access point vs router

[hkssupra69]

I need some help in getting clarification on this, are these two basically the same things, becuase it seems like they serve the same purpose, or am I wrong? Can someone explain to me the difference between the two? thanks.

 

[Aravot]

Same here, would a router act as access point.

 

[PCHPlayer]

A wireless access point is just as it sounds. It allows wireless devices access to the network. It is essentially a relay device, it relays the wireless packets onto the wired network and the wired network packets onto the wireless network. A wireless router acts as an AP and a router is one. It provides access for the wireless devices and performs all of the router functionality. APs generally have other capabilties not offered by the wireless routers, such as a wireless bridge mode. This allows you to relay the wireless signal from your laptop to the AP to another AP or router.
Of course the next question is: Why would you ever want to own an AP if you can get a router? One answer is to use it as a bridge to increase the coverage. I have an AP because I already had a router and the wireless routers were much more expensive than the AP at the time (Over a year ago).
FYI. I have the DLink 704 router with the 900+ AP and have zero problems. Can't speak for any other products.

 

[JackMDS]

May be this can Help.

Link to: Wireless Cable/DSL Router or Access Point ? What should I get?

Link to: Wireless Network - Configuration Modes.

Link to: Using a Wireless Cable/DSL Router as a Switch with an Access Point

 

[hkssupra69]

I just need to set up a laptop and a desktop in my apartment, a router should be sufficient then, correct?

 

[JackMDS]

Yeah.

 

[JackMDS]

Yeah.

 

[hkssupra69]

thanks Jack for replies to both threads, I'm gonna go ahead and take care of business today then, much appreciated.

 

[serialb]

Great info. Will check out the links at home.

 

[xyyz]

the funny thing is that usually an AP costs more than a router...

personally, i don't deal with the AP. i get the router and put a static route... this way the wireless devices are isolated to the network serviced by the wireless router... sorta' enhancing security a touch more.

 

[JackMDS]

It is not a matter of Wireless Router vs. Access Point.

It is a matter of what you need.

1. Most Access Point can be configured in 3-5 Modes.

All (but One) Wireless Routers are Gateways only.

More here: Wireless Network - Configuration Modes.

2. Access Points need only two Cables (Power, and one CAT5), or ONE Cable with POE, or NO Cable (Repeater).

Routers usually would have 3 to 6 Cables hanging out (Power + Modem + 4 Computers)

Can you imagine what my wife is going to say if a Router with SIX cables would be hanging on our living room ceiling?

3. Most Access Points have a provision for External Antenna, most Wireless Routers Do not

Link to: Extending the Distance of Entry Level Wireless Network.

It so happened that the majority of the people use Gateway mode and do not need external Antennae (and most geeks think that the more cables the cooler it looks)... Thus you can use a Wireless Cable/DSL Router as a Switch with an Access Point and save $10 to $50.

Link to: Using a Wireless Cable/DSL Router as a Switch with an Access Point

 

[xyyz]

it's true you buy based on what you need. if you need to bridge the same wireless network then an AP is generally what you should get. if you wanna boost the signal, again go with the AP. however, if you want to bridge a wired network, while boosting security, this can be done with a router through placing a static route. on the flip side, this will cause some msft file sharing issues unless you have a WINS server... which kinda' throws this off into a complicated tangent.

as for the antenna... i know for a fact that Cisco, Trendware, and Siemens's antenna all work with both the AP's and the routers. it's simply a matter of removing the existing antenna and placing a higher gain antenna. to comment, the examples used by ezlan.net aren't really comparable. they are comparing the use of a wireless router with an antenna to a wireless router working in tandem with an access point. they also say that using an AP as a repeater might increase distance, but it will sacrifice bandwidth to do so.

finally, having a wireless router doesn't mean you will have lots of cables, and having an AP doesn't mean fewer cables.

to use an AP, you need to have a router to begin with, assuming you want to access to outside networks. that router can also be filled with cables. if you are going a totally wireless solution, then you'll have wireless nics vs. wired nics, reducing your need for cabling. so either way, it depends what you want to do. if you want to go totally wireless, then you dont need to fill the LAN ports of the wireless router. if you are going to get an AP to add roaming use of a laptop, you can do so, but the existing router can have every lan port filled with existing cable.