David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 07 Apr 2018 at 20:17:56 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
>> David Wright wrote:
>> > On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 16:26:47 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> It's a nuance in the semantics of what it means to "repeat" wifi.
>> >> Suffice to say, in order to "repeat" wifi, you have one radio splitting
>> >> its time between pretending to be an AP for a client device, and
>> >> pretending to be a client device to the upstream AP.
>> >
>> > Then I'm not sure why you wrote "Good deal". I'd be wanting the
>> > wireless connectivity described above as not needed, though obviously
>> > on a separate band/channel. Were you implying that that would kill
>> > throughput for everything too?
>> If he's using the buffalo device to "repeat" the wifi signal (which he
>> isn't), then yes the throughput would tank.
> OK, I'll just assume you don't know. Anybody else actually doing this
> (separate band (like 2/5 GHz) or channel (like channel 1/6/11) for the
> backhaul (inter-router) link)?

If you have a device repeating a WiFi signal, it *will* use the same
channel as the upstream AP.  It *cannot* use a different channel.

In the event you have a dual-band AP, and the following conditions are

  - 5GHz uplink
  - 2.4 GHz for clients

Then you are not "repeating" the WiFi signal to the downstream client
devices (and the throughput losses I mentioned would not come into

|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

Reply via email to