Another question: wireless routers
Otto Pylot
neighborhood has become more crowded with wireless overtime and I think
that has affected my ability to reliably find my signal and lock on. I
resorted to getting the Linksys Wireless-G Range Extender and placing
it about mid-point from my router and where we usually sit and use the
laptops. That works but the extender has lots of issues like losing the
connection to my router or bouncing back the signal to the laptops to
where I either lose connection, get a slow connection, or am unable to
connect at all and get the "self-assigned ip address" problem. I don't
seem to have any problems seeing my neigbors routers. I've gone thru
all of my configuration settings and checked them for correctness and
all seems well. I've had to replace the extender twice because the
first one failed altogether about 5 months into its warranty period. It
seems to me that range is my primary issue so my question is this: what
do ya'll recommend as a replacement router with longer range for simple
home use that is easy to configure for Apple laptops, Dell laptops,
iTouch, etc? I have a mix of B, G, and N devices but use B and G
because my current router doesn't support N and most of my devices are
either B or G. Do the newer Linksys's (the ones that look like a little
spaceship) have better range so I don't have to use an extender or is
the Apple router better as far as range, reliability, and
configurability? Oh yeah, the router also has to have wired ability as
well. Thanks,
--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.
My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: sca...@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
nospam
<ot...@bogus.address.invalid> wrote:
> what
> do ya'll recommend as a replacement router with longer range for simple
> home use that is easy to configure for Apple laptops, Dell laptops,
> iTouch, etc? I have a mix of B, G, and N devices but use B and G
> because my current router doesn't support N and most of my devices are
> either B or G.
get an 802.11n router. it will have better range, even with a g client.
apple's airport routers are easy to set up but are fairly limited.
linksys, netgear, etc. can do a lot more but may not be as simple to
configure and if there's a problem, everyone will blame someone else.
'that's not our product, we don't support it.'
apple's airport is also dual band so that g clients don't slow down the
n network. you can also keep your wrt54g (an excellent router) for b/g
only clients and use a new router for n-only, and set it up as dual
channel network for the fastest speed.
Otto Pylot
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Thanks. I just purchased the AEBS. I like the idea of using the Linksys
for my older devices but have no clue on how to set that up as you
suggested.
nospam
<ot...@bogus.address.invalid> wrote:
> Thanks. I just purchased the AEBS. I like the idea of using the Linksys
> for my older devices but have no clue on how to set that up as you
> suggested.
it's actually very easy, but if you just bought an airport extreme, it
is already dual band so there's not really a need for a second router.
nevertheless, the easiest way to do it is to connect the linksys to the
airport between their lan ports. ignore the wan port on the linksys
entirely. be sure dhcp is enabled only on one router (likely the
airport) and set the linksys ip address to something on your network
(probably 10.*.*.* or 192.168.*.*) that is not within the dhcp range.
it's easier than it sounds, but as i said, the airport is dual band so
you don't need to bother.
isw
Otto Pylot <ot...@bogus.address.invalid> wrote:
Get something like iStumbler and find out which channels are least-used
in your neighborhood, and use one of them. Odds are, that most folks
just brought their WAP home, plugged it in, and never changed from the
default channel -- that's sure the case around here.
Isaac
Otto Pylot
<i...@witzend.com> wrote:
I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.
John Varela
iStumbler has not been updated for Snow Leopard.
I haven't found a good replacement for it.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Otto Pylot
<OLDl...@verizon.net> wrote:
I just discovered that. Bummer. I'll just use Channel 6 for G and
Channel 149 for N for now.
Bob Harris
Otto Pylot <ot...@bogus.address.invalid> wrote:
> In article <dxmOwXzR-pn2-ydsddZg74Uw0@localhost>, John Varela
> <OLDl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 07:18:11 UTC, Otto Pylot
> > <ot...@bogus.address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <isw-71D35F.21134102012010@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
> > > <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> > > > Get something like iStumbler and find out which channels are least-used
> > > > in your neighborhood, and use one of them. Odds are, that most folks
> > > > just brought their WAP home, plugged it in, and never changed from the
> > > > default channel -- that's sure the case around here.
> > > >
> > > > Isaac
> > >
> > > I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.
> >
> > iStumbler has not been updated for Snow Leopard.
> >
> > I haven't found a good replacement for it.
>
> I just discovered that. Bummer. I'll just use Channel 6 for G and
> Channel 149 for N for now.
Unless you know that channels 1 or 11 are in use, it would be
better to pick 1 or 11, as channel 6 is frequently the default for
WiFi base stations where the owners do the minimum setup.
John Varela
I'm using 8 because there are neighbors on 1, 6, and 11. Or at least
there were, before I upgraded to Snow Leopard and iStumbler stopped
working.
It's annoyong that there's nothing on the iStumbler site indicating
whether it will be updated, but there is an appeal for donations.
Tom Stiller
"John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net> wrote:
If channels 6 and 11 are busy, using channel 8 may be worse than either
one of them. See <http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/2point4freq.cfm>
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Otto Pylot
Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Excellent. Thank you. 6 seems to be working ok but at least I can use 1
or 11 just in case.
John Varela
wrote:
From the chart on that page it looks to me like all channels have
overlaps, so I don't understand the assertion that 1, 6, and 11
don't have overlaps.
Can you explain?
Tom Stiller
"John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 21:42:29 UTC, Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-pFjKX97LP1OB@localhost>,
> > "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 03:00:37 UTC, Bob Harris
> > > <nospam....@remove.Smith-Harris.us> wrote:
>
> > > > Unless you know that channels 1 or 11 are in use, it would be
> > > > better to pick 1 or 11, as channel 6 is frequently the default for
> > > > WiFi base stations where the owners do the minimum setup.
> > >
> > > I'm using 8 because there are neighbors on 1, 6, and 11. Or at least
> > > there were, before I upgraded to Snow Leopard and iStumbler stopped
> > > working.
> > >
> > > It's annoyong that there's nothing on the iStumbler site indicating
> > > whether it will be updated, but there is an appeal for donations.
> >
> > If channels 6 and 11 are busy, using channel 8 may be worse than either
> > one of them. See <http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/2point4freq.cfm>
>
> From the chart on that page it looks to me like all channels have
> overlaps, so I don't understand the assertion that 1, 6, and 11
> don't have overlaps.
>
> Can you explain?
One can only assign three non-overlapping channels. If 1, 6, and 11
(non-overlapping) are in use by neighbors, any other channel assignment
will overlap with (at least) one of them.
Verne Arase
(in article <020120101208306423%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
The latest Airport Extreme (or the one I got at any rate) has the ability to
produce networks on the 2.4 and 5 ghz bands, and can produce three networks:
a primary network on the 2.4 and 5 ghz band and a guest network.
Unfortunately, Apple seems to have dropped the ability to generate a WEP
protected network.
If you use this solution, you can just keep the WRT54G as a backup (since it
won't be needed).
nospam
Arase <Ver...@pobox.com> wrote:
> The latest Airport Extreme (or the one I got at any rate) has the ability to
> produce networks on the 2.4 and 5 ghz bands, and can produce three networks:
> a primary network on the 2.4 and 5 ghz band and a guest network.
>
> Unfortunately, Apple seems to have dropped the ability to generate a WEP
> protected network.
it supports wep, it's just not easily configured to do so.
John Varela
wrote:
Gotcha. Thanks.
So how is sharing 1, 6, or 11 with a neighbor better than
overlapping with them?
Tom Stiller
"John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net> wrote:
When channels overlap, transmitting on either of them steps on the
other. Sharing is accommodated by the protocol so it's an orderly give
and take.
John McWilliams
Is there software that'll tell you what channel your neighbors are using?
Would have iStumbler? (hoping it'll be made SL compatible.)
--
john mcwilliams
nospam
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Is there software that'll tell you what channel your neighbors are using?
yes, and some wifi routers can do it too.
> Would have iStumbler? (hoping it'll be made SL compatible.)
yes
there are even a few apps for the iphone/ipod touch that will do it,
which makes it easy to go outside and figure out who actually owns a
particular network.
Joseph Mostarda
I'd recommend the Apple AirPort Extreme Base Station. It's not too
expensive ($179), extremely easy to set up and works wonderfully. Has
dual-band 802.11n, which is currently the best Wi-Fi technology
available. I've had it for almost six months now, and have only
configured it once. Since then, it's never gone down, never needed to
be restarted, etc. Works beautifully.
John McWilliams
It'd be helpful to know a name or two.... I found Hotspot Shield just
now, but that doesn't do it.
Thanks.
--
john mcwilliams
nospam
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > there are even a few apps for the iphone/ipod touch that will do it,
> > which makes it easy to go outside and figure out who actually owns a
> > particular network.
>
> It'd be helpful to know a name or two.... I found Hotspot Shield just
> now, but that doesn't do it.
i like wififofum & wifitrak, but i'm sure there are others.
David Empson
> In article <hi34cd$4ms$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams
> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Is there software that'll tell you what channel your neighbors are using?
>
> yes, and some wifi routers can do it too.
>
> > Would have iStumbler? (hoping it'll be made SL compatible.)
>
> yes
It is worth pointing out that Snow Leopard has a new built-in method of
displaying this information, at least for wireless networks that are
publishing their SSID.
Hold down the option key and click on the Airport menu. Point the cursor
at one of the listed networks and after a short delay a tooltip appears
with lots of information, including the channel. You can then scan up
and down through visible networks quickly and note the various channels.
I see that the ones near my office are all over the place - two on 11,
two on 7, one on 8. Plenty of overlaps.
I haven't investigated in detail, but it appears Snow Leopard has
changed the underlying mechanisms used to access this information, so
the method iStumbler was using doesn't work any more. I don't know
whether the new method is in a public or private framework.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
John McWilliams
Excellent; just the ticket. Thanks.
--
john mcwilliams
Bill Wellington
> Hold down the option key and click on the Airport menu. Point the cursor
> at one of the listed networks and after a short delay a tooltip appears
> with lots of information, including the channel. You can then scan up
> and down through visible networks quickly and note the various channels.
That is super cool. I have been using OS X since... well forever. I
didn't know about that trick. Good information to have in an
enterprise environment.
David Empson
Just to repeat the point: it is a new feature in Snow Leopard.
In both Leopard and Snow Leoaprd, the Option key trick shows detailed
information about the WiFi network to which you are connected, but
Leopard didn't gather data about other visible networks.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz