Intelligent way to use two access points? (DD-WRT)

[Axel]

Hi all,

 

I found that it's not possible to cover my house with a single router/ap.  I therefore decided to buy a second linksys e4200v1 and deploy it at the other end (I ran some long Cat5e from the main router).  

 

I have DD-WRT installed on both. I did try to set them both up with the same SSID and security options etc but that resulted in spotty performance when in the middle of the house. 

 

I therefore chose to use a different SSID for either.  Trouble with this is that I could be sat right next to the primary router and an iphone/laptop etc will STILL try to connect to the one at the other end of the house until I tell it otherwise.

 

I know big buildings must have a decent solution to this problem with multiple AP's.

 

Any ideas?

 

Cheers,

 

Alex

[TPreston]

No, You need Wireless Domain Services http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless-mobility/wireless-lan-wlan/65346-wds-faq.html otherwise you just have dumb access points and you could connect to an access point that's almost out of range instead of the one you are just standing beside.

 

The only thing you can do is have a dead zone in the middle of the house so theres no chance of this happening

[T3X4S]

4200v1 ?!?!  Why would you buy a 2^nd router that was so bad they had to completely redo it and call it e4200v2 ??



 

[Roger H. Veteran]

4200v1 ?!?!  Why would you buy a 2^nd router that was so bad they had to completely redo it and call it e4200v2 ??

 

Who told you V1 was bad? V1 is the better one actually as it supports third party (DD-WRT). V2 was some marvel crap that has no support and was dead out the door. The replaced it almost right away. People buying that router today and still trying to find V1 version instead.

 

Also DD-WRT supports WDS so should be easy to setup with some tutuorials out there.

[TPreston]

 Wireless distribution system is not Wireless Domain Services though that's just multiple dumb aps. Its entirely possible that you could connect to the access point in the attic instead of the one you are right next to hence the trouble in the middle of the house.

[sc302 Veteran]

Turn up your roaming aggressiveness. This will help your wifi adapter to choose the one with the better signal

 

http://www.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/CS-030101.htm

https://kb.meraki.com/knowledge_base/client-roaming-and-connectivity-decisions-explained

 

Big installs will use a combination of blocking access after a certain amount of clients that have connected to the AP and they will not allow if the signal strength isn't there.  Also they will up their roaming agressiveness so that the client tries to pick the AP with the better signal. 

[+BudMan MVC]

With sc302 here, changing this can help it move between AP. You really should have them set for the same SSID, or you going to get blips when you change, etc.

You could check with dd-wrt and see if it has options for setting a min RSSI, this way it won't let clients connect if signal is not good. This would force client to go to the other AP. You would have to be careful that you don't have a dead spot where you don't meet either AP rssi, etc.

Not sure if dd-wrt support this, any enterprise class AP would, or unifi for example supports doing this. This is how you make sure you don't get long range clients connecting to you with bad connection bringing everyone else on the AP down in performance.

If your AP don't support such features to kick bad clients, then you need to do it on the client like sc302 links talk about.

[daorbed9]

Turn up your roaming aggressiveness. This will help your wifi adapter to choose the one with the better signal

 

http://www.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/CS-030101.htm

https://kb.meraki.com/knowledge_base/client-roaming-and-connectivity-decisions-explained

 

Big installs will use a combination of blocking access after a certain amount of clients that have connected to the AP and they will not allow if the signal strength isn't there.  Also they will up their roaming agressiveness so that the client tries to pick the AP with the better signal. 

 

Problem is 90% of the roaming devices are tablets or phones which don't have any way to adjust it.

[daorbed9]

With sc302 here, changing this can help it move between AP. You really should have them set for the same SSID, or you going to get blips when you change, etc.

You could check with dd-wrt and see if it has options for setting a min RSSI, this way it won't let clients connect if signal is not good. This would force client to go to the other AP. You would have to be careful that you don't have a dead spot where you don't meet either AP rssi, etc.

Not sure if dd-wrt support this, any enterprise class AP would, or unifi for example supports doing this. This is how you make sure you don't get long range clients connecting to you with bad connection bringing everyone else on the AP down in performance.

If your AP don't support such features to kick bad clients, then you need to do it on the client like sc302 links talk about.

 

Yeah i've tested them extensively using different SSID and the same and it does seem to be affected by the hardware connecting but it is almost always better to have them the same name.  But unfortunately some older phones tend to stick on the crappy signal it can barely pick up even when you try to switch it.  So there doesn't seem to be best scenario.  Honestly the access points and routers need much better integration.  It's unfortunate we have such crappy choices for network equipment unless its enterprise grade.

[sc302 Veteran]

Not really, Ubiquiti is very affordable unless you want the latest and greatest. 

 

You can pickup a UAP for 69.  A UAP-LR for 89.  A UAP-Pro for 229.  A UAP-AC for 299. 

 

The pro and the ac may be out of your price range but the standard UAP and LR may be well within your budget.

https://store.ubnt.com/unifi.html

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ubiquiti&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aubiquiti

 

Also to be able to drop based on signal strength with the ubiquiti APs it is done through the CLI. 

https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Configuration-Examples/UniFi-Set-minimum-RSSI-for-clients/ta-p/522637

 

 

The issue is that it is the client that decides what AP to connect to, the AP basically sits there waiting on the client to connect to it with the right credentials.  This needs to be fixed at the client level not the AP, you can only tell the ap to kick it.  If the client is dumb enough to select the same AP it will get kicked again after a few minutes.

[+BudMan MVC]

LR really a waste of money.. People get hung up on tx power of the AP, and forget about the tx power of the client.. Which is normally going to be the problem. Does not matter if the client can see the signal from the AP with full bars, if its little tx power can not get back to the AP, etc.

While the LR might have place in specific applications, in a home setup or office building, etc. not so much.

I picked up the AC model a while back, and love it.. Some people seem to have issues - but it has performed for me exactly how I would of hoped. Some might say $300 is a bit much, but you can drop that on a wifi router without too much effort as well. Having enterprise sort of features are great to play with, and the info you get from the controller software is very useful if needed to troubleshoot wireless issues or just keep an eye on your clients and their use, etc.

I wish I had a bigger house to have an excuse to deploy more of them ;) I am toying with getting the outdoor model for my patio - I only get about 30+ mbps out there ;) Maybe in the spring ;)

I justified the cost because this is what I do for a living, and being able to play/test with AC was icing on the cake or prob would of went with just the pro model.

[sc302 Veteran]

Being that I just realized you are in the UK

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ubiquiti

[TPreston]

Ive seen this tried in so many places and people add more and more access points to fill in the dead zones which creates more problems with the client selecting the wrong access point.

 

Tbhonest its a case of you either put up with the crap speeds where access points overlap and the client selects the wrong ap instead of the closest or you give in and eliminate the possibility of this happening by ensuring there is no overlap between access points (creating dead zones).

 

Or you could get the gear that can do this correctly which is cisco aironet with Wireless Domain Services (in short intelligent access points that don't simply connect a device to an ap randomly based on who responds first but based on which will provide the best signal to the client) .

There really is no other way of doing this right, Either you have dumb access points that will connect a device to whichever one responds first or you have intelligent ones that connect you to whichever access point is closest to you with the added benefit of not having to re-authenticate every time you change access points (Fast secure roaming).

 

Q. What is the radio management (RM) feature of WDS?

 

A. A WDS-enabled AP also acts as an aggregator for radio frequency (RF) statistics from the other APs. The WDS-enabled AP passes along these statistics to the Wireless LAN Solution Engine (WLSE) in order to highlight rogue APs. The monitor of RF allows the WLSE to create a map of wireless coverage. The WLSE also uses current APs in order to carry out site surveys and identify areas with no coverage. You can import floor plans onto the software to make areas where you need extra APs easy to spot.

 

 The only thing you need to worry about when you have Wireless Domain Services is that the channels don't overlap.They're cheap enough on ebay too

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cisco-AIR-LAP1252AG-A-K9-1252-WAP-AUTONOMOUS-firmware-w-Bracket-antennae-/201192856962?pt=US_Wireless_Access_Points&hash=item2ed8075d82

[sc302 Veteran]

Wds seems similar to ubiquitis zero handoff. But zero handoff needs to be on the same channel.

[T3X4S]

Who told you V1 was bad? V1 is the better one actually as it supports third party (DD-WRT). V2 was some marvel crap that has no support and was dead out the door. The replaced it almost right away. People buying that router today and still trying to find V1 version instead.

 

Also DD-WRT supports WDS so should be easy to setup with some tutuorials out there.

Then I am completely confused.

A couple of years ago, I built a gaming computer for the son of one of my parents' neighbors.  The dad was the Sr Exec VP of operations for Linksys North America - he gave me a 4200 as a gift.  After I told him about the issues of constantly rebooting, and dropped signals, he "had the guys whip up a custom FW update" which he gave me.  He was using same router at his house.  Eventually, I sold it because I would see so many other people with the same exact problems, I knew it wouldn't get better (even after going to regular release FW)   So I switched to the netgear WNDR3700 and used that for a while.

Then I heard they came out with a V2, so - my thinking was "OK they saw the first version was crap, and they ushered this one out " -- but what you're saying is opposite.

So, I dont know.