Using separate wifi routers for 802.11b and 802.11g clients

dandyrandy · 10-27-2005

In an effort to segregate the 802.11g devices from the 802.11b devices on my network, I've added an additional wireless router to the mix, set to accept wireless connections from only 802.11b clients. However it's not working as well as I had hoped - dropped connections, rebuffering of streaming media, etc.

The original router (Linksys WRT54G) is connected to the cable modem, is set to accept wireless connections from only 802.11g clients and is alloting NAT IP addresses via DHCP. I have a CAT 5 cable running from a LAN port on the Linksys to a LAN port on the new one (Hawking HWR54G), which is assigned a static IP address within my subnet. I am successful in accessing the new router's web interface from a client attached to the original router. The new router is set to function as an access point, and its DHCP function is disabled.

The wireless clients on the new router (a TiVo and a couple of Roku Soundbridge media players) can all get an IP address from the original router, but they lose the connection after a while, then reacquire it. The Soundbridges are rebuffering, which is something that didn't happen when they were connected (wirelessly) to the Linksys.

So hardware-wise, do I have this set up correctly for what I want to do? What might I have missed?

streaker69 · 10-27-2005

Chances are you have interferance causing your problem. Have you any other 2.4ghz devices in your home or nearby that could be causing problems.

Airstreamer · 10-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by dandyrandy

In an effort to segregate the 802.11g devices from the 802.11b devices on my network, I've added an additional wireless router to the mix, set to accept wireless connections from only 802.11b clients. However it's not working as well as I had hoped - dropped connections, rebuffering of streaming media, etc.

The original router (Linksys WRT54G) is connected to the cable modem, is set to accept wireless connections from only 802.11g clients and is alloting NAT IP addresses via DHCP. I have a CAT 5 cable running from a LAN port on the Linksys to a LAN port on the new one (Hawking HWR54G), which is assigned a static IP address within my subnet. I am successful in accessing the new router's web interface from a client attached to the original router. The new router is set to function as an access point, and its DHCP function is disabled.

The wireless clients on the new router (a TiVo and a couple of Roku Soundbridge media players) can all get an IP address from the original router, but they lose the connection after a while, then reacquire it. The Soundbridges are rebuffering, which is something that didn't happen when they were connected (wirelessly) to the Linksys.

So hardware-wise, do I have this set up correctly for what I want to do? What might I have missed?

That b and g operate on the same frequency.

dandyrandy · 10-27-2005

I was careful about channel selection, and the routers are separated by about ten feet.

streaker69 · 10-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by dandyrandy

I was careful about channel selection, and the routers are separated by about ten feet.

Well, good for you, how about 2.4ghz phones, surveillance cameras, baby monitors, toothbrushes and anything else? They can cause issues as can other AP's on same or adjacent channels.

10 Feet might be a bit close, but they should work. Have you checked the stats page for lots of dropped packets on the AP's?

dandyrandy · 10-27-2005

Nope, nope, nope, yes on the toothbrush, and nothing else that would interfere. I have not ruled out other APs in the neighborhood, and have not checked the AP logs, and will add that to the list.

streaker69 · 10-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by dandyrandy

Nope, nope, nope, yes on the toothbrush, and nothing else that would interfere. I have not ruled out other APs in the neighborhood, and have not checked the AP logs, and will add that to the list.

Uh, what about your neighbors, do they have any of those devices?

Does the problem occur around dinner time maybe?

dandyrandy · 10-27-2005

Well, I wouldn't feel comfortable enquiring about my neighbor's toothbrushing habits, but I suppose it's possible. I can say, however, that I've not experienced any interference problems before I started to mix it up.

And the problem is persistent, throughout all dayparts.

streaker69 · 10-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by dandyrandy

Well, I wouldn't feel comfortable enquiring about my neighbor's toothbrushing habits, but I suppose it's possible. I can say, however, that I've not experienced any interference problems before I started to mix it up.

And the problem is persistent, throughout all dayparts.

I just thought of this. Your two AP's, are they on the same channel? If they are, they shouldn't be.

Gr-Dragon · 10-31-2005

Or maybe on overlapping channels? Should be on 1, 6, or 11.

Edit: Also, why don't you just sell both routers and get a MIMO router? You'll have better range and it won't throttle down your g clients to serve your b clients.

streaker69 · 10-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gr-Dragon

Or maybe on overlapping channels? Should be on 1, 6, or 11.

Edit: Also, why don't you just sell both routers and get a MIMO router? You'll have better range and it won't throttle down your g clients to serve your b clients.

Why would he want to use the three most popular channels? These are the stats of 14037 AP's that I've logged, and the stats fall in line with the global stats for channel usage.

It would be wiser to use less used channels.

Channel 01: 1142 8.14%
Channel 02: 130 0.93%
Channel 03: 206 1.47%
Channel 04: 109 0.78%
Channel 05: 119 0.85%
Channel 06: 7655 54.53%
Channel 07: 151 1.08%
Channel 08: 129 0.92%
Channel 09: 176 1.25%
Channel 10: 638 4.55%
Channel 11: 3013 21.46%

Gr-Dragon · 11-01-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by streaker69

Why would he want to use the three most popular channels? These are the stats of 14037 AP's that I've logged, and the stats fall in line with the global stats for channel usage.

It would be wiser to use less used channels.

Channel 01: 1142 8.14%
Channel 02: 130 0.93%
Channel 03: 206 1.47%
Channel 04: 109 0.78%
Channel 05: 119 0.85%
Channel 06: 7655 54.53%
Channel 07: 151 1.08%
Channel 08: 129 0.92%
Channel 09: 176 1.25%
Channel 10: 638 4.55%
Channel 11: 3013 21.46%

Why? Because every other channel partially overlaps in frequency and causes a poor signal if another similar channel is in range... Look it up. That is oversimplified, but is the short answer. They're the most common because 6 is generally default and most people with the sense to change it realize they should use 1 or 11.

streaker69 · 11-01-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gr-Dragon

Why? Because every other channel partially overlaps in frequency and causes a poor signal if another similar channel is in range... Look it up. They're the most common because 6 is default and most people with the sense to change it realize they should use 1 or 11.

I realize that they overlap as well. But if the OP were to do a survey, he could find a channel that would not be overlapping with his potential neighbors, and not be on the most common channels used.

Gr-Dragon · 11-01-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by streaker69

I realize that they overlap as well. But if the OP were to do a survey, he could find a channel that would not be overlapping with his potential neighbors, and not be on the most common channels used.

Well to go into it further... the channels have 5mhz staggers between center frequencies, and the conception that 1, 6, and 11 do no overlap operates under the assumption of a proper spectral mask. There is enough variance in transmitting power with equipment available now that that isn't always true at reasonable distances even with 1, 6, and 11... most of your neighbors are going to be on 6, so the only real question is whether to be on 1 or 11. They are the furthest (legally) spaced from 6. Choosing which depends on if any of your neighbors are on either... if not, go with 1 just because it's the least used of the three.

Edit: Also, you should play around with it if you suspect interference from other (non-networking) ~2.4Ghz devices.

Thorn · 11-01-2005

Don't get hung up on the 1, 6, 11 seperation as the endall, be all. While it's true that is the most popular sepration scheme, there are others. First of all is the 1, 4, 8, 11 which has proven to be both fucntional and useful in many enterprize locations. Use of a fourth channel allows a much more flexible use of 3D space. Due the the way that 802.11 operates the minor overlap is not detremental to the overall functions.

Secondly, depending on localized interference, you may want to use some other scheme. As long as you seperate the channels by a count of 3 or 4 channels, you should be able to have two APs fucntioning in the same area. So schemes such as Ch3 and Ch 7 may be ideal for someone who is seeing interference at both ends of the band, but has little or no problems in the middle of the band and needs two APs.

10-27-2005	#1 (permalink)
dandyrandy Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4	Using separate wifi routers for 802.11b and 802.11g clients In an effort to segregate the 802.11g devices from the 802.11b devices on my network, I've added an additional wireless router to the mix, set to accept wireless connections from only 802.11b clients. However it's not working as well as I had hoped - dropped connections, rebuffering of streaming media, etc. The original router (Linksys WRT54G) is connected to the cable modem, is set to accept wireless connections from only 802.11g clients and is alloting NAT IP addresses via DHCP. I have a CAT 5 cable running from a LAN port on the Linksys to a LAN port on the new one (Hawking HWR54G), which is assigned a static IP address within my subnet. I am successful in accessing the new router's web interface from a client attached to the original router. The new router is set to function as an access point, and its DHCP function is disabled. The wireless clients on the new router (a TiVo and a couple of Roku Soundbridge media players) can all get an IP address from the original router, but they lose the connection after a while, then reacquire it. The Soundbridges are rebuffering, which is something that didn't happen when they were connected (wirelessly) to the Linksys. So hardware-wise, do I have this set up correctly for what I want to do? What might I have missed? Last edited by dandyrandy : 10-27-2005 at 05:22 PM.

10-27-2005	#2 (permalink)
streaker69 Psychic Amish Stumbler Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Virginville, BlueBall, Bird In Hand, Intercourse, Paradise, PA Posts: 12,239	Chances are you have interferance causing your problem. Have you any other 2.4ghz devices in your home or nearby that could be causing problems. __________________ Treat your gun like your genitals, only whip it out when it's absolutely necessary.

11-01-2005	#15 (permalink)
Thorn Did you do the math? Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Villa Straylight Posts: 10,358	Don't get hung up on the 1, 6, 11 seperation as the endall, be all. While it's true that is the most popular sepration scheme, there are others. First of all is the 1, 4, 8, 11 which has proven to be both fucntional and useful in many enterprize locations. Use of a fourth channel allows a much more flexible use of 3D space. Due the the way that 802.11 operates the minor overlap is not detremental to the overall functions. Secondly, depending on localized interference, you may want to use some other scheme. As long as you seperate the channels by a count of 3 or 4 channels, you should be able to have two APs fucntioning in the same area. So schemes such as Ch3 and Ch 7 may be ideal for someone who is seeing interference at both ends of the band, but has little or no problems in the middle of the band and needs two APs. __________________ Thorn "Read Altas Shrugged. Compare it to today. Repeat as necessary" Last edited by Thorn : 11-01-2005 at 08:33 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-27-2005	#4 (permalink)
dandyrandy Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4	I was careful about channel selection, and the routers are separated by about ten feet.

10-27-2005	#6 (permalink)
dandyrandy Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4	Nope, nope, nope, yes on the toothbrush, and nothing else that would interfere. I have not ruled out other APs in the neighborhood, and have not checked the AP logs, and will add that to the list.

10-27-2005	#8 (permalink)
dandyrandy Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4	Well, I wouldn't feel comfortable enquiring about my neighbor's toothbrushing habits, but I suppose it's possible. I can say, however, that I've not experienced any interference problems before I started to mix it up. And the problem is persistent, throughout all dayparts.

10-31-2005	#10 (permalink)
Gr-Dragon Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 12	Or maybe on overlapping channels? Should be on 1, 6, or 11. Edit: Also, why don't you just sell both routers and get a MIMO router? You'll have better range and it won't throttle down your g clients to serve your b clients.