[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Lonnie Abelbeck <lists at lonnie dot abelbeck dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall List <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Cc:  Mats Lundqvist <mats dot lundqvist at gmail dot com>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] multiple access points with single m0n0wall router]
 Date:  Sun, 28 Jan 2007 07:45:04 -0600

I agree with everything you said except...
> Use the same channel...

I agree the SSID should be the same, but shouldn't the channels of  
each AP be as non-overlapping as possible?

The AP's would interfere with each other if they were all on the same  
channel, wouldn't they?


On Jan 28, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Mats Lundqvist wrote:

> WDS is a bad idea for anything more then two APs. Sure, you get basic
> roaming functionality and eliminate the usual problems with repeaters,
> but performance goes down the drain.
> With WDS, throughput get cut in half with every node you add (rough  
> estimate).
> And with WDS, you still de-associate from the old ap and re-associate
> with the new ap, so it's not really _true_ roaming anyway...
> If you have the option [of using cables to the aps], always go with
> stand-alone APs instead of WDS. Use the same channel and the same
> SSID, preferably with little overlapping coverage areas (so clients
> can roam, too much overlap= performance goes down) and you get the
> same functionality as with WDS with no performance loss.
> But if you don't have a choice (cabling too expensive, not feasible,
> on a budget etc etc..), WDS is a good option.
> 2007/1/28, Mike Johnson- Southwestech Computers  
> <mike at southwestech dot com>:
>> Michael wrote:
>> > If I wanted to added 3 wifi access points to connect to only one  
>> m0n0wall
>> > interface how would this be best setup? I have looked through  
>> the listings
>> > but cannot find any guide definitive enough. I basically would  
>> like to offer
>> > a hotspot via two access points with captive portal via a single  
>> monowall
>> > router.
>> >
>> > Any suggestions?
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> I have set up a few like this. I have personally found that using  
>> Dumb
>> AP's can lead to channel jumping, etc. Is it a requirement that  
>> each AP
>> has different addressing? If not, I have had the most success with  
>> the
>> Dlink AP's that support WDS-AP (wireless distribution system). When
>> configured properly, they all run on the same channel, same SSID and
>> provide excellent coverage. Instead of the alternate AP's acting  
>> alone,
>> or as a repeater, they mesh together and route the information  
>> back to
>> the original AP by specifying the hops in the network. Since they all
>> run on the same channel, I find I don't have an issue with channel
>> hopping in the slim overlap areas like I do with other AP's.
>> Disable the DHCP in each AP, and setup accordingly. Only the  
>> originating
>> AP needs to be physically connected to the m0n0, so it eliminates  
>> extra
>> cabling and a switch (use a xover).
>> This configuration would cover an apartment building quite nicely,  
>> with
>> little "tech time" for support.
>> --
>> Mike
>> --
>> Mike Johnson
>> Southwestech Computers
>> (306) 741-8759
>> www.southwestech.com
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> -- 
> Vänliga Hälsningar
> Mats Lundqvist
> +4670-513 73 87 (privat)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch