Extend wireless signal

[jafwiz]

I have a linksys wireless router that i want to connect to when outside near the pool. I have a cat5 cable run from the router to a spot just near the outside door what do i need to do this can i use another router and turn of dhcp?

 

[Scarpozzi]

Is the existing network wireless G or wireless N? N will give you better range and faster speeds within 300-400 feet of the access point.

I seriously looked at Ubiquiti to have multiple access points that seemlessly integrate due to price point and POE capabilities. POE will limit the Cat5/Cat6 to 100Mbit, but that's not a concern much for wireless considering most G connections will only get 15-20Mbit actual performance and N only exceeds 100Mbit with line of site and close proximity.
http://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Netwo...words=ubiquiti

It's best if you have wifi hotspots that are aware of each other because clients can pass between them.

In the case of using a second router, you'll need to put it on a different channel than the first, use a different SSID, and be aware that the WAN-port firewall can cause a lot of problems because you're dealing with a NAT'd network within a NAT'd network.

If you're able to totally disable the firewall features of the second router and only use it as an AP, you'll be better off. You can try turning off DHCP on the second router and see if you are able to get an IP from the first. The problem comes from the way the routing tables in most stock routers work. They try to make traffic flow through the WAN port to the LAN and WLAN.

 

[azazel1024]

Effectively yes, that would turn the router in to an access point. You are also going to need either an outdoor enclosure, an outdoor rated access point or a place to put the router that is weather proof.

Oh, and power for it. If its powered vaguely near the pool (within 10ft, safer is 20ft) it needs to be on a GFCI circuit/outlet for safeties sake. In general since it is powered outdoors it should be GFCI.

 

[azazel1024]

Is the existing network wireless G or wireless N? N will give you better range and faster speeds within 300-400 feet of the access point.

I seriously looked at Ubiquiti to have multiple access points that seemlessly integrate due to price point and POE capabilities. POE will limit the Cat5/Cat6 to 100Mbit, but that's not a concern much for wireless considering most G connections will only get 15-20Mbit actual performance and N only exceeds 100Mbit with line of site and close proximity.
http://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Netwo...words=ubiquiti

It's best if you have wifi hotspots that are aware of each other because clients can pass between them.

In the case of using a second router, you'll need to put it on a different channel than the first, use a different SSID, and be aware that the WAN-port firewall can cause a lot of problems because you're dealing with a NAT'd network within a NAT'd network.

If you're able to totally disable the firewall features of the second router and only use it as an AP, you'll be better off. You can try turning off DHCP on the second router and see if you are able to get an IP from the first. The problem comes from the way the routing tables in most stock routers work. They try to make traffic flow through the WAN port to the LAN and WLAN.

Ubiquiti's nice, but not needed.

Access point initiated roaming is best, but almost no one does it (Ubiquiti, some of the enterprise guys).

Client initiated roaming works fine in MOST cases. There are always exceptions. Client initiated roaming is your device realizing that the signal is starting to get weak, it looks around and sees a stronger/faster wifi base station it can connect to and then switches to it. In most cases this is seamless. Sticky clients do happen. IME, between android, iOS and Windows and at least a dozen different, almost all of my stuff roams gracefully and quickly.

You do NOT need to use a different SSID (my router and both access points all share the same SSID) unless you need to split up access to different locations...and it just increases management on the clients having different SSIDs. Using a different channel is a good idea as it spreads bandwidth around...though if you have a fair number of competing wifi networks near you, it is probably better to cluster all of yours on the least used channel rather than spreading them.

99.9% of routers can be setup as access points by setting a static IP address on the LAN side, disabling DHCP and then connecting it LAN to LAN on the other router. Then you set the same SSID and password that the router is using (supposing you want to share the SSID) and you are done. You do not want to setup another router WAN to LAN. Not unless you need segregation going on.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Ubiquiti's nice, but not needed.
99.9% of routers can be setup as access points by setting a static IP address on the LAN side, disabling DHCP and then connecting it LAN to LAN on the other router. Then you set the same SSID and password that the router is using (supposing you want to share the SSID) and you are done. You do not want to setup another router WAN to LAN. Not unless you need segregation going on.

I've never configured it this way, but I've not worked with a lot of newer waps recently. I had a WRT54G as my primary and a cheap non DDWRT/Tomato G as my extended network that had almost ZERO configuration options. I ended up running it through the WLAN port, disabling the firewall, and renumbering the subnet to allow a new DHCP range. Prior to changing the firewall settings, I noticed a lot of traffic was being disrupted between local subnets and even a few websites failed to load.

I suggested Ubiquiti because of their pricepoint and POE capability. Running a single Cat5 with power and data combined is pretty slick when you don't want your access points necessarily where your data connection terminates. That's the biggest problem in most wifi scenarios.