high power wireless AP? with pics!

[ViviTheMage]

I currently run 3 Linksys WRT54G dummy routers with DD WRT in our 3 story condo complex..it WORKS, but isn't powerful by any means...and those on the last two AP's see a pretty big degradation in connectivity, because the speed is cut in half, and half again on the third.

So I opted to plan something a little nicer. the only thing is, the router is in the basement, so the new access point must talk to the base router wirelessly, we don't have a cat5 run, or plan to install one.

As you can see from my diagram, the 3 linksys DD wrt routers are placed in decent positions, but still lacks the power to go through walls/floors all too well. option 1 would be possible, but would it really provide the best coverage for the whole complex, and be able to talk back to the router in the basement? If not, option 2 would suffice, assuming the people upstairs were able to get to the reception as well.

I am a little unsure of what AP to use, that can do this. I thought about just getting a CISCO AP, but it'd be nice to be able to do wireless N, but not required. We have a budget of 500-600$, but if there is a cheaper solution out there I haven't thought about, I am more then willing to look into that too.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Doing some quick research, I see D-Link makes a really nice AP for under $200 :

D-Link DWL-3200AP

There's even a review out there stating they use it for a 1/4 mile wireless run. Some also say they use it in their 10k square foot restaurant.

PoE is slick, but impossible without running an Ethernet to my switch in the basement.

Do you think setting this up as an AP, to talk wirelessly would work well for the entire complex in either option 1, or 2?

 

[Gillbot]

with a budget of $500-600, I would think you could find a way to run wires. Up the side of the building and into a window via FLAT cable?

 

[ViviTheMage]

Well, doing some reading, the D-Link DWL-3200AP can go AP mode and just talk wirelessly, and eliminate the need for Ethernet wiring at all, just needs a power drop, which would be optimal, since that's the easiest/quickest way I could get this done, and get rid of those little linksys routers.

If I can only spend 200 bucks for the router, all the more better... I am just trying to find some more real world reviews on it.

 

[SunnyD]

From what I can determine, you're using WDS to mesh together an all-wireless network? It's obvious why it's not fast by any means. In order to WDS bridge MULTIPLE routers without taking a progressive speed hit on every single one, you need routers with dual radios, which the WRT54G is not.

There are a lot of consumer routers (Such as my refurb Netgear WNDR3300 which cost $25) which offer dual radios. You'll still take a bandwidth hit, as one of the radios will be dedicated to WDS, but it won't be a progressive his as you add router-"repeaters" to your network.

But one way or another... WDS is going to cause your bandwidth to be less than theoretical max. Period. If you want to avoid this, you must use wire to your access points.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Yeah, and I want to remove those Linksys's and go to one AP, and from what I am reading, the D-Link DWL-3200AP looks like what would work the best.

Correct, I was using WDS, it was the only way I could get them working properly. Sadly, those cheapo routers did not have dual radios.

 

[SunnyD]

Yeah, and I want to remove those Linksys's and go to one AP, and from what I am reading, the D-Link DWL-3200AP looks like what would work the best.

Correct, I was using WDS, it was the only way I could get them working properly. Sadly, those cheapo routers did not have dual radios.

You do realize you're going to have the exact same problem with those AP's as you're having now with the routers unless you plan on running cable to them!!!! There's still only one radio in them.

 

[spidey07]

If there isn't a lot of noise there is no reason why a single AP/router could cover the entire building.

Remember the worst gain on an omni directional antenna is along it's axis, so have the antennas paralell to the floor like this - -

 

[JackMDS]

I doubt that there is any legal Wireless radio that will solve this problem.

First buy a long cable (it only few $$ on mono price) and do some experiments in finding central spots that might provide good coverage when an AP is placed there. I.e put the cable on the floor from the basement out and see and put one of your AP in few locations.

Use Wireless laptop with this to survey the signal.

http://download.cnet.com/WirelessNetView/3000-2162_4-191039.html

By doing so you would find if there is a one or two spots that AP connected with cables cam provide over all good service.

Taking a consultant that is highly experienced with Wireless might help too.

Your approach is the Traditional All American Approach of solving issues with Brute Force. It might work in a Demolition Derby, but it will not impress the Wireless. :sneaky:



😎

 

[ViviTheMage]

You do realize you're going to have the exact same problem with those AP's as you're having now with the routers unless you plan on running cable to them!!!! There's still only one radio in them.

but the third and second AP out will not be AS degraded as before...and overall signal strength should be higher with this AP I linked earlier.

If there isn't a lot of noise there is no reason why a single AP/router could cover the entire building.

Remember the worst gain on an omni directional antenna is along it's axis, so have the antennas paralell to the floor like this - -

My thoughts exactly, and the only way I can really 'test' is to have the AP setup and running. I typically have the antenna's pointed that way, paralell...my question is, should I have it on the first floor, or second floor? Which would provide more accurate coverage for everyone?

@JackMDS What makes you think there would not be a legal product out there? I linked a AP that should do what I want correctly/efficiently.

I've got a 100 foot cat5e cable, so if I ever DID run a cat5e, I would test it first.

I was putting up a $500 mark because I was thinking of a CISCO AP, but that D-Link I linked to earlier seems to cover just as well as a CISCO AP would. The option to run a cat5e is very unlikely...even if the budget allowed for it. We don't want to ruin the building itself.

 

[JackMDS]

@JackMDS What makes you think there would not be a legal product out there? I linked a AP that should do what I want correctly/efficiently.

.

This remark was of a general nature. Most of the Radios that we use in the US have 33mW RF output.

In some other countries where there is No FCC and nobody cares about RF interferences One can Blast is way with a very high power AP. In the US it is illegal (and rightfully so).

Back to the topic.

If you try to take the Radio out of the basement it might be that even your current WDS system would work well.

As a first step just use a cable, configure another Wireless Router as an access point and connect it to the current Wireless Router.

Using a Wireless Router as a switch with an Access Point - http://www.ezlan.net/router_AP.html



😎

 

[ViviTheMage]

That wont work though. I have to keep the router in the basement, as that is where the coax drop comes in....and everything is set up down there already.

My assumption is, if I put the DLINK AP in the first floor, and have to in AP mode back to the basement router/ap (DLINK DIR 655)...it should be able to transmit throughout the complex without too much of a problem. So I am curious if anyones used that specific AP, or another AP similarly to go through a few walls/floors in AP mode.

 

[SunnyD]

The only difference between that D-Link AP and your current routers are going to be the antennas. Power output, as Jack stated, will still be limited to 22mW (802.11b/g spec).

The only better WDS solution you can possibly have is what I suggested: Use DD-WRT on a dual-radio dual-band router. Use the 5GHz channel as the WDS uplink, which will have better penetration and less interference than the 2.4GHz channel. You'll still take the progressive bandwidth hit for each WDS bridge, but this is about the only thing that will really make any difference in signal quality. Those D-Link AP's will be no better than your current setup, barring any difference in antenna quality.

If you want a full signal on each floor at the AP, you need to run cable, otherwise you're just wasting your money.

Food for thought: AP's are exactly the same as wireless routers, minus the routing features.

 

[Pantlegz]

Have you looked into any of Cisco's products? I know when I was in school we had some of their mid size company AP's and they would cover 200-300 sq ft with florescent lights and cinder block walls with ease. They would probably be a little more expensive than what you're looking at but once configured they're mighty powerful.

*edit* I guess I missed the last paragraph in the OP...

 

[spidey07]

A used Cisco 1232 or 1242 shouldn't be too much on ebay and they're built like a tank, made for manufacturing environments. The 1232 is older and both models are A and G.

 

[JackMDS]

That wont work though. I have to keep the router in the basement, as that is where the coax drop comes in....and everything is set up down there already.

My assumption is, if I put the DLINK AP in the first floor, and have to in AP mode back to the basement router/ap (DLINK DIR 655)...it should be able to transmit throughout the complex without too much of a problem. So I am curious if anyones used that specific AP, or another AP similarly to go through a few walls/floors in AP mode.

Read my post slowly.

Taking the Radio out of the basement does not mean that Router can not be there.

From RF Power point of view you might be able to benefit from a Buffalo HP with DD-WRT used as an Access Point.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833162134


😎

 

[ViviTheMage]

A used Cisco 1232 or 1242 shouldn't be too much on ebay and they're built like a tank, made for manufacturing environments. The 1232 is older and both models are A and G.

I have a few at work, maybe I could take one home, see how it runs.

You are saying those little WRT54G's have the same power as that 3200? I have a hard time believing that, because the 3200 says it can do :

Indoors:
98ft (30m) @ 54Mbps
112ft (34m) @ 48Mbps
128ft (39m) @ 36Mbps
154ft (47m) @ 24Mbps
184ft (56m) @ 18Mbps
217ft (66m) @ 12Mbps
259ft (79m) @ 9Mbps
325ft (99m) @ 6Mbps
Outdoors:
367ft (112m) @ 54Mbps
820ft (250m) @ 18Mbps
1640ft (500m) @ 6Mbps

which is significantly better then the WRT54G's....even on paper.

If I ran a cat5 up to the first floor, to that 3200 AP, would that be better then my current WDS configuration, my assumption is yes.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Read my post slowly.

Taking the Radio out of the basement does not mean that Router can not be there.

From RF Power point of view you might be able to benefit from a Buffalo HP with DD-WRT used as an Access Point.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833162134


😎

We originally had 3 of those, and all 3 crapped out, haha. They started to not respond after a few months of use (all the lights were on, but they were not responsive to resets, re flashes, etc...they slowly crapped out, it was not all at once). The lisnksys routers have been in place for almost 3 years without a hitch.

What you're saying is that I could turn off my radio on my DIR - 655, then cat5e to the 3200AP and have that run ALL wireless? I would not mind running that, i'll have to see if I can snake a cat5e somewhere in the center of the first floor...only if my DIR - 655 was PoE

 

[VirtualLarry]

Tell me more about these dual-radio routers that can do WDS with one of the radios, and serve clients with the other radio. Is this a feature of DD-WRT, on these higher-end routers? I run WDS on my N router, and it splits the bandwidth, of course. If I could improve my wireless speeds using a dual-radio router, it would be great. Can someone give me some pointers about how to set this up?

My current routers are WRN834Bv2 units. http://reviews.cnet.com/routers/netgear-wnr834b-rangemax-next/4505-3319_7-31841160.html

 

[ViviTheMage]

Any AP that has dual radios, you can run one radio as a 'backbone' for data, and then the clients connect on the other radio for activity. I heard it works really well, I just know my WRT54G's cannot do it....you also need to have DD-WRT capable router/AP to do that.


The WNR834B does not have two radios.

 

[JackMDS]

http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=332



😎

 

[ViviTheMage]

http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=332



😎

LOL, defeats the purpose. I have to run something to a power jack still 😛.

 

[JackMDS]

I am sure that your Router in the Basemsnt is plugged in to something, so the POE can be plugged with it too.



😎

 

[ViviTheMage]

ohhhh, I see what you're saying. It will make the basement a little messy, but yeah, I could use that...I am more curious how well that 3200AP works.

 

[SunnyD]

Tell me more about these dual-radio routers that can do WDS with one of the radios, and serve clients with the other radio. Is this a feature of DD-WRT, on these higher-end routers? I run WDS on my N router, and it splits the bandwidth, of course. If I could improve my wireless speeds using a dual-radio router, it would be great. Can someone give me some pointers about how to set this up?

My current routers are WRN834Bv2 units. http://reviews.cnet.com/routers/netgear-wnr834b-rangemax-next/4505-3319_7-31841160.html

Any router that supports 802.11a and 802.11b/g has dual radios (802.11a runs 5GHz, b/g on 2.4GHz). Also, 802.11n will give you a full (or almost) 300Mbps only in dualband mode, where it's using 2 radio links to the client. Most lower end 802.11n units sacrifice this down to 180Mbps by using one radio making it cheaper for the consumer.

DD-WRT supports dedicated WDS on a radio for dual radio routers. Some routers are also capable (like Vivi's) to run WDS on a single radio. However when you run WDS on a single radio, #1 - the router has to support it (DD-WRT wiki will tell you models that do), and #2 - you lose half of your wireless bandwidth to both the WDS bridge as well as any clients using that router as an AP because the radio time-shares between WDS and regular wireless AP duties.

This is precisely why Vivi is having this problem, and it's compounded by the fact that he's cascading single-radio WDS bridges down the line.

Technically, Dual-N routers dedicating a radio to WDS will also lose half the maximum bandwidth (because a single 802.11n radio is only capable of 180Mbps maximum theoretical throughput) because you're dedicating half the total link (1 radio) to WDS.

---

Vivi, as far as the range numbers - take them with a grain of salt. Every manufacturer is testing their units in absolutely IDEAL conditions, which yours is most definitely not. As I said, that AP might get you a bit better range, even simply because of antenna design. But something I've learned about wireless in general is don't trust manufacturers numbers, period. (This is coming for a licensed amateur radio operator, if that helps any)

As I have repeated several times, the only way you're guaranteed to get the coverage you want is to run cable to every access point you plan on popping up. WDS is a poor-man's solution - it does what it does and it's a great solution, but it is by no means a "professional" style solution to your problem.