Extending wireless range

[qajfat]

I need to extend the range of an SMC7004AWBR router and I cannot use any cabling. I have concluded that I cannot effectively extend the range on my SMC7004AWBR by using an antenna. I was wondering if there is some piece of equipment that I can install wirelessly at the end of the effective wireless range of the AWBR to extend the range further by the wireless range of this equipment. I'm not sure if I have explained myself. Let's say the range of the AWBR No1 is 50 ft. At 50ft I install, for example, another AWBR No2 which receives the radio signal wirelessly from AWBR No1 and extends it wirelessly another 50ft. Do you think that will work? . The only product I could find is the D-LINK DWL-800AP+ AirPlus Enhanced 2.4GHz Wireless Range Extender, but I'm not sure if you would need to connect it with Cat5 cable or not (that is wireless), and besides I also read that it may not work with products other than D-Link. Anybody has had experience with this sort od thing? Thanks in advance for your help.

[multiplexed]

Either getting antennas for the client nics or lowering speeds might help.

[qajfat]

Hi multiplexed, I will be using the network for internet browsing so I can afford to lower the speed. But how can that be done? Thanks for your help and any further explanation will be most appreciated. Thanks

[egkor]

Here's something I'm experimenting with that is a known solution to this issue.

I will be placing a second Access Point in my "dead" WLAN area to provide wireless coverage. But instead of pulling CAT 5 cable to the second Access Point, I'm going to use 2 Siemens "Powerline Ethernet" adapters: 1 from my router/switch to an AC outlet, and 1 to an AC outlet where I am placing the second Access Point. I'll set both APs to the same SSID, and set one AP to channel 1 and the other to channel 11.

The Siemens Powerline Ethernet adapters are $19.95 (USD) each at Circuit City.

I have the equipment but have not yet added it to my existing home network wired and wireless infrastructure. When I do I will post a followup on how it worked out.

-egkor

[multiplexed]

To lower your connect speed, go into the driver and there's a setting called something like "rate", which you can lower. Control panel|system|device manager or on 2000/xp COntrol Panel | system | hardware tab | hardware button should probably get you to the driver. If you'll mention you're os then somebody can get you definate instructions if you need them.

I'm not entirely sure that doing this will get you an entire 50 feet, but it's worth a try before spending cash. Don't forget that the range will be extended both directions of the router. If you can move your router a little closer to the other pc, then you'll gain some additional ground. Some bad ascii art...
( Pc1<--<----y----T----y---->-->PC2)

where T = router, y = current locations of pc1 and pc2, <-> = increased distance.


egkor, excellent idea on the powerline networking. Let me know if you need different or same channels on the two access points. I would *guess* that the channels need to be the same for roaming between them, else you might have to change channels in the client driver when roaming. But that's a total guess without any experience behind it. If you have overlap then different channels may be the way to go though. Let me know what works!

[egkor]

Hi multiplexed,

Yes, I will try the channel settings both ways and see what works best. My 2 Access Points are different brands (Buffalo Tech and Linksys). My client card is a Orinoco Gold.

Won't the client card "latch on to" the AP with strongest signal (and switch to that channel)?

I admittedly do not have a understanding of roaming.

Thanks for your advice,
-egkor

[egkor]

I extended my wireless coverage via 2 Powerline Ethernet bricks, and a second Access Point. Works really well. The nice thing about the Powerline brick at the AP end, is if I ever want to move the AP, I can move it wherever there is a AC outlet.

I did try same channel, different channel for the 2 Access Points, so far I cannot tell a difference. I will try the 2 configs again and see if there is a benefit to either method.

-egkor

[multiplexed]

I read that Channels 1, 6, and 11 don't overlap. Try using two of these channels versus two overlapping channels for a quick test.

edit - Oops! I just scrolled up and saw your post on the "grab hold of the strongest access point".

Yes they will grab hold of the stongest access point. I had forgotten that. However, my train of thought on having same channels, as well as the same ssid is that these settings are (at least on my ad hoc system) hard coded into the driver. To my knowledge they are not pushed out like dhcp does. (Though once again I'm a wireless noob so I may be wrong here and would appreciate being corrected if I am :) . Anyway, my train of thought is that if you happened to use non-overlapping channels, then you would have to alter your channel in the nic driver every time you roam between access points because when you did hit the non-overlapping channel, you would maybe loose connection. If this is true, then using the same channel would be optimum, right?

I also don't know what the benefit of using the same channel, versus an overlapping channel is. Maybe a better connection or better throughput?

Anyway, thanks for replying, and if you do test the non-overlapping channel thing on the access points, let me know again.

[egkor]

Hi Multiplexed,

On the Small Net Builder web site (http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/Sections-article47-page11.php) there is an article (a Need to Know) about improving wireless network performance. The article says, when adding a second access point, to use the channel "1, 6, 11" scheme. I set one AP to channel 11, and the other to channel 6, and things seem to be working fine. I'll know more after I live with it for a while.

The main thing is, I now have very good wireless signal strength/quality at the places where I like to use my laptop, thanks to the Powerline bridges and the second AP. Its become laughingly inexpensive to do now with 802.11b, prices are very reasonable.

-egkor

[unixfan]

The thing is, when you have colocated APs, its important to have channel isolation so your not creating radio interference with yourself thus being your own enemy....

[multiplexed]

That's good to know. Thanks for the heads up, both of you!