Should I buy a 'real' AP, or just another router?

[Bart]

Hi all,

I want to expand the coverage of my wireless network. My router is a d-link DIR-655, which has been working fine for a couple of years now.

I've recently moved to a new house, and in this building, the second floor only gets very poor WiFi reception. So I'm guessing I've got three options now:

1) Buy a new router, I'm thinking about the Asus RT-AC66U. But, from what I've read, a new router, even a more recent model, does not necessarily mean it'll give me more coverage. More likely the opposite even...

2) I don't really like the idea of repeaters, since I've always read they'll half my thoughput. I also have bad experiences with those, but granted, that was several years ago. These products may have improved since then. But, since I've got a Cat6 cable running from my technical room downstairs to my room upstairs anyway, I figure I would just as well buy a real Access Point and put one of those upstairs. Maybe something like the d-link DAP-1360 or DAP-1522. It doesn't really matter if it's only 2.4 Ghz, my router's the same (for now).

3) Buy another router, disable the DHCP server and I've basically also got an access point, right?

I don't really know what the difference is between option 2 and 3. I mean, I know the physical difference, but contrary to what I would have thought, and Access Point is more expensive than another router! So are there advantages into buying a real Access Point and not just a router from which I would 'make' an Access Point. I mean, if I buy something like the Tp Link WR1043nd, and entire new router would cost me something like 35 euro. The D-link DAP-1522 Access Point is almost double that amount. An EnGenious Access Point is easily five times that amount, that's even more expensive than a new Asus RT-AC66U router!

So what's the catch here? Am I missing something obvious?

Thanks for any info you guys can provide! Cheers!

 

[thiggins]

A "Real" AP is going to cost you more and have features more suited for large business networks that aren't going to be useful to you. Convert a router.

 

[CaptainSTX]

Backup

Another plus of using a router as an AP is that when your primary router dies you can quickly convert your AP/router to being a router again until you replace or repair the failed equipment.

 

[stevech]

hardware is about the same.
Radio hardware part of AP and WiFi router is the same.

 

[Bart]

Ok, so converting a router it is!

Just to be sure: all that would take is me buying a second router, disabling its DHCP server and putting a cable from the LAN to LAN interface (ignoring the WAN on the new router). Then, set the SSID of both routers to the same name. That's it, right? Also, should I put then both on the same wireless channel, or put the first on channel 1 and the second on channel 6 or 11?

Also, just because I'm curious, why is an AP more expensive than a router? Because routers are sold in larger quantities?

Thx!

 

[CaptainSTX]

Read the Article On this Site About repurposing routers

Definitely different non over lapping channel.

Use different SSID so you can tell if you are connected to router or AP. Some people will tell you otherwise, but do the research and read the article and the reason for different SSIDs will be explained.

 

[Bart]

Ok, will do! Thanks!

 

[Nerre]

Don't forget to set a static IP address on the router first.

 

[djgizmo]

Yep. Also, when you set your IP for the new router, make sure you set both the IP and Subnet WITHIN your current ip range.

Just setting an ip but outside of the subnet will cause problems. Personally I'd recommend carving out at least 50 ips before dhcp.

Example:
Router 1: 192.168.1.1
Router 2: 192.168.1.2 (connected at the switch side to the router 1 switch side)
DHCP start: 192.168.1.51

Like others have said, use different SSIDs / different channels. This will prevent bandwidth from falling apart.

 

[Dreamslacker]

Also, just because I'm curious, why is an AP more expensive than a router? Because routers are sold in larger quantities?

A proper access point caters more towards business/ corporate use and has features as such that are not commonly found in cheaper routers.
eg. Multi-SSID with VLAN tagging, configurable management VLAN, scheduling per SSID, access control via radius, vouchering system, PoE etc.

Some of these features require pricier components and/ or additional components (PoE for instance).

Furthermore, these often require extensive R&D to develop compared to regular routers where you can often get a BSP and stock firmware for modification.

 

[ayryq]

I've had good luck with same SSID, multiple channels, with the addition of an application such as "Wifi Roaming Fix" (for android) which ditches the weaker connection for the stronger one, instead of waiting for the weaker one to be completely dead before switching. Otherwise you'll be either constantly switching networks (if you use multiple SSID) or disconnecting/reconnecting (if you use multiple channels).

Eric

 

[stevech]

Cisco has (used to have?) software for the client devices called Cisco Certified Extensions (CCE) or some such. They generously open sourced it so that it could work with non-Cisco WiFi in client devices. With CCE, client devices could do true fast handoff - but only if the WiFi access point was Cisco's. Reason: At that time, the Cisco APs sent, in the WiFi SSID broadcast that is sent 10/sec, a list of neighbor APs. The client could then learn the nearby APs that it might need to use if the current AP's signal declined too much - rather than doing a scan/search for APs on the same/different channel.

This CCE was key to WiFi based VoIP like Vocera does. To change fast enough to not glitch the VoIP stream.

Also in fast handoff was / is a design for APs to pass off AAA (RADIUS) authentication session data so that when changing, the client didn't have to re-authenticate - and that's rather slow.

The above is in the context of "fat" APs, i.e., unmanaged and controller-less.

All this stuff never was in IEEE's standards, nor did the WiFi alliance step up and standardize it. So Cisco and Aruba and very few other do this now, with their managed APs.

Nice that there is apparently an Android App to do semi-fast roaming without the clues on neighbor APs sent in the AP SSID broadcast. Probably doesn't do the AAA fast, but perhaps it can reduce the time to find next-best AP.

What's the name of the Android app?

 

[ayryq]

The one I use is actually called "Wifi Roaming Fix"

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.heleron.wifiroamingfix&hl=en

There are others including apps which switch to a different SSID (instead of a different channel). Wifi Roaming Fix does not switch away from your android-chosen network, it just looks for that same network on a different frequency and switches if there's one that's stronger. It does seem to have a "buffer" so it doesn't switch back and forth too much if you're on the edge between two APs.