Question about configuration with a Linksys WAP11

[Salvador]

Hi,

I just picked up a Linksys WAP11 tonight to try instead of a SMC7004AWBR router/wap. I wanted to see if the range was any better with the WAP11.

Anyway.. I was looking at the back of the box and they were showing a diagram of how I would like to set up my network.

In the diagram, they were showing the Linksys router/wap 4 port switch on one end with the cable modem and then in a remote area, they were showing a Linksys WAP11 wireless access point with a 5 port switch. Off of this switch, they then showed multiple computers hooking up off of this switch. You can also use a wireless client off the base router/wap.

This is exactly how I want to set up my network, but didn't think I could. Right now, I'm struggling with wireless USB clients in the remote location getting a signal off of the SMC router/wap. I would think that my range would be much greater if I have a router/wap and a wap connecting together than a wap or wap/router and a wireless client in the remote area on each computer. What do you think?

My question is this.. They show the Linksys router/wap on the cable modem end. If I want to use the WAP11 for the remote hook up, so I could run a switch out to other wired computers, do you think I would need to use the Linksys model router/wap or do you think I could use the SMC7004AWBR at my cable modem end and the WAP11 in the remote location?

Edit: Here's a Linksys page showing the diagram on the box of the WAP11. It's at the bottom of the page on the left (wireless mode). I'm wondering if I can do this set up, but substitute the SMC7004AWBR instead of the Linksys router/wap? Diagram page Linked

Edit #2: I just looked at the page myself and the diagram on my box shows the Linksys router/wap on the top hooked to the cable modem and then a WAP11 in a remote area hooked to a switch. Then, it shows "wired" pc's being connected to that switch off of the remote WAP11. This is the set up that I want, but I don't want to have to buy the Linksys router/wap. I'd like to be able to use my SMC7004AWBR.

Thanks again.

Sal

 

[Salvador]

I really sort of need a answer to this one. I'm rethinking my wireless strategy now and don't know if this set up is possible or desirable.

Thanks and pretty please...

Sal

 

[rw120555]

In the diagram, they were showing the Linksys router/wap 4 port switch on one end with the cable modem and then in a remote area, they were showing a Linksys WAP11 wireless access point with a 5 port switch. Off of this switch, they then showed multiple computers hooking up off of this switch. You can also use a wireless client off the base router/wap.

Hi Sal. Maybe you'll wind up with powerline or phoneline after all! But first:

* Is the Wap11 configured right? As the diagram shows, it needs to be configured in wireless point client mode, not AP mode. As part of the configuration, I think you'll need to provide the MAC address of the SMC

* It wouldn't surprise me if you need to go all Linksys. I don't know that there are standards for this that guarantee different brands will work together when you configure a WAp as a client instead.

* I doubt that it would make a difference, but you could try a Linksys Wet11 instead of the Wap11. The Wet11 is specifically designed for this purpose. It has always seemed to me that the Wap11 is a better deal because it can do more and costs the same or less, but maybe there are advantages of the wet11 I don't know about.

Hope this helps. RW

 

[rw120555]

Right now, I'm struggling with wireless USB clients in the remote location getting a signal off of the SMC router/wap. I would think that my range would be much greater if I have a router/wap and a wap connecting together than a wap or wap/router and a wireless client in the remote area on each computer. What do you think?

If you currently have wireless USB clients that can't receive the signal from the SMC, then I'm not sure why a WAP11 (configured in client mode) would do much better. The main advantage might be that you could fiddle around with the placement of the WAP11 so it was optimal, e.g. you would get it somewhere it worked fine, maybe using a 50 or 100 foot cable if necessary to connect it to the switch. Or, maybe you can add some antennas or something that would give it better reception. But, other than that, I'm not sure why a router/wap + wap combo would be superior to a router/wap + usb client card combo. I think the main advantage of the Wap11 configured as client is that it could be connected to a switch and hence serve multiple PCs, unlike a USB client card that serves only one machine. Maybe the Wap11 has superior reception to a usb client card, but if so I've never heard that touted as an advantage.

 

[Salvador]

If you currently have wireless USB clients that can't receive the signal from the SMC, then I'm not sure why a WAP11 (configured in client mode) would do much better. The main advantage might be that you could fiddle around with the placement of the WAP11 so it was optimal, e.g. you would get it somewhere it worked fine, maybe using a 50 or 100 foot cable if necessary to connect it to the switch. Or, maybe you can add some antennas or something that would give it better reception. But, other than that, I'm not sure why a router/wap + wap combo would be superior to a router/wap + usb client card combo. I think the main advantage of the Wap11 configured as client is that it could be connected to a switch and hence serve multiple PCs, unlike a USB client card that serves only one machine. Maybe the Wap11 has superior reception to a usb client card, but if so I've never heard that touted as an advantage.

First of all.. Yeah.. I know. We went through all of the powerline and phoneline options, but I still want wireless.

Thanks for your replies. I'm struggling with the USB client devices in Windows XP, but as far as range, I'm fine. I would have to think that the WAP11 would even be better than the client cards as far as range goes, but I may be wrong.

Why I think it would be a superior interface is because I could run a switch off of the remote WAP11 and run a set of wired computers off of that switch. I could also still use the wireless capabilities, unlike with a bridge. The way I see bridge mode working with the WET11 is exactly the same way to remotely hook up pc's, but it would prevent me from using any wireless clients if I was in bridge mode.

Also.. That idea of being able to move the WAP11 50 or 100 ft to an optimum spot would be a great idea. With that much cable, I could even move it up a floor for better reception from the SMC7004AWBR. My house wiring problem isn't from the first floor to the basement, it's from the second floor to the first floor.

The question still stands if I would need to use a Linksys router/wap at the base in order to use the WAP11 at the remote end. I will call and ask Linksys about this.

Thanks again.

Sal

 

[rw120555]

Why I think it would be a superior interface is because I could run a switch off of the remote WAP11 and run a set of wired computers off of that switch.

Correct. It will be cheaper than buying a bunch of USB client cards for each desktop machine. Also, the machines connected to the switch will communicate at 100MB, which could be handy for file transfers between machines; if you were using wireless for all machines it would be much slower.

The way I see bridge mode working with the WET11 is exactly the same way to remotely hook up pc's, but it would prevent me from using any wireless clients if I was in bridge mode.

Not sure I understand you here. A wap11 in client mode will act exactly the same as a Wet11, as I understand it. The wap11 configured as client won't also serve as an AP for other clients, if that is what you are thinking. But if you decided to someday use the wap11 for something else, yes, the wap11 would give you more options.

The question still stands if I would need to use a Linksys router/wap at the base in order to use the WAP11 at the remote end. I will call and ask Linksys about this.

Let us know what the answer is. I suspect they'll just say they can't make any guarantees when using other company's equipment. I don't think there is a "standard" for this sort of use, like there is with 802.11b. Good luck. RW

 

[Salvador]

Correct. It will be cheaper than buying a bunch of USB client cards for each desktop machine. Also, the machines connected to the switch will communicate at 100MB, which could be handy for file transfers between machines; if you were using wireless for all machines it would be much slower.

Exactly!! One of my problems is getting wire to this remote basement room from the base. That's why I was considering phoneline and powerline. I plan to set up several pc's in this room and using a WAP11 hooked up to a switch would be perfect. Then I wouldn't have to have wireless USB clients all around the room. Not to mention the added expense. Plus.. Like you said, I'd be able to communicate at the full 100Mb/s with the other computers on that switch.

The other reason why I wanted wireless was so I can occasionally hook up a pc on my main floor like in the dining room or for a Divx box next to the tv. Also, if I ever get another laptop or wireless mobile device, I already have my WAN in place. It just seems like a great solution to what I want.

Not sure I understand you here. A wap11 in client mode will act exactly the same as a Wet11, as I understand it. The wap11 configured as client won't also serve as an AP for other clients, if that is what you are thinking. But if you decided to someday use the wap11 for something else, yes, the wap11 would give you more options.

No.. What I meant by bridging is that you end up using two WAP11's or a router/wap and WET11 to bridge to one another and it wouldn't allow you to use other wireless clients off of the router/wap. That's the way that I understand the bridging. It locks the two WAP11's or the router/wap and WET11 for wired networking at either location, but doesn't allow you to use any wireless clients off of this configuration. I don't know if this is correct, but that's the way I'm understanding it from the Linksys diagrams.

I don't expect to connect wirelessly off of the WAP11 in the remote area if it is set up as a wireless client. I just want to be able to use another wireless client and pick up the wireless signal from my router/wap (SMC7004AWBR) in other parts of the house.

Let us know what the answer is. I suspect they'll just say they can't make any guarantees when using other company's equipment. I don't think there is a "standard" for this sort of use, like there is with 802.11b. Good luck. RW

I will. I'm sort of leary of asking Linksys about this because they may be telling me lies to get me to buy a Linksys router/wap instead of the SMC7004AWBR. If I can set up the WAP11 and use it as a wireless client, I don't see why it wouldn't work regardless of what brand router/wap I have. I'm using a Linksys WUSB11 and a Orinoco USB Gold Client right now off of a SMC router/wap. Well.. Sort of. They both work in Windows 98 and the Linksys only works in Windows XP if WEP is not enabled.

BTW.. How would I go about setting the WAP11 to wireless client mode. Would I do this in a menu after I hook it up to a computer in the remote area? Is there a switch on the outside of it? I haven't opened the WAP11 yet. I wanted to find out if this sort of set up was possible before I opened the box.

Thanks again.

Sal

 

[rw120555]

BTW.. How would I go about setting the WAP11 to wireless client mode. Would I do this in a menu after I hook it up to a computer in the remote area? Is there a switch on the outside of it? I haven't opened the WAP11 yet. I wanted to find out if this sort of set up was possible before I opened the box.

Depends on whether you have the "old" Wap11 or the newer V 2.2. I imagine you have the newer. For more details on how to configure, see p. 14 of the Wap11 v. 2.2. Users Guide.

 

[Salvador]

Depends on whether you have the "old" Wap11 or the newer V 2.2. I imagine you have the newer. For more details on how to configure, see p. 14 of the Wap11 v. 2.2. Users Guide.

What do you mean by this? What is the difference between the "old" WAP11 and the WAP11 ver 2.2?

I'll read over the manual and see what it says. Thanks!

Sal

 

[rw120555]

The original wap11 was configured via a direct usb connection or via snmp. The current wap11 uses a web page interface. Other than the interface differences, I don't know how or if the new version is technically superior to the old. Here is the User Guide for the original version, in case you have it.

 

[Salvador]

The original wap11 was configured via a direct usb connection or via snmp. The current wap11 uses a web page interface. Other than the interface differences, I don't know how or if the new version is technically superior to the old. Here is the User Guide for the original version, in case you have it.

Thanks for the info. We should probably just be PM'ing each other because it's a two sided thread.

I think I'm going to ditch the SMC7004AWBR and grab a router along with two WAP11's. This just seems the easiest way to go if I can set things up this way. I don't want to have to worry about the SMC wap/router being compatible.

If I dump the SMC7004AWBR, which "non wireless" router should I get? Linksys? Another SMC? I was just looking at SMC's lineup and it's confusing. They have a router and a cable/dsl router. Is there a difference? I'm up for any suggestions...

Thanks again.

Sal

 

[Salvador]

I just wanted to mention that I just talked to someone on the newsgroups and he said that I should avoid the Linksys WAP11 ver 2.2 at all costs. He said that it's really flakey about working with client cards for the current firmware. You can adjust the output of the older WAP11's, where the new one is locked to a certain range. A couple of other small things.

Does anyone have any additional information about the various versions of the WAP11's?

Sal

 

[rw120555]

I hadn't heard that about the new Wap11. Is there documentation on this anywhere? It may be a legit complaint, but then again it might just be a couple of people having atypical problems.

My understanding is that the old Wap11 is pretty much the same as the Netgear ME102 and maybe a couple other waps -- they use the same chipset and firmware. In fact, I have the Linksys software and firmware installed on my ME102, because Linksys had newer firmware than Netgear, plus the Linksys has a better software interface.

As to what you do now -- not sure, but maybe you should consider the Wet11 after all. Or, so long as you can return it, try the Wap11 and see how it works for you.

 

[Workin']

The new (ver 2.2) WAP11 is supposedly better than the old ones. The old ones had to be modded to put out 100mW, the ver 2.2 does 100mW right out of the box. Administration via web interface is SOOOO much better than SNMP (which is riddled with security flaws) or having to connect a USB cable. Plus ver 2.2 adds some other stuff, too, AFAIK. I wouldn't touch a WAP11 that's NOT a ver 2.2

As you know, Sal, my WAP11 is not flaky at all. It works just fine, and I have no problems connecting to it with a D-Link DWL-502+ PCI client card from several rooms away.

To use a WAP11 as anything other than a standard access point the AP at the other end *must* also be a Linksys AP or AP/router. Another brand of AP won't have any idea how to decipher a connection carrying traffic from multiple computers.

 

[rw120555]

Useful info, Workin'. Also, sometimes problems get fixed by firmware -- the latest for the WAP11 2.2. came out on July 29. Go here to get it.

 

[Salvador]

The new (ver 2.2) WAP11 is supposedly better than the old ones. The old ones had to be modded to put out 100mW, the ver 2.2 does 100mW right out of the box. Administration via web interface is SOOOO much better than SNMP (which is riddled with security flaws) or having to connect a USB cable. Plus ver 2.2 adds some other stuff, too, AFAIK. I wouldn't touch a WAP11 that's NOT a ver 2.2

I heard a different story. The ver2.2 is only supposed to put out 30mW and not 100mW even though it states that it does. The old version can be adjusted up to 100mW. I've had a couple of people tell me this on the newsgroups.

I don't know what's true. I'm a relative newbie to all of this.

Sal

 

[ktwebb]

Yeah, AJ's been saying that in alt.internet.wireless I am not so sure. I don't know either way but it would kinda stupid for them to document 100 mW radios and only provide 30 mW ones. I'd be suprised but I guess stranger things have happend. The argument as I have heard it is that the FCC license for Linksys Wi-Fi equipment lists 30 mW radios but my guess is that is the original WAP11. And range issues with the 2.2 <shrug>

 

[Salvador]

Yeah, AJ's been saying that in alt.internet.wireless I am not so sure. I don't know either way but it would kinda stupid for them to document 100 mW radios and only provide 30 mW ones. I'd be suprised but I guess stranger things have happend. The argument as I have heard it is that the FCC license for Linksys Wi-Fi equipment lists 30 mW radios but my guess is that is the original WAP11. And range issues with the 2.2 <shrug>

That's exactly how said it. I don't know what to believe either. So, the version 2.2 has a range issue compared to the old one? It would make sense if both units were 30mW and you could boost the output on the older model. I don't know though because Workin' seems to have great results with his version 2.2.

I read something else that said that once you bump the output to 100mW, you end up infringing on the ham band and break FCC laws. What does he mean by "dirty"? Dirty as in good or bad? Here's a quote from this page.

After the "100mW Hack" was applied, we notice a drastic difference. Instead of taking a mere 22MHz, it gobbles up the entire band. Not only did this kill throughput on other AP's in our tests, it entered into the ham band on the left of the dial, and MMDS on the right of the dial. If the WAP11 was moved from channel 6 to channel 1 or 11, this would make the problem even worse. Also, nasty spurs and harmonics were detected in random locations from 1.4GHz to 2.8GHz. An exact frequency list will be posted in the next day or two. Anyone remember the BA1404? ;-) I think we have a tie.

I don't know what to make of this information. I'm also confused by what he is saying about the different channels. Isn't everything supposed to run on the same channel? I also can't figure out if what he's saying is "good" about the 100mW Hack.

Sal

 

[ktwebb]

No the second quote is not good. There is some debate and differing data from two spectrum analyzer outputs but here is what he is saying. In direct sequence spread spectrum, what 802.11b uses, the carrier band is 22 Mhz wide. By using the power hack the carrier is distorted to the point of covering the entire spectrum from 2.40X to 2.48X. That is a generality but the hack blows up the carrier to use the whole band where the normal carrier is only 22 Mhz wide. There are three non-overlapping channels, frequencies, so you can use three AP's in the same airspace without interfering. They are, channel 1 (2.412 Ghz) Channel 6 (2.437 Ghz) and channel 11 (2.462Ghz). Three AP's with these settings (each on it's own non-overlapping channel) will not interfere with each other. The hack basically uses a band wide enough to use all of these channels. Thats the argument anway. That quote says it even goes outside the 2.4 GSM into ham bands. I believe the HAM bands are up the spectrum in the 2.5+Ghz range but I am not a HAM guy. If you made the base frequency 11, or 2.462 Ghz and then applied the hack, the distortion would be that much worse, and more into the HAM guys space. Not to mention against the FCC regs. From most everything I have read, those that have applied the hack have not experienced any bandwidth problems or other problems derived from distorted harmonics etc..