adding routers/wifi to existing network

Is a simple procedure, I am sure.

Okay, after getting married, we're consolidating households, and I
am the one moving. Which means, I now have my computer networked with
hers, to access the intarwebs via her account. This also means I am
using her wifi for wifi stuff.

Meanwhile, back at the old place, I still have the modem and
router (and wifi) hooked up, because it is nice to have access while I
am packing, cleaning, etc. But, I'm done. Time to unplug everything
and bring it all home.

So, question before the multitude: To improve wifi in the front of
the house, can I hook my wifi router into the network. Will it cause
- what sort of difficulties will it cause? or would we then have two
Wifi signals/networks ("Aster" and "NSA-Van3" - no prizes for guessing
who named which.)?

And we're both running Windows 7, which simplifies things for some
value of simplify.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

pyotr filipivich formulated on Friday :
Okay, after getting married, we're consolidating households, and I
am the one moving. Which means, I now have my computer networked with
hers, to access the intarwebs via her account. This also means I am
using her wifi for wifi stuff.

Run, run, run....... ;-)

Just kidding, congrats!

In article ,
says...

Is a simple procedure, I am sure.

Okay, after getting married, we're consolidating households, and I
am the one moving. Which means, I now have my computer networked with
hers, to access the intarwebs via her account. This also means I am
using her wifi for wifi stuff.

Meanwhile, back at the old place, I still have the modem and
router (and wifi) hooked up, because it is nice to have access while I
am packing, cleaning, etc. But, I'm done. Time to unplug everything
and bring it all home.

So, question before the multitude: To improve wifi in the front of
the house, can I hook my wifi router into the network. Will it cause
- what sort of difficulties will it cause? or would we then have two
Wifi signals/networks ("Aster" and "NSA-Van3" - no prizes for guessing
who named which.)?

And we're both running Windows 7, which simplifies things for some
value of simplify.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

You can use the router but you MUST dummy it down to act as a simple
Switch instead. I've done it here at home for same reason, e.g. extend
wireless to front of house where router is in basement at back of house.

Before connecting the second router you must first configure it. Use a
pc connected directly only to the router for this part. You access the
routers setup to turn OFF DHCP (existing router provides that) and
anything else to do with the Internet port stuff. You also should likely
change the SSID of the router to match the existing router.

There's plenty of info on the specifics but it is fairly easy to do.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:53:26 -0300, pjp
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Is a simple procedure, I am sure.

Okay, after getting married, we're consolidating households, and I
am the one moving. Which means, I now have my computer networked with
hers, to access the intarwebs via her account. This also means I am
using her wifi for wifi stuff.

Meanwhile, back at the old place, I still have the modem and
router (and wifi) hooked up, because it is nice to have access while I
am packing, cleaning, etc. But, I'm done. Time to unplug everything
and bring it all home.

So, question before the multitude: To improve wifi in the front of
the house, can I hook my wifi router into the network. Will it cause
- what sort of difficulties will it cause? or would we then have two
Wifi signals/networks ("Aster" and "NSA-Van3" - no prizes for guessing
who named which.)?

And we're both running Windows 7, which simplifies things for some
value of simplify.


You can use the router but you MUST dummy it down to act as a simple
Switch instead.

I think you mean Access Point. :-)

I've done it here at home for same reason, e.g. extend
wireless to front of house where router is in basement at back of house.

Before connecting the second router you must first configure it. Use a
pc connected directly only to the router for this part. You access the
routers setup to turn OFF DHCP (existing router provides that) and
anything else to do with the Internet port stuff. You also should likely
change the SSID of the router to match the existing router.

There's plenty of info on the specifics but it is fairly easy to do.

I usually point people toward the following link:
http://www.practicallynetworked.com/networking/convert_wifi_router_to_access_point.htm

The page starts with some general info, with the actual steps appearing in
the section, Performing the Conversion.


--

Char Jackson

On 06/10/2016 12:32 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:53:26 -0300, pjp
wrote:

[snip]

You can use the router but you MUST dummy it down to act as a simple
Switch instead.

I think you mean Access Point. :-)

Most routers contain a switch AND an access point. You may want both.

Also, IIRC they all allow you to redefine the WAN port to another LAN
port, but your router firmware may not support this.

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take
that as an invitation to walk all over you"

none on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:49:01 -0700 typed in
alt.windows7.general the following:
pyotr filipivich formulated on Friday :
Okay, after getting married, we're consolidating households, and I
am the one moving. Which means, I now have my computer networked with
hers, to access the intarwebs via her account. This also means I am
using her wifi for wifi stuff.

Run, run, run....... ;-)

Just kidding, congrats!

Hey, don't be knocking thw wifey's wifi. B-p
--
pyotr filipivich
The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another.
-- George Bancroft

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:18:03 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 06/10/2016 12:32 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:53:26 -0300, pjp
wrote:

[snip]

You can use the router but you MUST dummy it down to act as a simple
Switch instead.

I think you mean Access Point. :-)

Most routers contain a switch AND an access point. You may want both.

Of course, but the point is that you don't have to do anything regarding the
switch section. It gets to stay exactly like it was. The changes that you'll
make to the device will cause it to change from a WiFi-enabled router to a
simple wireless access point. The switch comes along for the ride.

The router section gets carved out and taken out of play. Likewise for the
bridge that connects the switch to the router section. All you keep are the
radio(s) and the switch.

You *can* take a wireless router and dummy it down to a switch, but you'd
lose the wireless capability. That defeats the purpose.

Also, IIRC they all allow you to redefine the WAN port to another LAN
port, but your router firmware may not support this.

I've never seen OEM firmware that supports reassigning the WAN port, but
it's possible. For example, dd-wrt and its cousins all offer that.

--

Char Jackson

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:09:42 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

I've never seen OEM firmware that supports reassigning the WAN port, but
it's possible. For example, dd-wrt and its cousins all offer that.

As I've mentioned before, OEM firmware on at least some Belkin routers,
and possibly others, allows you to configure the router as an access point
as a selectable option. In this arrangement, the WAN port is used to
connect the router-as-access-point to a port on the main router.

--
Please reply to newsgroup

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 10:02:13 +0000 (UTC), Java Jive
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:09:42 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

I've never seen OEM firmware that supports reassigning the WAN port, but
it's possible. For example, dd-wrt and its cousins all offer that.

As I've mentioned before, OEM firmware on at least some Belkin routers,
and possibly others, allows you to configure the router as an access point
as a selectable option. In this arrangement, the WAN port is used to
connect the router-as-access-point to a port on the main router.

In that arrangement, the WAN port simply becomes an additional LAN port.

--

Char Jackson

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 10:03:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 10:02:13 +0000 (UTC), Java Jive
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:09:42 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

I've never seen OEM firmware that supports reassigning the WAN port, but
it's possible. For example, dd-wrt and its cousins all offer that.

As I've mentioned before, OEM firmware on at least some Belkin routers,
and possibly others, allows you to configure the router as an access point
as a selectable option. In this arrangement, the WAN port is used to
connect the router-as-access-point to a port on the main router.

In that arrangement, the WAN port simply becomes an additional LAN port.

I agree that that seems to work in practice - I have a couple of
Belkins running that way at home

But Belkin have some application notes which tell you to only use the
LAN ports for AP mode connections to the rest of your network.....
http://www.belkin.com/uk/support-art...rticleNum=8067
Stephen Hope
Replace xyz with ntl to reply

On 6/10/2016 9:06 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Is a simple procedure, I am sure.

Okay, after getting married, we're consolidating households, and I
am the one moving. Which means, I now have my computer networked with
hers, to access the intarwebs via her account. This also means I am
using her wifi for wifi stuff.

Meanwhile, back at the old place, I still have the modem and
router (and wifi) hooked up, because it is nice to have access while I
am packing, cleaning, etc. But, I'm done. Time to unplug everything
and bring it all home.

So, question before the multitude: To improve wifi in the front of
the house, can I hook my wifi router into the network. Will it cause
- what sort of difficulties will it cause? or would we then have two
Wifi signals/networks ("Aster" and "NSA-Van3" - no prizes for guessing
who named which.)?

And we're both running Windows 7, which simplifies things for some
value of simplify.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

As always, the devil is in the details of exactly what routers have
and exactly what you're trying to accomplish.
If you just want extended wireless, wireless range extenders are cheap.

If you want increased range based on what you've got, you need to put
the second router far away from the first. That means you need a wire
to connect the two. If you have to buy the wire and drill holes in the
walls, you'll probably spend way more than the wireless range extender.
But, continuing on...
Plug the WAN port of router two into a LAN port of router 1.
Put router 2 on a separate subnet, like 192.168.1.3.
Put router 2 wireless on a different wireless channel.
Router 2 will talk to the router 1 subnet and the internet just fine.
But, you won't be able to access the router 2 subnet easily
from router 1. You'll have to sit at router 2 computer to copy files
from computers on router 1. You won't be able to put a printer on
router 2 and print from computer 1.

The devil is in the details of exactly what routers have
and exactly what you're trying to accomplish.

"mike" wrote in message
...

If you want increased range based on what you've got, you need to put
the second router far away from the first. That means you need a wire
to connect the two. If you have to buy the wire and drill holes in the
walls, you'll probably spend way more than the wireless range extender.
But, continuing on...
Plug the WAN port of router two into a LAN port of router 1.
Put router 2 on a separate subnet, like 192.168.1.3.
Put router 2 wireless on a different wireless channel.
Router 2 will talk to the router 1 subnet and the internet just fine.
But, you won't be able to access the router 2 subnet easily
from router 1. You'll have to sit at router 2 computer to copy files
from computers on router 1. You won't be able to put a printer on
router 2 and print from computer 1.

The devil is in the details of exactly what routers have
and exactly what you're trying to accomplish.

If your own router (router 2) doesn't have a WAN port (eg if it's an
ADSL-only router, as opposed to one that plugs into a separate modem by
Ethernet) then couldn't you plug one of router 2's *LAN* ports into a LAN
port of router 1. And if you turn off DHCP on router 2, won't router 2 pass
the IP address request to router 1's DHCP - in other words, computers tha
are connected to *either* router will be in the same subnet with none of the
file-copying and printing restrictions that separate subnets causes.

Effectively you would be using router 2 as an Ethernet-to-wifi bridge and
switch, with none of its WAN-to-LAN routing capabilities.

In terms of setting up router 2's wireless, I'd recommend setting it to a
non-overlapping wireless channel (eg 6 or 11, if router 1 is on channel 1,
or 1/11 if router 1 is on channel 6, or 1/6 if router 1 is on channel 11).
Channels 1, 6 and 11 are guaranteed non-overlapping. And set the SSID
(network name) to something different (you could make it "HOMENET_EXT" if
router 1's SSID is "HOMENET").

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:36:58 -0700, mike wrote:

As always, the devil is in the details of exactly what routers have
and exactly what you're trying to accomplish.
If you just want extended wireless, wireless range extenders are cheap.

It almost never makes sense to buy a wireless range extender since wireless
routers are usually cheaper and can usually be configured to do the same
thing. Better yet, all wireless routers can be turned into access points,
which are even better than a range extender.

Range extenders work by dividing their time 50/50 between receiving and
transmitting, so in theory they drop the available throughput by 50%. In
practice, however, the best case is about a 60% drop and there's no
assurance that you'll achieve best case results.

Access points, OTOH, don't suffer the loss of bandwidth but they do require
a dedicated backhaul to the main router. That's typically done with Ethernet
cable, but all of the other options are also available, such as powerline,
phone line, coax cable, and even wireless via a third wireless router that's
connected back to back with router 2.

If you want increased range based on what you've got, you need to put
the second router far away from the first. That means you need a wire
to connect the two. If you have to buy the wire and drill holes in the
walls, you'll probably spend way more than the wireless range extender.

See above.

But, continuing on...
Plug the WAN port of router two into a LAN port of router 1.
Put router 2 on a separate subnet, like 192.168.1.3.
Put router 2 wireless on a different wireless channel.
Router 2 will talk to the router 1 subnet and the internet just fine.
But, you won't be able to access the router 2 subnet easily
from router 1. You'll have to sit at router 2 computer to copy files
from computers on router 1. You won't be able to put a printer on
router 2 and print from computer 1.

I would only recommend using the WAN port on router 2 if its firmware
specifically allows assigning the WAN port to the LAN. Otherwise, you get
the mess described above. There are workarounds (static route entries, for
example) that get around some of the limitations, but there's usually no
good reason to even go there. Just use a LAN port on router 2 for backhaul
to router 1 if the WAN port can't be reassigned to the LAN.

--

Char Jackson

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:01:31 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"mike" wrote in message
...

If you want increased range based on what you've got, you need to put
the second router far away from the first. That means you need a wire
to connect the two. If you have to buy the wire and drill holes in the
walls, you'll probably spend way more than the wireless range extender.
But, continuing on...
Plug the WAN port of router two into a LAN port of router 1.
Put router 2 on a separate subnet, like 192.168.1.3.
Put router 2 wireless on a different wireless channel.
Router 2 will talk to the router 1 subnet and the internet just fine.
But, you won't be able to access the router 2 subnet easily
from router 1. You'll have to sit at router 2 computer to copy files
from computers on router 1. You won't be able to put a printer on
router 2 and print from computer 1.

The devil is in the details of exactly what routers have
and exactly what you're trying to accomplish.

If your own router (router 2) doesn't have a WAN port (eg if it's an
ADSL-only router, as opposed to one that plugs into a separate modem by
Ethernet) then couldn't you plug one of router 2's *LAN* ports into a LAN
port of router 1. And if you turn off DHCP on router 2, won't router 2 pass
the IP address request to router 1's DHCP - in other words, computers tha
are connected to *either* router will be in the same subnet with none of the
file-copying and printing restrictions that separate subnets causes.

Exactly.

Effectively you would be using router 2 as an Ethernet-to-wifi bridge and
switch, with none of its WAN-to-LAN routing capabilities.

That Ethernet-to-WiFi bridge is commonly referred to as an access point.

In terms of setting up router 2's wireless, I'd recommend setting it to a
non-overlapping wireless channel (eg 6 or 11, if router 1 is on channel 1,
or 1/11 if router 1 is on channel 6, or 1/6 if router 1 is on channel 11).
Channels 1, 6 and 11 are guaranteed non-overlapping. And set the SSID
(network name) to something different (you could make it "HOMENET_EXT" if
router 1's SSID is "HOMENET").

Agreed, that's exactly how I would do it (and have done it a few dozen times
or more).

--

Char Jackson

On 6/12/2016 1:37 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:36:58 -0700, mike wrote:

As always, the devil is in the details of exactly what routers have
and exactly what you're trying to accomplish.
If you just want extended wireless, wireless range extenders are cheap.

It almost never makes sense to buy a wireless range extender since wireless
routers are usually cheaper and can usually be configured to do the same
thing. Better yet, all wireless routers can be turned into access points,
which are even better than a range extender.

Range extenders work by dividing their time 50/50 between receiving and
transmitting, so in theory they drop the available throughput by 50%. In
practice, however, the best case is about a 60% drop and there's no
assurance that you'll achieve best case results.

Access points, OTOH, don't suffer the loss of bandwidth but they do require
a dedicated backhaul to the main router. That's typically done with Ethernet
cable, but all of the other options are also available, such as powerline,
phone line, coax cable, and even wireless via a third wireless router that's
connected back to back with router 2.

If you want increased range based on what you've got, you need to put
the second router far away from the first. That means you need a wire
to connect the two. If you have to buy the wire and drill holes in the
walls, you'll probably spend way more than the wireless range extender.

See above.

Powerline can work. It never did for me. If all your devices are on
the same phase, or better, same circuit, powerline can work.
Mine always seemed to be on different phases. My surveillance camera
is powerline, but it would not work at all until I ran yet another cable
under the rug to get access to the same power phase as the camera end.

When I make a suggestion, I try to suggest something that is likely to
work in any situation no matter what you have to work with. Doesn't
help to make an initial suggestion that's over the head of the person
needing the solution. Make it work. Figger out what's missing.
Figger out how to solve that problem. Baby steps...minimize unknowns.

But, continuing on...
Plug the WAN port of router two into a LAN port of router 1.
Put router 2 on a separate subnet, like 192.168.1.3.
Put router 2 wireless on a different wireless channel.
Router 2 will talk to the router 1 subnet and the internet just fine.
But, you won't be able to access the router 2 subnet easily
from router 1. You'll have to sit at router 2 computer to copy files
from computers on router 1. You won't be able to put a printer on
router 2 and print from computer 1.

I would only recommend using the WAN port on router 2 if its firmware
specifically allows assigning the WAN port to the LAN. Otherwise, you get
the mess described above. There are workarounds (static route entries, for
example) that get around some of the limitations, but there's usually no
good reason to even go there. Just use a LAN port on router 2 for backhaul
to router 1 if the WAN port can't be reassigned to the LAN.

Can't argue with what you say, but...
At the risk of repeating myself:
The devil is in the details of exactly which routers you have
and exactly what you're trying to accomplish.

Based on the original request with zero details, my suggestion
probably works with about any
pair of routers with the least confusion.

Figure out what more is needed that can't be done, then ask a more
precise question that includes the make/model/version of all equipments
involved.

A universal, all encompassing, solution is not needed by everyone.
You don't need gigabit ethernet if your internet connection is DSL.
Fix what's broke after you figure out what's broke.

It's easy to get lost in details. Back up 20 paces and look at the
big picture.
The amount of increased wireless range you're gonna get is likely no
more than the length of cable between the routers. I predict that the
final solution is more closely related to getting that cable routed
than anything else. If you're unwilling to do what it takes to get
that wire from here to there, not much else matters.

In my case, I used DD-WRT to produce a wireless bridge to the next room.
About 20 feet with one wall. Unfortunately, that wall has a huge
mirror on it. That can't be helping.
Best I ever got was 10MBps on 5GHz "N", but that turned out to be useless
because DD-WRT couldn't reconnect a 5GHz link on power cycle without
manual intervention...but I digress.
About a third of that on
2.4 GHz. "G". Plenty for internet in any case, but I finally
gave up and ran a wire under the rug to get gigabit. Works better
for remote desktop.

I use a second stock WRT54G on a second subnet as an open wireless
access point for devices too old to work with current generation
security protocols. I just power it off when not in use. Don't
have to reconfigure anything on any system.

Devil is in the details...