schmidt
> Ok, in that case, go to Plan B - I like your idea to run back-to-back
> AP's, one acting as a client to the existing network and the other
> acting as a new AP to extend the existing network. Naturally, I'm
> assuming that you have permission to extend the network in this way
> and that you are aware of the security implications, etc. I've seen
> people get fired (where I work) for setting up a rogue AP.
This won't be a problem, I do have permission to extend the network like
this.
> Just use a regular straight-through Ethernet cable, not a crossover.
I'm trying it right now with my laptop and my other linksys test AP, but
it's not working. I don't know what I'm doing wrong.
I've tried both, a standard ethernet cable and a crossover cable to connect
the Linksys to my laptop and configured the Linksys to act as ap-client.
No matter if I use the standard cable or the crossover cable, I have a
connection to the ap-client-linksys (after having configured the laptop's
ip to be in the same subnet).
But I have no connection to the other computers in this test network.
If I activate the wlan adapter of the laptop and connect directly to the
test network (using the same passphrase and encryption, of course), I do
have a connection to all computers.
>>But I tried to connect my Linksys device as AP client to the network. This
>>didn't work...
>
> I assume it didn't work because of the specific security method
> they're using on the Cisco network? As far as I know, the WAP54G can
> act as a Client, but it may not be able to speak all of the right
> security protocols.
No, this might be a problem in my (Linksys only) test network (?).
But fortunately, there is no encryption activated in the Cisco network.
Char Jackson
<dominik...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Just use a regular straight-through Ethernet cable, not a crossover.
>
>I'm trying it right now with my laptop and my other linksys test AP, but
>it's not working. I don't know what I'm doing wrong.
>I've tried both, a standard ethernet cable and a crossover cable to connect
>the Linksys to my laptop and configured the Linksys to act as ap-client.
>No matter if I use the standard cable or the crossover cable, I have a
>connection to the ap-client-linksys (after having configured the laptop's
>ip to be in the same subnet).
>But I have no connection to the other computers in this test network.
>If I activate the wlan adapter of the laptop and connect directly to the
>test network (using the same passphrase and encryption, of course), I do
>have a connection to all computers.
You might already be doing this, but break the task into at least two
major parts. The first part is to cable the laptop to the Wireless
Client. Get that working first, making sure you can access the
Internet. You'll use a standard straight-through Ethernet cable, of
course.
Once that works, cable the laptop to the new Access Point and get that
configured. As always, use a standard straight-through Ethernet cable.
Lastly, with the first two parts of the task completed, simply connect
the Access Point to the Wireless Client, again using a standard
straight-through Ethernet cable. That's it.
Dominik Schmidt
> The first part is to cable the laptop to the Wireless
> Client. Get that working first, making sure you can access the
> Internet.
This is my problem. I get a connection to the wireless client, but it
doesn't route the traffic to the Internet.
I'm trying it with a D-Link DIR-300 with DD-WRT firmware.
It (the DD-WRT config interface) says, it has a connection to the wireless
network.
And I have a wired connection to this AP.
But I can't access the Internet.
The DD-WRT manuals weren't helpful either.
Maybe someone has an idea?
Char Jackson
If the dd-wrt device is in Client mode, your PC's IP address should be
in a subnet different from the rest of your network.
If the dd-wrt device is in Client Bridge mode, your PC's IP address
MUST be in the same subnet as the rest of your network.
I don't have enough information to do anything other than make a wild
assed guess, but I'm thinking you have an IP address mismatch?
Dominik Schmidt
> If the dd-wrt device is in Client mode, your PC's IP address should be
> in a subnet different from the rest of your network.
>
> If the dd-wrt device is in Client Bridge mode, your PC's IP address
> MUST be in the same subnet as the rest of your network.
I know, this is why I configured the dd-wrt device as Client with its DHCP
server running.
In this case, that means: The wireless network is in the subnet
192.168.194.0, the dd-wrt gets a valid IP (like 192.168.194.70) in this
network. In the wired network (between the dd-wrt and the laptop), the
dd-wrt has the static IP 192.168.1.1 and the laptop gets an IP like
192.168.1.20. Of course, the gateway address, which the laptop receives, is
192.168.1.1. And interestingly, the associated DNS address is the same
(correct) address, which the dd-wrt device gets from the original AP.
Only the traffic leaving the 192.168.1.0 subnet doesn't get through...
Char Jackson
Are you sure you're connected to your own wireless network? (Unique
SSID so that other networks in the area don't look like yours). I
think this is not the problem, since you already use a non-standard IP
numbering scheme (192.168.194.x).
Can the dd-wrt box ping its gateway across the wireless link?
(Administration tab, Commands sub-tab, then "ping 192.168.194.1",
without the quotes, if that is the IP address of the main router). If
so, try a traceroute to an Internet address to see where the
connection is dying. Use an IP address to avoid DNS issues, (such as
4.2.2.2), and if that works, try something like www.yahoo.com to make
sure DNS is working.
Is wireless security enabled, and have you entered the proper key? Can
you disable all wireless security for a few moments to make sure that
isn't the problem? And hopefully you're not using WEP, not only
because it's broken and almost totally insecure, but also because
there are at least two methods of entering WEP keys that result in
incompatible encryption, so for troubleshooting you could disable
wireless security completely, then when it's all working you could
enable WPA2-PSK (AES), which is about as good as it gets.
James Egan
>I know, this is why I configured the dd-wrt device as Client with its DHCP
>server running.
>In this case, that means: The wireless network is in the subnet
>192.168.194.0, the dd-wrt gets a valid IP (like 192.168.194.70) in this
>network. In the wired network (between the dd-wrt and the laptop), the
>dd-wrt has the static IP 192.168.1.1 and the laptop gets an IP like
>192.168.1.20. Of course, the gateway address, which the laptop receives, is
>192.168.1.1. And interestingly, the associated DNS address is the same
>(correct) address, which the dd-wrt device gets from the original AP.
>
>Only the traffic leaving the 192.168.1.0 subnet doesn't get through...
Since you haven't mentioned it, you appear to be short of a return
route on the main cisco router to send traffic for network
192.168.1.0/24 via the client at 192.168.194.70
If 192.168.194.70 is a dhcp assigned address, that would make life
difficult. You would need a reservation to ensure it doesn't change as
well as a static route on the cisco router.
Jim.
Char Jackson
wrote:
I have to say I disagree on the need for specifying a return route on
the main router. It essentially has only two domains, the WAN side and
the LAN side, so any traffic arriving on one side will be sent out the
other side, and vice versa. I've set up a few dozen similar systems
for myself and various clients and have never needed to specify a
return route.
James Egan
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:53:05 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:
>I have to say I disagree on the need for specifying a return route on
>the main router. It essentially has only two domains, the WAN side and
>the LAN side, so any traffic arriving on one side will be sent out the
>other side, and vice versa. I've set up a few dozen similar systems
>for myself and various clients and have never needed to specify a
>return route.
Yes, you're right. I'm forgetting that the dd-wrt is a nat device and
not just routing the packets between the subnets.
Jim.
Dominik Schmidt
> Are you sure you're connected to your own wireless network?
Yes, the network is listed at Status - Wireless. And otherwise I wouldn't
get a correct IP, gateway address and dns address...? Or am I wrong?
> Can the dd-wrt box ping its gateway across the wireless link?
No, apparently it can't!
Is it normal that I don't get any output text if a ping fails?
I can ping the laptop which is connected by cable.
An "ifconfig" shows me the network interfaces (the wireless interface has
the right IP).
But a ping to the local gateway or to anything outside just doesn't show
any output text. Not even something like a timeout error - nothing.
I don't understand this, I thought I'm connected to the network?
> Is wireless security enabled, and have you entered the proper key? Can
The network is not encrypted.
There are some routing settings ("Advanced Routing") where you can switch
between Router mode, Gateway mode etc. There is also a setting for dynamic
routing. Could this be important?
Char Jackson
<dominik...@gmx.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:27:36 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> Are you sure you're connected to your own wireless network?
>
>Yes, the network is listed at Status - Wireless. And otherwise I wouldn't
>get a correct IP, gateway address and dns address...? Or am I wrong?
I don't think you're wrong, but only because you're using a
nonstandard IP addressing scheme.
From my home office, I can see about 22 wireless networks, most of
which are broadcasting their default SSID, (about 14 of them are
"linksys", for example). Of those, about 6-8 are strong enough that I
can connect and get an IP address and other parameters assigned.
>> Can the dd-wrt box ping its gateway across the wireless link?
>
>No, apparently it can't!
>Is it normal that I don't get any output text if a ping fails?
I wouldn't have thought so, but I just tried it and you're right.
>I can ping the laptop which is connected by cable.
>An "ifconfig" shows me the network interfaces (the wireless interface has
>the right IP).
>But a ping to the local gateway or to anything outside just doesn't show
>any output text. Not even something like a timeout error - nothing.
>I don't understand this, I thought I'm connected to the network?
You're not accidentally plugged into the WAN port on the dd-wrt box,
are you?
>> Is wireless security enabled, and have you entered the proper key? Can
>
>The network is not encrypted.
>
>There are some routing settings ("Advanced Routing") where you can switch
>between Router mode, Gateway mode etc. There is also a setting for dynamic
>routing. Could this be important?
No, leave them at their defaults.
Dominik Schmidt
> You're not accidentally plugged into the WAN port on the dd-wrt box,
> are you?
No, I used one of the 4 LAN ports.
So, my dd-wrt device is connected to a wireless network, but it can't
communicate within this network. Can this be some kind of "feature"?
There must be something configured wrong, but what could it be?
What could I search for?
Char Jackson
It shouldn't be nearly this hard, so I'm thinking it's something
simple. Maybe we should start over.
You have an existing network. Any computers *wired* into that network
are working properly, meaning they can see and access other LAN
computers as well as access the Internet.
You have a laptop that can access that same network wirelessly, and
while it's connected it can see and access the other LAN computers as
well as access the Internet.
Correct so far?
So now you want to extend the wireless network, and the solution we've
arrived at is to use a "wireless client bridge" (which is an old
wireless router running dd-wrt firmware configured in Client Bridge
mode). Once the Wireless Client Bridge is able to connect wirelessly
to the existing network, you'll cable one of its LAN ports to a
standard Access Point. Ultimately, you'll connect the laptop
wirelessly to the new Access Point.
But the step we're at right now is that the Wireless Client Bridge is
able to connect to your existing wireless network, but you can't pass
any traffic in either direction across the wireless link? You
can/cannot ping other computers on the LAN? Is the Wireless Client
Bridge indeed configured to run in Client Bridge mode, or is it
running in Client mode?
Dominik Schmidt
> It shouldn't be nearly this hard, so I'm thinking it's something
> simple. Maybe we should start over.
Good idea: I have reset all settings on the dd-wrt device to factory
default. Then I connected it to the wireless network (just like before).
It works !
So I think there was at least one setting wrong. I don't know which one.
Thank you so much, you were a great help!
You gave me the idea of using two APs for a new wireless network.
> You have an existing network. Any computers *wired* into that network
> are working properly, meaning they can see and access other LAN
> computers as well as access the Internet.
>
> You have a laptop that can access that same network wirelessly, and
> while it's connected it can see and access the other LAN computers as
> well as access the Internet.
>
> Correct so far?
Yes
> So now you want to extend the wireless network, and the solution we've
> arrived at is to use a "wireless client bridge" (which is an old
> wireless router running dd-wrt firmware configured in Client Bridge
> mode). Once the Wireless Client Bridge is able to connect wirelessly
> to the existing network, you'll cable one of its LAN ports to a
> standard Access Point. Ultimately, you'll connect the laptop
> wirelessly to the new Access Point.
Almost, I configured the old dd-wrt device as "Client" (not "Client
Bridge").
The rest is correct.
Again, thank you !
Char Jackson
<dominik...@gmx.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:48:04 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> It shouldn't be nearly this hard, so I'm thinking it's something
>> simple. Maybe we should start over.
>
>Good idea: I have reset all settings on the dd-wrt device to factory
>default. Then I connected it to the wireless network (just like before).
>It works !
>
>So I think there was at least one setting wrong. I don't know which one.
>
>Thank you so much, you were a great help!
>You gave me the idea of using two APs for a new wireless network.
Excellent! I'm glad you got it working, and thanks for following up
with the results. Have a good one.