On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Richard Pieri <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/27/2014 3:06 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote: > > Even better you could just connect two of the LAN ports togther > > (either with a crossover cable or if auto-MIDX is supported on either > > router that might work as well. > > Um... Bill? That's what DD-WRT's Repeater Bridge does albeit over 802.11 > instead of 802.3. > > Admittedly, I made the assumption that a wired connection between access > points did not make sense under the circumstances. If a wired connection > is indicated then I would wire as you suggest to avoid double NAT. > It's hard to discuss this without diagrams. I would prefer "camp" <-- wireless --> G router <-- wired --> N router <-- wireless -> local clients to "camp" <-- wireless --> G router <-- wireless --> N router <-- wireless -> local clients in order to conserve local wireless bandwidth in the vicinity of the G & N routers. With three different wireless connections, you can't avoid band conflict when there are only two bands. Now you can proactively control the actual channels used for the G to N and N to client wireless networks to avoid overlap, but I still prefer wired as it requires less active management. Now maybe, you are suggesting something else. Perhaps, "camp" <-- wireless --> G router <-- wireless --> local clients It sounded though like he wanted to use both the hi-gain antennas on his G router as well as the higher bandwidth for local connections of his N router. If that is truly the case then I stand by my suggestion to make the G to N connection wired (if feasible). Bill Bogstad _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
