Question Regarding Routers

M

mpic92

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
155
Currently, I have one gateway in my house. It has a modem and a wireless router all built into one unit. As some of you may know from my other thread, I want to wire a cable to the other side of my house. The cable would connect to the back of my gateway (which has 4 Ethernet Ports).

When I wire the cable to the other side of my house, can I put it into a new wireless router? OR, is there a reason why you can't have two routers. Again, I just want a simple Wireless G router which would be connected to the Gateway on the other side of my house through a Cat 5e cable.
 
Connecting routers to routers in a home situation gets to be a PITA due to the routing and firewall; It's not like a Cisco or Juniper that you truly have full control over. If all you want is wireless G at that spot in the house, an access point is way easier to install and manage than another router, on several different levels. Not only will it keep the devices connecting to it on the same network as all your other PCs and Internet GW, you won't be subject to having to manage any routing or firewall rulesets on that second router. Now, if you're intending to put the wireless on it's own subnet with it's own access rules, then you can still connect a second wireless router directly to your GW like you were originally inquiring. Just be prepared to do some initial troubleshooting connectivity from the wireless to the Internet.
 
IIRC, this is an easy install. Just make sure you disable DHCP on the second router and it should all play nice together. Also, be sure to check before powering up that your 2nd router does not default to the same IP address as your primary. If it does, isolate it on 1 machine, change the IP, then add it to your network and it should be OK.
 
Hmm it's interesting that your bring up the firewall stuff... I've never had a problem at all with anything on my current Linksys Gateway; I never even noticed a firewall was there.

The second router I think I want to go with is the Belkin Wireless Pre-N router. It gets great range which will be great in my big house. The wireless gateway only covers the room it's in and the rooms directly above and below it... well of course it gets to other places as well be since it's just a standard wireless g router, the signal strength quickly goes down.
 
mpic92 said:
Hmm it's interesting that your bring up the firewall stuff... I've never had a problem at all with anything on my current Linksys Gateway; I never even noticed a firewall was there.
Click to expand...
With a single router, you should not have any issues. It's when you have 2 competing for the same IP address and when they both start trying to hand out IP addresses simultaneously that you will have issues. That's why I suggested isolating your Belkin on a computer off your LAN at first to make sure you don't have DHCP enabled and to change the IP address if necessary.
 
The only time it becomes an issue is if you want to do something like share a file on the wireless network to the primary network. For the most part, home NAT firewalls are all out, nothing in. If that's not an issue for you, then the router will do. However, an access point keeps everything on the same network/subnet and you don't have that kind of issue. All it is is a switch for wireless devices. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish: extend your current network, or connect but isolate your wireless network. There are valid reasons to do either.
 
Well my situation is hard to explain. I want to extend my current network and this Belkin Pre-N router seems to be a pretty good choice. The reason I want to know if a router will work instead of an access point it because I also want to have some things wired, mainly my Xbox 360. Will an Xbox 360 running through the second router have any issues? I don't have a network sharing thing setup in my home... All I use is the internet.
 
Well, so far I haven't seen any compelling reason to implement a layer 3 solution for a layer 2 issue; however, even though installing a switch plus an access point would probably be the better technical solution for what you want to do, installing a router will probably be less expensive. It will come with some initial technical overhead, which I'm sure the many fine people here will be kind enough to walk you through. Good luck.
 
I understand exactly what you are saying and initially, I was going to use an access point. However, this Belkin Pre-N Wireless router caught my eye with it's fantastic range and seems like it would work great in my house.

Heres a CNET Review on it: http://reviews.cnet.com/Belkin_Wireless_Pre_N_router/4505-3319_7-30993672.html

Is there any problems I could run into using that router? If I used to wireless g, would it come at as 54 mbps or 100 mbps with this router?
 
Also, heres a similar situation to mine which I found at some random site:
\put the LinksysRT31P2 first so you can take advantage of QOS. now this gets a little tricky but works well..come out of the LinksysRT31P2 on one of the eithernet ports and go into the dlink on the wan port. log into the dlink router and turn off dhcp and change the dlinks ip to something on the same network as your linksys router but out of its range.example 192.168.15.200.(save and exit). now pull the cat 5 out ouf the wan port ant put it into one of the eithernet ports on the dlink..wa la you now have turned the dlink into an access point/switch. all 4 of my computers are now networked the way they were before I added the LinksysRT31P2...I hope this helps....
Click to expand...
 
mpic92 said:
Also, heres a similar situation to mine which I found at some random site:
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I told you. However, I would recommend doing it using while the new router is NOT connected to the network. Do it with it isolated on a computer that is not on the network so you don't have an IP conflict. DHCP active on 2 boxes on the same network can cause issues even during setup.
 
Hmm.. well now I'm not sure if I want that router after learning I would need an adapter on the other end to achieve the great connections. After finding this out, I'm going to back to trying to find a good access point. Do any of you have any recommendations?
 
NWEng said:
The only time it becomes an issue is if you want to do something like share a file on the wireless network to the primary network. For the most part, home NAT firewalls are all out, nothing in. If that's not an issue for you, then the router will do. However, an access point keeps everything on the same network/subnet and you don't have that kind of issue. All it is is a switch for wireless devices. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish: extend your current network, or connect but isolate your wireless network. There are valid reasons to do either.
Click to expand...

You are making this more complicated than it needs to be for the OP.

Mike Clements had the correct response.

The OP just needs to buy the wireless router (NOT access point!) of his choice, connect it to a computer all by itself, and do two things:

First, reset the IP of the new router so that it does not conflict with the original router. Something like 192.168.1.254 would be fine if the original is on 192.168.1.1.

The second thing is to turn off DHCP on the new router. After those two things are done, the cable from the original router can be connected to the new router. The cable from the original router connects to a LAN port on the new wireless router, NOT the WAN port.

So then you have your wireless access point and several spare wired ports. If you go buy a wireless access point, it's MORE EXPENSIVE than a wireless router and you usually don't get the extra wired ports. You likely would not get the latest wireless tech in a WAP either. I can't imagine any reason to buy a WAP, I expect that they will be discontinued at some point.
 
Thank you very much for that response, I understand all of that perfectly and it's good to know using a router instead of an Access Point will work perfectly fine after ajusting some settings.

I will use a couple of the wired ports on the router but wireless is the most important thing. Out of all of the routers out there, I want to find the one with the best range that maintains a very solid speed/signal.
 
Well maybe I can forget that last router. How about this Netgear: http://reviews.cnet.com/Netgear_WPNT834_RangeMax_240/4505-3243_7-31594292.html

Thats a 93.8 MBPS speed for short range wireless. Now for this router, you would of course need to buy the adapter for which I am now a big fan of but it's not that bad. Will this work though is it's connected to my Comcast gateway and not a regular modem?

And another big question I have is this: I do not have a network in my house in which I share things between computers. None of them are connected to eachother at all. All computers in my house only connect to one thing and thats the internet... it's all I need. Since it's only the internet, is there a difference between 30 mbps and 80 mbps?
 
Since you are just using the internet you will not need a super fast wireless connection on account of your average home connection will be around 2-8mbps which Wireless B can handle fine. However you should should get a wireless router that is your internet speed x number of clients connected on wifi so you can get the maximum speed from your internet connection. On wireless access points all devices have to share the total bandwidth of the device. So say you have a 8mbps internet connection and 6 computers connecting to it by wifi, you will want at least 48mbps on wireless speed, so Wireless G would work just fine.
 
Well I think my connection is between 6-7 MBPS and I won't have any more than 3 computers in use at once... therefore Wireless G should be perfectly fine.

But what am I losing in speed compared to having a wired connection? Right now I'm connected to a Wireless G Network right next to the wireless router and even though the speed seems fine, online tests show my download speed isn't nearly as good as it is connected to the router.

6236 download, 712 Upload on Wireless
12949 download, 718 upload on Wired

*In KBPS @ http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/

With the slower download time on wireless, when would this come into play?
 
You will have slow down with wireless always, but I have never seen a case where there was that much of a difference. But I think you should be fine, you would really never need for more then 6mbps in my opinion on the internet really.
 
Okay, I don't need a fantastic speed in my house and regular Wireless 54g should be fine for me. The problem is that will the size of my house, I need a new router that can cover a good amount of ground. The router will be placed in the top floor of my house and will need to cover the two floors below it... at least those two floors are directly below where the router will go... But I want one that will be able to go down two floors and still have a strong signal. Any recommendations?
 
I've looked at a lot of routers like that and me question is, do I need to adapters to get such good range? What if I don't have the adapters?
 
Basically, is it possible to get the advertised 108 MBPS just by using a standard built in wireless card or is it a must you buy a special adapter?
 
99% of the time, to get ANYTHING outside of the accepted standards (b=11, g=54, etc), you will need that same brand/series of adapter. There are only a handful of chipset makers in the world, but once the Manufacturers get a hold of them and build their drivers similarity seems to go out the window. And there are VERY few Mini-PCI aftermarket WIFI adapters, so that narrows the field down even more.

So the short answer to your question is No.
 
Nate7311 said:
99% of the time, to get ANYTHING outside of the accepted standards (b=11, g=54, etc), you will need that same brand/series of adapter. There are only a handful of chipset makers in the world, but once the Manufacturers get a hold of them and build their drivers similarity seems to go out the window. And there are VERY few Mini-PCI aftermarket WIFI adapters, so that narrows the field down even more.

So the short answer to your question is No.
Click to expand...

That is true about getting a connect rate higher than 54mbps.

However, I knew I was not going to get the 108mbps rates when I bought the one above, I just wanted the increased range. The MIMO routers have technology that gives them better range than a "standard" wireless router.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-input_multiple-output_communications

EDIT: I have to differ on the Netgear suggestion. My direct experience is that they overheat and are unreliable.

http://forum.emule-project.net/lofiversion/index.php/t102959.html
 
Well I just want wireless at a decent signal... again, I'm just using the internet here. I need a router that will span 100 feet or so and maintain a solid signal.

To tell you the truth, I would prefer to lean towards a different company than netgear. I have their powerline networking device and I've had tons of issues with it and the support is terrible. I was leaning towards just getting a linksys router since I'm a big fan of their equipment until I realized their range is poor.
 
mpic92 said:
Again, range is the most important thing for me.
Click to expand...

Right..... that's why I recommended the one that I did. :)

Last I read, many of the "N" chipsets were having issues and the MIMO routers were actually out performing them in live tests.

This is from the D-Link site on the DI-634M:

WHOLE HOME COVERAGE
D-Link’s Wireless 108G MIMO Router featuring Double XR (2XR) Technology is capable of delivering wireless signals that provide unrivaled wireless coverage and faster wireless signal rates than standard 802.11g. Based on a new Quad Smart Antenna design, the powerful DI-634M can distribute enough bandwidth to maintain a strong wireless connection over farther distances.

Whatever you decide on, try to buy from a business that will let you return the router if it doesn't work as you need it to.
 
But wouldn't I need an adapter for the things using it in order to achieve such range? My laptop doesn't have a spot to put it in.... I dont think.
 
Yep, that adapter would work if you want 108mbps, but I thought that was not needed.

You'll get increased range even on the current built-in wireless adapter in your laptop. You just need to buy the new adapters if you also want the faster speeds.
 
Since I'm only using the internet, do the speeds apply to me? I only want the range. Can that be achieved without the adapter?
 
Also, whats the difference between the 634 router you suggested and the 624 model. Both are 108 MBPS but the 634 is MIMO and the 624 isn't? Do I need an adapter for the MIMO to work?
 
mpic92 said:
Since I'm only using the internet, do the speeds apply to me? I only want the range. Can that be achieved without the adapter?
Click to expand...

Seems like we are talking in circles here. :)

No, you do NOT need the extra adapter to get improved range from the laptop. The 54mbps you'll get is more than fast enough for internet access.

The only warning on this is if the laptop's built-in wireless adapter sucks. But if that's true, it's going to suck no matter what router you buy.

I would go with this one first and see if there are any problems with coverage, I bet it will work fine. Buy it from someplace you can return it if you need to. As long as there is not a restocking fee, the only investment is your time to see if it works ok.

You could always bring in bigger artillery later if needed, different router, external antennas, etc.
 
mpic92 said:
Also, whats the difference between the 634 router you suggested and the 624 model. Both are 108 MBPS but the 634 is MIMO and the 624 isn't? Do I need an adapter for the MIMO to work?
Click to expand...

You want the MIMO (read the wiki link above). The MIMO is the technology that gives you the better range/coverage than a regular one.

>>Do I need an adapter for the MIMO to work?

NO, the one built-in to the laptop will work fine!
(Where's my mega-phone?) :D
 
Okay!!! Sorry for being a bit repetitive, I just want to be positive about the choice I make. Unless I find anything else out, I will probably try the router you suggested.

Now I just have to go back to my first question in my other thread of making sure regular cat5e UTP cable is fine to wire across my attic.
 
mpic92 said:
Okay!!! Sorry for being a bit repetitive, I just want to be positive about the choice I make. Unless I find anything else out, I will probably try the router you suggested.

Now I just have to go back to my first question in my other thread of making sure regular cat5e UTP cable is fine to wire across my attic.
Click to expand...

Another good choice would be the ZyXEL X-550 (also MIMO). I can't speak for personal experience with that one, but it does seem to be getting excellent feedback.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16833181218
 
Okay, I think I'll start with the DLink model you first suggested. I'm more familiar with DLink and with you being able to personally recommend it, it seems like a good choice to start with.

So when I connect this to my other router, I'm supposed to plug the ethernet cable into one of the four LAN ports and not the WAN. Then I'm supposed to go and disable DHCP? Will I have to manually enter the computers that will use it wirelessly into the router settings?
 
>>not the WAN

Correct.
See post #13 in this thread for how to setup the new router.

You can enter the MAC addresses of the wireless computers if you like, but it's not required. That would be a security measure to limit wireless connections to only the computers you specify. Not a bad idea to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top