XPost: alt.internet.wireless

The current home router is currently set up as the LAN gateway on
192.168.1.1 and it's set to get the WAN Internet IP address from the modem,
and it's set to hand out DHCP addresses from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254.

I've just now configured a new replacement router the same way by
connecting it to the Ethernet port of my Windows PC & duplicating
the setup that was on the old router (as much as was possible).

I'm going to swap them, but I might lose my Internet so I ask now.

After I replace that current router with the new router, then I have an
extra router which I'd like to make some kind of future use of somehow.

I guess the simplest task is to re-use the spare router as a switch, right?
(I don't really need the extra four LAN ports but why not add them anyway?)

But how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

Do I change the old router IP address from 192.168.1.1 to a static IP of something unused in the range of 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254 or do I let
the replacement router (which is set up to hand out DHCP addresses in that range) do it?

Does it matter what IP address I set that new "dumb" switch to?

Mainly I'm asking (before I switch over) how to turn the now spare router
into something useful, such as a dumb switch (to get four more ports).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

dan wrote:

how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

disabling DHCP, making sure its IP addr doesn't clash with the new
router, not using the WAN port, link one of it's LAN ports to one of the
new router's LAN ports just about covers it, enable or disable wifi to suit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:57:37 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

dan wrote:

how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

disabling DHCP, making sure its IP addr doesn't clash with the new
router, not using the WAN port, link one of it's LAN ports to one of the
new router's LAN ports just about covers it, enable or disable wifi to suit.

I agree with Andy, but just wanted to add a bit of additional detail to
the DHCP step.

On the new router, adjust the DHCP scope to carve out the IP address
that you want to use for the old router, for example 192.168.1.2. So on
the new router, the DHCP scope would change from
192.168.1.2 - 192.168.1.254 to
192.168.1.3 - 192.168.1.254.

(Intentionally written that way to illustrate that 192.168.1.2 has been
removed from the DHCP scope.) That way, DHCP on the new router has no opportunity to assign that IP to any other node.

Then on the old router, manually assign 192.168.1.2 as its LAN IP, (its
WAN IP will remain blank and its WAN port will remain unused).

Insert, here, a note that if you're going to enable WiFi on both the old
router and the new router, if both are so equipped, separate the two
routers so that their radios aren't right next to each other.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:57:37 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

disabling DHCP, making sure its IP addr doesn't clash with the new
router, not using the WAN port, link one of it's LAN ports to one of the
new router's LAN ports just about covers it, enable or disable wifi to suit.

I did the swap, which took me from when I sent that msg until now, which is
a few hours because of a series of problems that I only just now overcame.

The first thing I didn't know was that the modem configuration for the WAN (let's call it 123.123.123.123/255.255.255.252) didn't automatically
transfer to the newly set up new router when I set up to "Get dynamically
from ISP" the Internet IP address from the modem. I don't know why.

The result was I could connect to the newly set up router via wireless or
via ethernet wired to one a LAN port from the PC but there was no Internet.

So I had to set up the new router to "Use static IP address" of (let's say) 123.123.123.123/255.255.255.252 & only then did it work. I don't know why.

After the new router had Internet, I switched that new router setup back
from "Use static IP address" to "Get dynamically from ISP" (and it still worked). I did that because I don't know if my ISP changes my IP address or
not so I didn't want to take a chance. It's now set like the original was.

Now that the Internet is back, I can see your suggestions where I guess I
have some options, one of which is to turn the spare router into a dumb
switch (which should be the easiest thing to do with it, right?).

Is a switch a good use for a spare router?
I don't really need anything in particular, so that's why I ask.
I'm just trying to make use of the router now that I have it as a spare.

Are those all my options to make good use of a spare older router?
(I listed them below in terms of the assumed complexity of the setup.)
[1] dumb switch (gets me three or four extra LAN ports but nothing else)
[2] wired repeater (full speed) physically wired to the main gateway router
[3] wireless repeater (half speed) also connected to the main gateway router [4] wireless client bridge + AP connected to the main gateway router or any AP

I don't really need any of that but I guess I could always use more ports
and I guess I could use better coverage in the house in lower signal areas.

Back to the dumb switch, I see another post so I'll take the setup there.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 17:27:21 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

disabling DHCP, making sure its IP addr doesn't clash with the new
router, not using the WAN port, link one of it's LAN ports to one of the >>new router's LAN ports just about covers it, enable or disable wifi to suit.

I agree with Andy, but just wanted to add a bit of additional detail to
the DHCP step.

Thanks because I don't know what I'm doing so I appreciate the advice.

I didn't realize until it was said above that I could not only get three or four extra LAN ports out of the spare router by using it as a dumb switch,
but also the 5GHz and 2GHz wi-fi access points. I didn't think of that.

That means my options for re-use of the old router seem to be these in
order of what I presume would be the complexity and risk of the setup.
[1] switch + AP (gets 3 or 4 ports + the 5GHz & 2GHz access points)
[2] wired repeater (full speed) physically wired to the gateway router
[3] wireless repeater (half speed) over the air to the gateway router
[4] wireless client bridge + AP over the air to the gateway router
(or over the air to any AP)

The switch idea is good because you always need more ports near the gateway router. The wired repeater is probably too much of a pain to physically
wire set up far from the gateway router because I don't want to drill holes
in walls and ceilings and the like just to make good use of a spare router.

The wireless repeater is easier to set up far from the gateway router but
it's half speed at best. And the wireless client bridge seems to be similar
to the wireless repeater. I'm not exactly sure the difference.

But I'll start with the switch plus the access points.

On the new router, adjust the DHCP scope to carve out the IP address
that you want to use for the old router, for example 192.168.1.2. So on
the new router, the DHCP scope would change from
192.168.1.2 - 192.168.1.254 to
192.168.1.3 - 192.168.1.254.

I was wondering about that because my phone is set to a static IP address
in the same range that the DHCP "scope" (using your word) is and it works.

(Intentionally written that way to illustrate that 192.168.1.2 has been removed from the DHCP scope.) That way, DHCP on the new router has no opportunity to assign that IP to any other node.

Thanks. I understand that you're saying to make the switch + AP on an IP address which is static and which is not handed out by the main router DHCP process.

Then on the old router, manually assign 192.168.1.2 as its LAN IP, (its
WAN IP will remain blank and its WAN port will remain unused).

I guess any conflict would most likely happen if/when the newly added
switch + AP is offline, but in general, it's not likely to be offline.

Insert, here, a note that if you're going to enable WiFi on both the old router and the new router, if both are so equipped, separate the two
routers so that their radios aren't right next to each other.

That's the thing that is making me wonder if there's something else I
should do with the spare router because the physical connection to the main gateway router means it has to be close (I'm not going to be cabling the walls).

And if it's close, then it's merely duplicating the existing coverage by
the wireless access points. Better to put it farther away to get better coverage in the house, but a wired repeater is out of the question because
it's too much work to run cabling.

That leaves only a wireless repeater + AP or a wireless client bridge + AP where I'm googling now to see if they're actually different or the same.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:ttthn7$2f3or$1@paganini.bofh.team:

The current home router is currently set up as the LAN gateway on
192.168.1.1 and it's set to get the WAN Internet IP address from the
modem, and it's set to hand out DHCP addresses from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254.

I've just now configured a new replacement router the same way by
connecting it to the Ethernet port of my Windows PC & duplicating
the setup that was on the old router (as much as was possible).

I'm going to swap them, but I might lose my Internet so I ask now.

After I replace that current router with the new router, then I have
an extra router which I'd like to make some kind of future use of
somehow.

I guess the simplest task is to re-use the spare router as a switch,
right? (I don't really need the extra four LAN ports but why not add
them anyway?)

But how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

Do I change the old router IP address from 192.168.1.1 to a static IP
of something unused in the range of 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254 or do
I let the replacement router (which is set up to hand out DHCP
addresses in that range) do it?

Does it matter what IP address I set that new "dumb" switch to?

Mainly I'm asking (before I switch over) how to turn the now spare
router into something useful, such as a dumb switch (to get four more
ports).

If by switch you mean a device that takes an incoming packet and routes
it to all of the other ports, I'm not sure it is possible. You might want
to wander the Net and look for software to flash to the old (now surplus) router to turn it into a switch. After all, there is no hardware reason
why that would not work, you just need the proper software to handle the
new task.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 01:41:44 GMT, MajorLanGod <lonelydad58@gmail.com>
wrote:

dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:ttthn7$2f3or$1@paganini.bofh.team:

The current home router is currently set up as the LAN gateway on
192.168.1.1 and it's set to get the WAN Internet IP address from the
modem, and it's set to hand out DHCP addresses from 192.168.1.2 to
192.168.1.254.

I've just now configured a new replacement router the same way by
connecting it to the Ethernet port of my Windows PC & duplicating
the setup that was on the old router (as much as was possible).

I'm going to swap them, but I might lose my Internet so I ask now.

After I replace that current router with the new router, then I have
an extra router which I'd like to make some kind of future use of
somehow.

I guess the simplest task is to re-use the spare router as a switch,
right? (I don't really need the extra four LAN ports but why not add
them anyway?)

But how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

Do I change the old router IP address from 192.168.1.1 to a static IP
of something unused in the range of 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254 or do
I let the replacement router (which is set up to hand out DHCP
addresses in that range) do it?

Does it matter what IP address I set that new "dumb" switch to?

Mainly I'm asking (before I switch over) how to turn the now spare
router into something useful, such as a dumb switch (to get four more
ports).

If by switch you mean a device that takes an incoming packet and routes
it to all of the other ports, I'm not sure it is possible.

Ethernet switches (the ones that operate on OSI layer 2, which is most
of them) forward incoming packets to a single port, unless it's a
broadcast or ARP or similar. No routing at layer 2. Routing happens at
layer 3.

You might want
to wander the Net and look for software to flash to the old (now surplus) >router to turn it into a switch.

Every router with more than one LAN port has an Ethernet switch built
in, almost always a 5-port switch where the 5th port is internally
connected to the router section. Therefore, every router with multiple
LAN ports can be turned into an unmanaged switch via simple
configuration. No extra software is required. Just disable DHCP and
don't connect anything to the WAN port and you have a switch.

After all, there is no hardware reason
why that would not work, you just need the proper software to handle the
new task.

The router's GUI can be used.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 00:07:54 -0200, dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 17:27:21 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

disabling DHCP, making sure its IP addr doesn't clash with the new >>>router, not using the WAN port, link one of it's LAN ports to one of the >>>new router's LAN ports just about covers it, enable or disable wifi to suit. >>

I agree with Andy, but just wanted to add a bit of additional detail to
the DHCP step.

Thanks because I don't know what I'm doing so I appreciate the advice.

I didn't realize until it was said above that I could not only get three or >four extra LAN ports out of the spare router by using it as a dumb switch, >but also the 5GHz and 2GHz wi-fi access points. I didn't think of that.

That means my options for re-use of the old router seem to be these in
order of what I presume would be the complexity and risk of the setup.
[1] switch + AP (gets 3 or 4 ports + the 5GHz & 2GHz access points)

That one's easy. You're probably already there.

[2] wired repeater (full speed) physically wired to the gateway router

I don't know what a wired repeater might be. It sounds like a regular
old Access Point (AP), typically with its own unique SSID.

[3] wireless repeater (half speed) over the air to the gateway router

The router's firmware would have to support that. Most OEM's don't offer
that option but you could check to see if 3rd party router firmware is available for your specific model. dd-wrt, openwrt, and tomato are all
fairly popular.

You're not likely to be happy with a half duplex repeater, though. In
theory, the throughput speed is cut half, but in practice it can be much
worse than that.

[4] wireless client bridge + AP over the air to the gateway router
(or over the air to any AP)

Again, the router's firmware would have to support that, and it probably doesn't, so you'd be looking for 3rd party firmware for this option, as
well.

The switch idea is good because you always need more ports near the gateway

I agree with needing more ports, up to a point, but check the speed of
those ports. If they're only 100 megabit, you may want to pass in favor
of a dedicated switch that handles gigabit. Switches with 5 or 8 gig
ports aren't expensive anymore.

router. The wired repeater is probably too much of a pain to physically
wire set up far from the gateway router because I don't want to drill holes >in walls and ceilings and the like just to make good use of a spare router.

The wireless repeater is easier to set up far from the gateway router but >it's half speed at best. And the wireless client bridge seems to be similar >to the wireless repeater. I'm not exactly sure the difference.

But I'll start with the switch plus the access points.

On the new router, adjust the DHCP scope to carve out the IP address
that you want to use for the old router, for example 192.168.1.2. So on
the new router, the DHCP scope would change from
192.168.1.2 - 192.168.1.254 to
192.168.1.3 - 192.168.1.254.

I was wondering about that because my phone is set to a static IP address
in the same range that the DHCP "scope" (using your word) is and it works.

Don't count on that always working. If your scope is .3 to .254 you
probably have a lot of room between the land mines but one day you may
find that there's an IP conflict, which is a mess until it gets
resolved. As a rule, you should never statically assign an IP address
that's also subject to being assigned via DHCP.

Some higher end gear checks to see if an IP address is in use before
assigning it via DHCP, but I'm thinking it's not likely that your gear
does that. Most of mine doesn't.

BTW, there's no rule that says you have to put the whole address range
into your DHCP scope. You could, for example, set DHCP to use .101 to
.199, which is still probably far more addresses than you need for DHCP clients. Anything outside of your scope is fair game to be statically
assigned.

(Intentionally written that way to illustrate that 192.168.1.2 has been
removed from the DHCP scope.) That way, DHCP on the new router has no
opportunity to assign that IP to any other node.

Thanks. I understand that you're saying to make the switch + AP on an IP >address which is static and which is not handed out by the main router DHCP >process.

Correct, assuming you decide to use it at all.

Then on the old router, manually assign 192.168.1.2 as its LAN IP, (its
WAN IP will remain blank and its WAN port will remain unused).

I guess any conflict would most likely happen if/when the newly added
switch + AP is offline, but in general, it's not likely to be offline.

Insert, here, a note that if you're going to enable WiFi on both the old
router and the new router, if both are so equipped, separate the two
routers so that their radios aren't right next to each other.

That's the thing that is making me wonder if there's something else I
should do with the spare router because the physical connection to the main >gateway router means it has to be close (I'm not going to be cabling the >walls).

And if it's close, then it's merely duplicating the existing coverage by
the wireless access points. Better to put it farther away to get better >coverage in the house, but a wired repeater is out of the question because >it's too much work to run cabling.

That leaves only a wireless repeater + AP or a wireless client bridge + AP >where I'm googling now to see if they're actually different or the same.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On 2023-03-04, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

The router's firmware would have to support that. Most OEM's don't offer
that option but you could check to see if 3rd party router firmware is
available for your specific model. dd-wrt, openwrt, and tomato are all
fairly popular.

He's likely to need dd-wrt but it can be installed on most recent routers.

As for the bridge versus the repeater this tries to explain dd-wrt's terminology but I find them both to be almost the same in practice. https://blog.flashrouters.com/2021/08/02/what-is-the-difference-between-client-bridge-wireless-repeater-modes-in-dd-wrt/

How Does the DD-WRT Client Wireless Bridge Differ from Repeater Mode?
"A Client Bridge links computers while a Wireless Repeater connects
routers. If you are looking to extend wireless access to more remote parts
of a home or office then use a Repeater. However, if you are looking to create a more seamless integrated network of computers without concern for extended wireless signal, then use a Client Bridge."

Assuming we're starting off with a soho router like the op seems to be
doing, then the way I look at the choice of setting it up as either a home wireless repeater or as a home wireless client bridge is the bridge is
clearly the way to go over the repeater.

I'm assuming you're not connecting different subnets for this declaration because if you're tying two networks together then you must use the bridge.

But if you're just trying to extend range inside a home on the same
network, then the wireless client bridge has what I understand to be a
speed advantage over the wireless repeater (assuming the same router in
both setups).

The wireless client bridge also can connect to just any old access point
inside your home (if you have them spread about that is) while the wireless client repeater (as far as I'm aware) must connect to another router only.

If you have a PC with an Ethernet NIC, you can use the RJ45 output to
connect to either the wireless bridge or the wireless repeater so that's
the same there in terms of connected to a computer by wire to extend that computer's range - but I'd use the bridge solely due to the faster speed.

In both cases you gain two new access points, where with the wireless
repeater, the router has two access points (5Ghz and 2.4Ghz) located in the remote location but it's the same with the wireless client bridge since it
also has the same two access points since we're comparing the same router
set up in two different configurations.

In the end analysis, assuming you have a normal dual access point router
set up either as a wireless client bridge or as a wireless repeater, as far
as I can tell from thinking about it, both do the same job except the
wireless repeater is restricted to connecting to only another router (and
not another access point) and the wireless repeater is limited in speed.

That makes it a no brainer to extend signal in a home with an extra typical router set up as a wireless client bridge, which you may need DD-WRT for.

I could be wrong because when I read the descriptions of the differences,
they don't sound anything like my experiences of using home soho routers as wireless client bridges and as wireless repeaters.

Let me know if I'm wrong as I'm only basing this on experience where I have
a wired repeater and a wireless client bridge set up at this very moment.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On 2023-03-03 18:35:00 +0000, Char Jackson said:

The router's firmware would have to support that. Most OEM's don't offer
that option but you could check to see if 3rd party router firmware is available for your specific model. dd-wrt, openwrt, and tomato are all
fairly popular.

He's likely to need dd-wrt but it can be installed on most recent routers.

As for the bridge versus the repeater this tries to explain dd-wrt's terminology but I find them both to be almost the same in practice. https://blog.flashrouters.com/2021/08/02/what-is-the-difference-between-client-bridge-wireless-repeater-modes-in-dd-wrt/

How Does the DD-WRT Client Wireless Bridge Differ from Repeater Mode?
"A Client Bridge links computers while a Wireless Repeater connects
routers. If you are looking to extend wireless access to more remote parts
of a home or office then use a Repeater. However, if you are looking to
create a more seamless integrated network of computers without concern for extended wireless signal, then use a Client Bridge."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Mar 03, 2023, dan wrote
(in article<news:ttu95e$2m1r5$1@paganini.bofh.team>):

That leaves only a wireless repeater + AP or a wireless client bridge + AP where I'm googling now to see if they're actually different or the same.

I don't know myself but this description is as clear as mud to me.

https://www.rezence.com/wireless-repeater-vs-bridge/
They both work so that your existing wireless signal can be reused and rebroadcast over a different range but they're different in how they do it.

A network bridge connects two sections of a network.
The repeaters can rebroadcast wireless signals.

Two routers are used in a Wi-Fi Repeater. The first wireless router picks
up the WiFi network you want to extend and transfers it to the second. You
get more network coverage because the second wireless router transmits a boosted signal.

The wireless bridge can be used to transmit signals from a distant location within a building. It will then carry the signals by cable back to another bridge within the router's range. The bridge doesn't automatically repeat
any signals it receives, so it eliminates the possibility of router signals being repeated to it. The remote bridge allows laptops to communicate wirelessly, first over cable and then wirelessly again to the router.

The repeater can send all traffic to the broadcast network, while bridges
can only work on one segment of a broadcast network segment.

The repeater works at the physical layer in the OSI model while the bridge functions at the Data link layer. The repeater can lengthen the cable in
the network while the bridge expands the network segment limit.

We hope that you found this article helpful in understanding the
fundamental differences between repeaters and bridges.

I didn't.
Maybe someone else can clarify what it said.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On 3/3/2023 12:27 PM, dan wrote:

The current home router is currently set up as the LAN gateway on
192.168.1.1 and it's set to get the WAN Internet IP address from the modem, and it's set to hand out DHCP addresses from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254.

I've just now configured a new replacement router the same way by
connecting it to the Ethernet port of my Windows PC & duplicating
the setup that was on the old router (as much as was possible).

I'm going to swap them, but I might lose my Internet so I ask now.

After I replace that current router with the new router, then I have an
extra router which I'd like to make some kind of future use of somehow.

I guess the simplest task is to re-use the spare router as a switch, right? (I don't really need the extra four LAN ports but why not add them anyway?)

But how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

Do I change the old router IP address from 192.168.1.1 to a static IP of something unused in the range of 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254 or do I let
the replacement router (which is set up to hand out DHCP addresses in that range) do it?

Does it matter what IP address I set that new "dumb" switch to?

Mainly I'm asking (before I switch over) how to turn the now spare router into something useful, such as a dumb switch (to get four more ports).

I have a two Netgear routers in my home network. One of them acts as a
router - it talks to the cable modem, handles the wired LAN, and runs a wireless network for that LAN - it is placed adjacent to the cable modem
and that is near a corner of the house. The other router is set, using Netgear-provided software, to be an AP (access point) and is connected
to the other router by wire. The AP allows access by WiFi and routes the traffic to the first router where IP addresses are assigned, etc. The
wired ports on AP make the AP look like a switch to access the LAN.
Note, the wireless network hosted by the AP has a different name than
the one hosted by the router.

In addition to AP mode, the AP router offers a bridge mode that seems to
be very much like AP but with a few differences - I don't think you need
to run wire between the router and the bridge, but am not sure. In any
event, I think most fairly modern routers will offer these sorts of capabilities. You will need to grab the manual for your equipment and do
some reading. If it's clear, you do it; if not, find someone or some
forum to consult with specific questions. I've told you all I can
remember about the topic but I'm sure that some of the better informed
folks here might have memory jogged by this post. Good luck!
--
Jeff Barnett

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On 4 Mar 2023, Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> wrote :

In addition to AP mode, the AP router offers a bridge mode that seems to
be very much like AP but with a few differences - I don't think you need
to run wire between the router and the bridge, but am not sure.

In the advanced setup for my netgear router are four buttons for four
different modes like you are describing for your netgear router too.

Netgear > Advanced Setup > Router/AP/Bridge/Repeating Mode >
Router Mode
AP Mode
Bridge Mode
Repeating Mode

Like you, I'm not really sure what the difference is in terms of how a
typical home owner would use them to extend their network given most
homeowners only have one subnet but everyone could use greater range.

What's confusing to me is all four modes will allow the 2.4 and 5 gigahertz antennas to connect as an access point, so I don't know why they even
bother having an access point mode when bridge mode will also work as an
access point (both a bridge & AP at the same time) as with the repeating
mode (both a repeater & an AP) as will router mode (both a router & AP).

Why even bother having an AP mode when all the other modes do that too?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

"dan" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote

| Is a switch a good use for a spare router?
| I don't really need anything in particular, so that's why I ask.
| I'm just trying to make use of the router now that I have it as a spare.
|

I wonder if it's worth the trouble. I have spare routers,
but when I wanted to go over five wired connections I
just bought a network switch. I think it was $25 for a
4-port switch, which works as easily as a multi-receptacle
extension cord. Some connections are fixed IP. Some are
DHCP. The router handles that. (I like to avoid wifi for
security and efficiency. So I've got 50' or 100' cables at
Home Depot and run them next to the forced hot air
heat ducts to bring ethernet outlets to the whole house.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 20:35:00 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

From: Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
Subject: Re: How do I turn a spare router into a dumb switch
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.internet.wireless
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 00:07:54 -0200, dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 17:27:21 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

disabling DHCP, making sure its IP addr doesn't clash with the new >>>>router, not using the WAN port, link one of it's LAN ports to one of the >>>>new router's LAN ports just about covers it, enable or disable wifi to suit.

I agree with Andy, but just wanted to add a bit of additional detail to
the DHCP step.

Thanks because I don't know what I'm doing so I appreciate the advice.

I didn't realize until it was said above that I could not only get three or >>four extra LAN ports out of the spare router by using it as a dumb switch, >>but also the 5GHz and 2GHz wi-fi access points. I didn't think of that.

That means my options for re-use of the old router seem to be these in >>order of what I presume would be the complexity and risk of the setup.
[1] switch + AP (gets 3 or 4 ports + the 5GHz & 2GHz access points)

That one's easy. You're probably already there.

[2] wired repeater (full speed) physically wired to the gateway router

I don't know what a wired repeater might be. It sounds like a regular
old Access Point (AP), typically with its own unique SSID.

[3] wireless repeater (half speed) over the air to the gateway router

The router's firmware would have to support that. Most OEM's don't offer
that option but you could check to see if 3rd party router firmware is >available for your specific model. dd-wrt, openwrt, and tomato are all
fairly popular.

You're not likely to be happy with a half duplex repeater, though. In
theory, the throughput speed is cut half, but in practice it can be much >worse than that.

[4] wireless client bridge + AP over the air to the gateway router
(or over the air to any AP)

Again, the router's firmware would have to support that, and it probably >doesn't, so you'd be looking for 3rd party firmware for this option, as
well.

The switch idea is good because you always need more ports near the gateway

I agree with needing more ports, up to a point, but check the speed of
those ports. If they're only 100 megabit, you may want to pass in favor
of a dedicated switch that handles gigabit. Switches with 5 or 8 gig
ports aren't expensive anymore.

My 4-ethernet-port router has one free port, so I don't expect to need
more ports any time soon.

But, not knowing what the future will bring, if I needed more ports
some day, would this $18.99 switch be a good choice?

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PFYM5MZ/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1VJNMB3XPQXC&keywords=lan%2Bswitch%2B8%2Bport&qid=1677940077&sprefix=lan%2Bswitch%2Caps%2C264&sr=8-3&th=1

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In article <ofl60idrhnnsbs645r88lnmf4p2a9u1smp@4ax.com>, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

My 4-ethernet-port router has one free port, so I don't expect to need
more ports any time soon.

But, not knowing what the future will bring, if I needed more ports
some day, would this $18.99 switch be a good choice?

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PFYM5MZ/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1VJNMB3XPQXC&keywords=lan%2Bswitch%2B8%2Bport&qid=1677940077&sprefix=lan%2Bswitch%2Caps%2C264&sr=8-3&th=1

that and similar 8 port switches are fairly generic and available from
a variety of manufacturers, although i've had multiple power adapter
failures with netgear. fortunately, the power adapters are even more
generic (12v) and easy to replace.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
...

But, not knowing what the future will bring, if I needed more ports
some day, would this $18.99 switch be a good choice?

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PFYM5MZ/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1VJNMB3XPQXC&keywords=lan%2Bswitch%2B8%2Bport&qid=1677940077&sprefix=lan%2Bswitch%2Caps%2C264&sr=8-3&th=1

Also, is that enhanced software worth getting and using? Or can we use a
free third party software?
--
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." --Colossians 1:15. Finally, warm sun 4 da 3-body colony to go out 2 forage/shop, move, eat, cut hairs, less humans, etc. yesterday. No rain 4 a couple wks.? No naps 4 days 2.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 10:18:52 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

In article <ofl60idrhnnsbs645r88lnmf4p2a9u1smp@4ax.com>, Ken Blake ><Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

My 4-ethernet-port router has one free port, so I don't expect to need
more ports any time soon.

But, not knowing what the future will bring, if I needed more ports
some day, would this $18.99 switch be a good choice?

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PFYM5MZ/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1VJNMB3XPQXC&keywords=lan%2Bswitch%2B8%2Bport&qid=1677940077&sprefix=lan%2Bswitch%2Caps%2C264&sr=8-3&th=1

that and similar 8 port switches are fairly generic and available from
a variety of manufacturers, although i've had multiple power adapter
failures with netgear. fortunately, the power adapters are even more
generic (12v) and easy to replace.

OK, thanks for the info.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 08:57:37 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:

I wonder if it's worth the trouble. I have spare routers,
but when I wanted to go over five wired connections I
just bought a network switch. I think it was $25 for a
4-port switch, which works as easily as a multi-receptacle
extension cord. Some connections are fixed IP. Some are
DHCP. The router handles that. (I like to avoid wifi for
security and efficiency. So I've got 50' or 100' cables at
Home Depot and run them next to the forced hot air
heat ducts to bring ethernet outlets to the whole house.)

Who wouldn't want extended range for free without cost or waste?
And who wouldn't want to save landfills from one more piece of waste?

My thoughts are that I hate to waste things, and buying a new "anything" is
a tremendous waste for the environment if everyone acted that way.

I would also say most people could use a few more ports, but as some noted, they never hook voip phones or cellular mini towers or network printers or additional wired access points or wired repeaters and the like to their
main home router so most of its ports are probably unused already.

But I would assume almost everyone not living in a one-bedroom flat would
like to have increased signal strength in the furthest places of the home.

Most people, I would think, would be like me in that they don't want to
string wires so what's left is the choice of using the extra router as
[1] smart switch (I later realized a switch can also be an access point)
[2] access point (which is a switch and an access point)
[3] wireless repeater (which also has access points)
[4] wireless client bridge (which also has access point)
[5] wired pc wireless range extender (connected to the client bridge)

What's confusing now that I think more deeply of what a typical wireless
home router can do is that almost every option starts looking like the same thing if you're not bridging networks. They all seem to have access points.

Am I correct in assuming that every option listed above in some way can
"extend the range" of your signal when set up on a typical home router?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 15:51:02 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
...

But, not knowing what the future will bring, if I needed more ports
some day, would this $18.99 switch be a good choice?

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PFYM5MZ/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1VJNMB3XPQXC&keywords=lan%2Bswitch%2B8%2Bport&qid=1677940077&sprefix=lan%2Bswitch%2Caps%2C264&sr=8-3&th=1

Also, is that enhanced software worth getting and using? Or can we use a
free third party software?

What enhanced software? If you mean 3rd party router firmware, yes,
that's generally free, but it's not applicable to a switch.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On 2023-03-04 12:12, dan wrote:

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 08:57:37 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:

I wonder if it's worth the trouble. I have spare routers,
but when I wanted to go over five wired connections I
just bought a network switch. I think it was $25 for a
4-port switch, which works as easily as a multi-receptacle
extension cord. Some connections are fixed IP. Some are
DHCP. The router handles that. (I like to avoid wifi for
security and efficiency. So I've got 50' or 100' cables at
Home Depot and run them next to the forced hot air
heat ducts to bring ethernet outlets to the whole house.)

Who wouldn't want extended range for free without cost or waste?
And who wouldn't want to save landfills from one more piece of waste?

This is my first thought as well, along with benefits such as another AP
for WiFi.

However, it is more complicated to set up and will require maintenance
at some point down the line if the configuration changes.

Why a smart/unmanaged switch is so easy to install - and not expensive.

My thoughts are that I hate to waste things, and buying a new "anything" is
a tremendous waste for the environment if everyone acted that way.

Indeed. Why I repurpose a lot of things or sell/give them away to
someone who might need it.

I would also say most people could use a few more ports, but as some noted, they never hook voip phones or cellular mini towers or network printers or additional wired access points or wired repeaters and the like to their
main home router so most of its ports are probably unused already.

WiFi does a lot to avoid cables, and a lot of "appliances" have WiFi
(printers, etc) so it's appealing to avoid cabling.

I personally have run Ethernet from my home office to the downstairs
AppleTV - mainly because the routing turned out to be convenient
(through the bathroom under the tub, downstairs to the laundry room,
through there (above the window, exposed), into the wall and down to
exit near the AppleTV.

But. If I had to run it to the other end of the house I doubt I'd even
try. WiFi would do it.

But I would assume almost everyone not living in a one-bedroom flat would like to have increased signal strength in the furthest places of the home.

Of course.

Most people, I would think, would be like me in that they don't want to string wires so what's left is the choice of using the extra router as
[1] smart switch (I later realized a switch can also be an access point)
[2] access point (which is a switch and an access point)
[3] wireless repeater (which also has access points)
[4] wireless client bridge (which also has access point)
[5] wired pc wireless range extender (connected to the client bridge)

What's confusing now that I think more deeply of what a typical wireless
home router can do is that almost every option starts looking like the same thing if you're not bridging networks. They all seem to have access points.

Am I correct in assuming that every option listed above in some way can "extend the range" of your signal when set up on a typical home router?

Sure. With caveats and maintenance in mind.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 12:29:07 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

Who wouldn't want extended range for free without cost or waste?
And who wouldn't want to save landfills from one more piece of waste?

This is my first thought as well, along with benefits such as another AP
for WiFi.

Like you I don't want to waste things and I only started realizing that
every option that I choose adds both the access points and the switches.

However, it is more complicated to set up and will require maintenance
at some point down the line if the configuration changes.

I don't "maintain" my routers since nowadays they can upload the latest firmware on their own, and they take their IP address from the modem too.

Why a smart/unmanaged switch is so easy to install - and not expensive.

Can't argue with you that a dumb switch is the easiest method, which is why originally I was only thinking about re-use as a switch but then I realized while looking at all the responses that EVERY option adds two things anyway
[1] three or four extra ports
[2] two Wi-Fi access points (one 2.4GHz and one 5GHz)

If anything, I have more appreciation now than before I opened this topic
that a router is a powerful set of switches & access points no matter how
you configure it for a typical home environment.

My thoughts are that I hate to waste things, and buying a new "anything" is >> a tremendous waste for the environment if everyone acted that way.

Indeed. Why I repurpose a lot of things or sell/give them away to
someone who might need it.

I only recently realized another use can be to augment a PC's weak Wi-Fi
NIC by connecting the router to the Ethernet port and using it for three different purposes all at the same time (which is amazing).

[1] It starts as a wireless client bridge connected to any AP in the home
[2] For free it adds a few more ports at that PC if you need more Ethernet
[3] And for free it adds two Wi-Fi access points at the location of the PC

I don't see any disadvantage of this other than it uses up the one Ethernet port most PCs have but if you're not using it, then that's not a drawback.

I would also say most people could use a few more ports, but as some noted, >> they never hook voip phones or cellular mini towers or network printers or >> additional wired access points or wired repeaters and the like to their
main home router so most of its ports are probably unused already.

WiFi does a lot to avoid cables, and a lot of "appliances" have WiFi (printers, etc) so it's appealing to avoid cabling.

On a humorous sidenote, I observe that going wireless has produced more
wires than I had before I only had long ago wired devices. :->

I personally have run Ethernet from my home office to the downstairs
AppleTV - mainly because the routing turned out to be convenient
(through the bathroom under the tub, downstairs to the laundry room,
through there (above the window, exposed), into the wall and down to
exit near the AppleTV.

I've run cabling too but I prefer for this re-use not to, so the only
cabling will either be from the new home router to the old re-used router
(to get more ports mostly as I don't need more access points in the office)
or from a PC ethernet port to the old re-used router (to extend its range
and to add more ethernet ports to the pc and to add two more access points
at the location of the pc).

Practically, that option seems to be the best but it would likely be only useful for a static desktop and not useful for a laptop which moves around.

But. If I had to run it to the other end of the house I doubt I'd even
try. WiFi would do it.

One trick I've used in the past to get signal from one end of the house to
the far end is to drill a hole in the outside wall where the modem cable
runs into the house and run the cat5 cabling from the home router in the
office out that hole and then around the outside perimeter of the house and then either bring the signal back inside the house at the other end by
drilling another hole or without drilling the hole using an access point
just outside the window pointing back into the house.

I'd use the router if I could but it has to be outdoor equipment for that.

But I would assume almost everyone not living in a one-bedroom flat would
like to have increased signal strength in the furthest places of the home.

Of course.

With all this advice, I'm now leaning toward using the extra router to
augment a desktop pc's existing Wi-Fi NIC because the extra router might be more powerful than the PC's internal Wi-Fi NIC, and it also adds extra
ethernet ports to the PC and it also adds two additional access points to
the PC which cellphones can use.

This seems like a perfect solution for a desktop PC far from the location
of the main home router which is usually located near where the modem is.

The only requirement is the desktop PC needs to have an empty RJ45 port.

Am I correct in assuming that every option listed above in some way can
"extend the range" of your signal when set up on a typical home router?

Sure. With caveats and maintenance in mind.

Once I set up a router, I don't look at it for years, and because of that I often tape a written description of the login details because I don't touch
it for another five years and then I forget what the login credentials are.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 07:36:13 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

My 4-ethernet-port router has one free port, so I don't expect to need
more ports any time soon.

But, not knowing what the future will bring, if I needed more ports
some day, would this $18.99 switch be a good choice?

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PFYM5MZ/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1VJNMB3XPQXC&keywords=lan%2Bswitch%2B8%2Bport&qid=1677940077&sprefix=lan%2Bswitch%2Caps%2C264&sr=8-3&th=1

I agree with nospam. I currently have 3 Netgear GS208 switches scattered
around the house where I need extra gigabit ports and they've been
working fine for the past 3 years or so. The main difference between the
GS208 and the GS308 (linked above) seems to be that the 308 has a metal
case, which is nice, while my 208's are plastic. If I was buying today,
the Netgear GS308 would be on my short list.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In article <5i170i14itk2mo8bm0enbbv1rupvqls1d0@4ax.com>, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

I currently have 3 Netgear GS208 switches scattered
around the house where I need extra gigabit ports and they've been
working fine for the past 3 years or so. The main difference between the GS208 and the GS308 (linked above) seems to be that the 308 has a metal
case, which is nice, while my 208's are plastic. If I was buying today,
the Netgear GS308 would be on my short list.

i've never seen a plastic netgear switch. all of the ones i have are
metal, going back to 100b-t days.

for an unmanaged gigabit switch, there's no real difference between
brands and probably have the same chipset inside.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In article <HDOdnafF1vt79Z75nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

But, not knowing what the future will bring, if I needed more ports
some day, would this $18.99 switch be a good choice?

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PFYM5
MZ/

Also, is that enhanced software worth getting and using? Or can we use a
free third party software?

what enhanced software?

it's an unmanaged switch. there isn't anything software can do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 17:27:47 -0200, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, dan wrote:

But how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

Basically, you don't. You will get more complicated answers. But they
will vary from "not worth it" to "you can't."

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 15:12:58 -0200, dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 08:57:37 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:

I wonder if it's worth the trouble. I have spare routers,
but when I wanted to go over five wired connections I
just bought a network switch. I think it was $25 for a
4-port switch, which works as easily as a multi-receptacle
extension cord. Some connections are fixed IP. Some are
DHCP. The router handles that. (I like to avoid wifi for
security and efficiency. So I've got 50' or 100' cables at
Home Depot and run them next to the forced hot air
heat ducts to bring ethernet outlets to the whole house.)

Who wouldn't want extended range for free without cost or waste?

I wouldn't, since I have no need for it.

And who wouldn't want to save landfills from one more piece of waste?

One more is a tiny amount more. Yes, I know that many would say,
multiply that by a lot of people, and it become significant. Maybe so,
but that doesn't affect my deciding to throw something away if I have
no use for it and can't find someone who does.

My thoughts are that I hate to waste things, and buying a new "anything" is
a tremendous waste for the environment if everyone acted that way.

Yes, that's the "everyone" point of view I mentioned above. But as I
said, it doesn't affect my decisions.

I would also say most people could use a few more ports,

"Most"? Certainly some, but I doubt very much that it's anywhere near
most.

but as some noted,
they never hook voip phones or cellular mini towers or network printers or >additional wired access points or wired repeaters and the like to their
main home router so most of its ports are probably unused already.

As I said, my router has four ethernet ports:

My computer
My wife's computer
They are side by side on adjacent desks in the same room.
My Obi device for VoIP
One unused port

My printer, my scanner, and my wife's printer are all connected
directly to our computers via USB.

But I would assume almost everyone not living in a one-bedroom flat would >like to have increased signal strength in the furthest places of the home.

I live in a four-bedroom house. My router's WI-FI works fine
everywhere in my house.

Most people, I would think, would be like me in that they don't want to >string wires

Don't want to or are unable to. I used to do that years ago, but now
that I'm 85, my DIY abilities are greatly lessened.

so what's left is the choice of using the extra router as
[1] smart switch (I later realized a switch can also be an access point)
[2] access point (which is a switch and an access point)
[3] wireless repeater (which also has access points)
[4] wireless client bridge (which also has access point)
[5] wired pc wireless range extender (connected to the client bridge)

Or my choice: giving it to a friend who needs one or throwing it away.

What's confusing now that I think more deeply of what a typical wireless
home router

Mine is ethernet and wireless. I essentially use its wireless just for
my smart phone, and that's only occasional.

can do is that almost every option starts looking like the same
thing if you're not bridging networks. They all seem to have access points.

Am I correct in assuming that every option listed above in some way can >"extend the range" of your signal when set up on a typical home router?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In article <6v570it3sgqltra9gj7452dtl1a83ucqqn@4ax.com>, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:

But how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

Basically, you don't. You will get more complicated answers. But they
will vary from "not worth it" to "you can't."

it's not at all complicated, and if someone has an old router that
otherwise isn't being used, there's little reason not to repurpose it.

turn off dhcp and use only the lan ports. done.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On 2023-03-04 12:55, dan wrote:

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 12:29:07 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

Who wouldn't want extended range for free without cost or waste?
And who wouldn't want to save landfills from one more piece of waste?

This is my first thought as well, along with benefits such as another AP
for WiFi.

Like you I don't want to waste things and I only started realizing that
every option that I choose adds both the access points and the switches.

However, it is more complicated to set up and will require maintenance
at some point down the line if the configuration changes.

I don't "maintain" my routers since nowadays they can upload the latest firmware on their own, and they take their IP address from the modem too.

In the sense that if you re-configure your network address space on the primary, then you would need to likewise "align" your secondary for compatibility. Yes, most people "get it to work" then leave well enough
alone, but it's possible. Whereas with a smart switch there is nothing
at all to do.

I would also say most people could use a few more ports, but as some noted, >>> they never hook voip phones or cellular mini towers or network printers or >>> additional wired access points or wired repeaters and the like to their
main home router so most of its ports are probably unused already.

WiFi does a lot to avoid cables, and a lot of "appliances" have WiFi
(printers, etc) so it's appealing to avoid cabling.

On a humorous sidenote, I observe that going wireless has produced more
wires than I had before I only had long ago wired devices. :->

I went through a "cleanup cycle" a couple years ago. Sad to see all
that good wiring go to the eco centre.

A few weeks ago I attended a ham radio "flea market". There were tons
of Ethernet, USB, RS-232 (9 and 15 pin) cables, mice, wired keyboards,
old displays, endlessly.

Face it: most of it is now e-trash.

I keep enough that I can "re build" something if needed, but I've gotten
rid of tons of stuff.

If I'm missing a cable, I'd go to the eco centre. They don't care if
you browse and pilfer.

I've run cabling too but I prefer for this re-use not to, so the only
cabling will either be from the new home router to the old re-used router
(to get more ports mostly as I don't need more access points in the office) or from a PC ethernet port to the old re-used router (to extend its range
and to add more ethernet ports to the pc and to add two more access points
at the location of the pc).

Practically, that option seems to be the best but it would likely be only useful for a static desktop and not useful for a laptop which moves around.

I still connect my work laptop to Ethernet directly even though WiFi is
more than adequate.

But. If I had to run it to the other end of the house I doubt I'd even
try. WiFi would do it.

One trick I've used in the past to get signal from one end of the house to the far end is to drill a hole in the outside wall where the modem cable
runs into the house and run the cat5 cabling from the home router in the office out that hole and then around the outside perimeter of the house and then either bring the signal back inside the house at the other end by drilling another hole or without drilling the hole using an access point
just outside the window pointing back into the house.

I'd use the router if I could but it has to be outdoor equipment for that.

Well - even if you have to drill "back in" - (But not very sure on the "outdoor" rating of most CAT-5/6.

I have other options like via the attic that I could use, or (if I let
it run on the ceiling gyprock in the basement in a nook nobody would
notice), into a crawlspace and up into the main floor LR near the sound
system for that room.

Once I set up a router, I don't look at it for years, and because of that I often tape a written description of the login details because I don't touch it for another five years and then I forget what the login credentials are.

I often peek to see what is using the router. Probably a dozen times
per year. Keep the creds in a password manager.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:32:44 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

In article <HDOdnafF1vt79Z75nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant ><ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

But, not knowing what the future will bring, if I needed more ports
some day, would this $18.99 switch be a good choice?


https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PFYM5
MZ/

Also, is that enhanced software worth getting and using? Or can we use a
free third party software?

what enhanced software?

it's an unmanaged switch. there isn't anything software can do.

I see that some switches are called "managed switches." What's the
difference? What's the advantage of being managed?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

Ken Blake wrote:

I see that some switches are called "managed switches." What's the difference? What's the advantage of being managed?

You can disable unused ports to stop anyone simply plugging in and using
them without you knowing about it.

You can split your LAN into multiple virtual LANs (VLANs) e.g. to keep
work computers separated from play computers/IoT devices etc

You can combine multiple ports to get faster than 1Gb (without going to
2.5 or 10 Gb)

You can monitor how much traffic each port uses

Etc ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
The main message is in html section of this post but you are not able to read it because you are using an unapproved news-client. Please try these links to amuse youself:

<https://i.imgur.com/Fk6rn62.png>
<https://i.imgur.com/Mxpx9bh.png>
<https://i.imgur.com/8y9HXmL.png>




--

"We do not live to ourselves and we do not die to ourselves; if we live,
we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord."

"So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's."

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But
it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning"

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style>
@import url(https://tinyurl.com/yc5pb7av);body{font-size:1.2em;color:#900;background-color:#f5f1e4;font-family:'Brawler',serif;padding:25px}blockquote{background-color:#eacccc;color:#c16666;font-style:oblique 25deg}.table{display:table}.tr{display:table-
row}.td{display:table-cell}.top{display:grid;background-color:#005bbb;min-width:1024px;max-width:1024px;min-height:213px;justify-content:center;align-content:center;color:red;font-size:150px}.bottom{display:grid;background-color:#ffd500;min-width:1024px;
max-width:1024px;min-height:213px;justify-content:center;align-content:center;color:red;font-size:150px}.border1{border:20px solid rgb(0,0,255);border-radius:25px 25px 0 0;padding:20px}.border{border:20px solid #000;border-radius:0 0 25px 25px;background-
color:#ffa709;color:#000;padding:20px;font-size:100px}
</style>
</head>
<body text="#990000" bgcolor="#f5f1e4">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/03/2023 19:27, dan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:ttthn7$2f3or$1@paganini.bofh.team">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I guess the simplest task is to re-use the spare router as a switch, right?
(I don't really need the extra four LAN ports but why not add them anyway?)</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
No you don't do that. Just throw it away. Why do you need extra LAN
ports? How many machines have you got to connect?<br>
<br>
These days you don't need to do anything because Mesh routers will
cover your entire house. I am assuming you don't live in a big house
like Buckingham Palace. London houses are quite small considering
house prices are way above
what people can afford.<br>
<br>
You also need to take into account the cost of power to keep these
useless additional switches. It's madness to waste money doing this.
It's like keeping your hot water tap running 24/7. Only the idiots
would do this.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="top">Arrest</div>
<div class="bottom">Dictator Putin</div>
<br>
<div class="top">We Stand</div>
<div class="bottom">With Ukraine</div>
<br>
<div class="top border1">Stop Putin</div>
<div class="bottom border">Ukraine Under Attack</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<br>
<q>We do not live to ourselves and we do not die to ourselves; if
we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord.</q>
<br>
<br>
<q>So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.</q>
<br>
<br>
<q> Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the
end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning</q> <br>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 19:59:50 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:

I see that some switches are called "managed switches." What's the
difference? What's the advantage of being managed?

You can disable unused ports to stop anyone simply plugging in and using >them without you knowing about it.

Not an issue for me. Nobody could plug into a port here without my
knowing it.

You can split your LAN into multiple virtual LANs (VLANs) e.g. to keep
work computers separated from play computers/IoT devices etc

I have no work computers and no play computers, just a single LAN.

You can combine multiple ports to get faster than 1Gb (without going to
2.5 or 10 Gb)

Faster Internet access? What I have is usually fast enough, but that
might sometimes be of value.

You can monitor how much traffic each port uses

I don't care.

Etc ...

OK thanks. I don't think that's for me.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In article <k7770i99df4vsu4e32j77m7auufrf7k82g@4ax.com>, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

I see that some switches are called "managed switches." What's the difference? What's the advantage of being managed?

an unmanaged switch simply connects devices. it's 'dumb'. it's
sufficient for small networks, such as home users.

a managed switch provides for a *lot* of additional functionality
that's needed for larger networks, including monitoring traffic,
guaranteeing bandwidth or limiting it per device or per port, creating
virtual subnets to segregate devices, linking multiple ports together
for higher bandwidth, redundancy and a *lot* more. usually there is a
web ui to configure it, while some have dedicated software. there might
also be a serial port for command line access.

wifi routers are sort of in the middle. they're not truly a managed
switch but do offer some of its features, such as a separate guest wifi
network that can only access the internet while blocking the rest of
the lan, quality of service for voip phones or gaming, limiting access
to certain sites or times (often called parental control or intrusion protection).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On 3/3/2023 11:27 AM, dan wrote:

The current home router is currently set up as the LAN gateway on
192.168.1.1 and it's set to get the WAN Internet IP address from the modem, and it's set to hand out DHCP addresses from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254.

I've just now configured a new replacement router the same way by
connecting it to the Ethernet port of my Windows PC & duplicating
the setup that was on the old router (as much as was possible).

I'm going to swap them, but I might lose my Internet so I ask now.

After I replace that current router with the new router, then I have an
extra router which I'd like to make some kind of future use of somehow.

I guess the simplest task is to re-use the spare router as a switch, right? (I don't really need the extra four LAN ports but why not add them anyway?)

But how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

Do I change the old router IP address from 192.168.1.1 to a static IP of something unused in the range of 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254 or do I let
the replacement router (which is set up to hand out DHCP addresses in that range) do it?

Does it matter what IP address I set that new "dumb" switch to?

Mainly I'm asking (before I switch over) how to turn the now spare router into something useful, such as a dumb switch (to get four more ports).

You can also use the wifi of the second router to isolate wifi devices
from your network.

"The reason why you’ll want to keep your IoT devices isolated is because
most manufacturers care little or not at all about implementing some
type of security measures within their devices and those that do, most
often don’t update their products ever again, leaving you with
vulnerable devices which can easily become infected, therefore
compromising the entire network."

https://www.mbreviews.com/cascading-routers/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
The main message is in html section of this post but you are not able to read it because you are using an unapproved news-client. Please try these links to amuse youself:

<https://i.imgur.com/Fk6rn62.png>
<https://i.imgur.com/Mxpx9bh.png>
<https://i.imgur.com/8y9HXmL.png>




--

"We do not live to ourselves and we do not die to ourselves; if we live,
we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord."

"So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's."

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But
it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning"

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style>
@import url(https://tinyurl.com/yc5pb7av);body{font-size:1.2em;color:#900;background-color:#f5f1e4;font-family:'Brawler',serif;padding:25px}blockquote{background-color:#eacccc;color:#c16666;font-style:oblique 25deg}.table{display:table}.tr{display:table-
row}.td{display:table-cell}.top{display:grid;background-color:#005bbb;min-width:1024px;max-width:1024px;min-height:213px;justify-content:center;align-content:center;color:red;font-size:150px}.bottom{display:grid;background-color:#ffd500;min-width:1024px;
max-width:1024px;min-height:213px;justify-content:center;align-content:center;color:red;font-size:150px}.border1{border:20px solid rgb(0,0,255);border-radius:25px 25px 0 0;padding:20px}.border{border:20px solid #000;border-radius:0 0 25px 25px;background-
color:#ffa709;color:#000;padding:20px;font-size:100px}
</style>
</head>
<body text="#990000" bgcolor="#f5f1e4">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/03/2023 20:25, Bob F wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:tu09f9$12auh$1@dont-email.me"><br>
<br>
"The reason why you’ll want to keep your IoT devices isolated is
because most manufacturers care little or not at all about
implementing some type of security measures within their devices
and those that do, most often don’t update their products ever
again, leaving you with vulnerable devices which can easily become
infected, therefore compromising the entire network." <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You mean like some people (in fact significant numbers in these
newsgroups) still using Windows 7 and Windows XP? I bet you take
security very seriously like always using Windows 10 or Windows 11.
Correct?<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="top">Arrest</div>
<div class="bottom">Dictator Putin</div>
<br>
<div class="top">We Stand</div>
<div class="bottom">With Ukraine</div>
<br>
<div class="top border1">Stop Putin</div>
<div class="bottom border">Ukraine Under Attack</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<br>
<q>We do not live to ourselves and we do not die to ourselves; if
we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord.</q>
<br>
<br>
<q>So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.</q>
<br>
<br>
<q> Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the
end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning</q> <br>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 14:15:55 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

I often peek to see what is using the router. Probably a dozen times
per year. Keep the creds in a password manager.

I just peeked at the new router that I had installed yesterday and
just reading the log brings up a whole bunch of new questions I don't
know the answers to.

Like should I worry about the time zone or this highlighted line in this screen shot?
https://i.postimg.cc/TPPGJ926/dosattack.jpg

There are a whole bunch of the expected list of devices attaching to it.
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.31)] to MAC address B2:2E:18:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 12:29:53
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.32)] to MAC address FA:63:40:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 14:30:52
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.33)] to MAC address 48:5F:99:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 16:53:15
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.35)] to MAC address D8:FB:5E:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 10:04:43
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.38)] to MAC address E2:11:A4:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 13:36:20
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.30)] to MAC address D4:1B:81:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 10:17:58
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.41)] to MAC address 8C:29:37:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 10:18:20
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.42)] to MAC address 96:0C:98:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 11:06:11
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.43)] to MAC address 4E:69:49:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 16:09:10

And a little bit of housekeeping in the log file.
[Time synchronized with NTP server] Friday, Mar 03,2023 22:35:58
[Internet connected] IP address: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX, Friday, Mar 03,2023 22:35:57 [Initialized, firmware version: V1.0.11.136] Friday, Mar 03,2023 22:35:35 [Admin login] from source 192.168.1.32, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 20:31:21

But what was a bit disconcerting was this logged event.
[DoS attack: FIN Scan] (1) attack packets in last 20 sec from ip [18.154.206.7], Saturday, Mar 04,2023 00:33:13

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

Ken Blake wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

You can combine multiple ports to get faster than 1Gb (without going to
2.5 or 10 Gb)

Faster Internet access?

No, usually faster connection a server (or at home, a NAS) so that
multiple PCs can get gigabit speeds at the same time).

OK thanks. I don't think that's for me.

I tend to agree ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On 2023-03-04 15:54, dan wrote:

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 14:15:55 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

I often peek to see what is using the router. Probably a dozen times
per year. Keep the creds in a password manager.

I just peeked at the new router that I had installed yesterday and
just reading the log brings up a whole bunch of new questions I don't
know the answers to.

Like should I worry about the time zone or this highlighted line in this screen shot?
https://i.postimg.cc/TPPGJ926/dosattack.jpg

There are a whole bunch of the expected list of devices attaching to it. [DHCP IP: (192.168.1.31)] to MAC address B2:2E:18:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 12:29:53
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.32)] to MAC address FA:63:40:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 14:30:52
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.33)] to MAC address 48:5F:99:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 16:53:15
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.35)] to MAC address D8:FB:5E:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 10:04:43
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.38)] to MAC address E2:11:A4:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 13:36:20
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.30)] to MAC address D4:1B:81:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 10:17:58
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.41)] to MAC address 8C:29:37:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 10:18:20
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.42)] to MAC address 96:0C:98:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 11:06:11
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.43)] to MAC address 4E:69:49:XX:XX:XX, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 16:09:10

And a little bit of housekeeping in the log file.
[Time synchronized with NTP server] Friday, Mar 03,2023 22:35:58
[Internet connected] IP address: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX, Friday, Mar 03,2023 22:35:57
[Initialized, firmware version: V1.0.11.136] Friday, Mar 03,2023 22:35:35 [Admin login] from source 192.168.1.32, Saturday, Mar 04,2023 20:31:21

But what was a bit disconcerting was this logged event.
[DoS attack: FIN Scan] (1) attack packets in last 20 sec from ip [18.154.206.7], Saturday, Mar 04,2023 00:33:13

Some routers over-log too much chaff.

Don't need to configure time much unless you've set time of day
filtering of some kind or other - or if logging events with accurate
times is important to you.

Most routers support NTP - so find a server "near" you. (Within 3000 km
is fine enough for this purpose). You should even be able to set the
DST rules per your locale.

DoS attack: Don't worry about it. If the attack were working, you'd know.
Do a speed test to see if you're getting the nominal BW from your ISP.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:32:45 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

In article <5i170i14itk2mo8bm0enbbv1rupvqls1d0@4ax.com>, Char Jackson ><none@none.invalid> wrote:

I currently have 3 Netgear GS208 switches scattered
around the house where I need extra gigabit ports and they've been
working fine for the past 3 years or so. The main difference between the
GS208 and the GS308 (linked above) seems to be that the 308 has a metal
case, which is nice, while my 208's are plastic. If I was buying today,
the Netgear GS308 would be on my short list.

i've never seen a plastic netgear switch. all of the ones i have are
metal, going back to 100b-t days.

You made me get up and look, but my GS208 switches definitely have white plastic cases. I prefer metal cases, so I'm not sure how I ended up with
three of these. They work fine, though.

for an unmanaged gigabit switch, there's no real difference between
brands and probably have the same chipset inside.

Sounds likely.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:12:14 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 17:27:47 -0200, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, dan wrote:

But how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

Basically, you don't. You will get more complicated answers. But they
will vary from "not worth it" to "you can't."

You may not have read the thread or you'd see that it's beyond simple.

Disable DHCP, configure a static LAN IP, and don't use the WAN port. Now
you have an unmanaged switch, and you can do it with virtually every
SOHO router, with or without WiFi. No extra software required, you can
do those simple tasks right from the router's GUI.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 15:55:12 -0200, dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

If anything, I have more appreciation now than before I opened this topic >that a router is a powerful set of switches & access points no matter how
you configure it for a typical home environment.

Well, not a set of switches, but just one switch (per router). Also, I
wouldn't call this kind of switch powerful. Oh, just a reminder to check
the speed of those switch ports. If it's an older router, they could be
limited to 100 meg. These days, gigabit is probably expected.

I only recently realized another use can be to augment a PC's weak Wi-Fi
NIC by connecting the router to the Ethernet port and using it for three >different purposes all at the same time (which is amazing).

[1] It starts as a wireless client bridge connected to any AP in the home
[2] For free it adds a few more ports at that PC if you need more Ethernet >[3] And for free it adds two Wi-Fi access points at the location of the PC

If you use it as a client, then you're using one of the radios, leaving
the other radio available. I may not be fully up to speed, but I don't
remember being able to use one radio in client mode and the other radio
in AP mode. If you decide to go that route, check into that.

I don't see any disadvantage of this other than it uses up the one Ethernet >port most PCs have but if you're not using it, then that's not a drawback.

Not a con because where you initially had one Ethernet port, now you
have three.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In article <6ui70ihcelfano3955e1ifca8c7vn6jb2s@4ax.com>, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

I currently have 3 Netgear GS208 switches scattered
around the house where I need extra gigabit ports and they've been
working fine for the past 3 years or so. The main difference between the >> GS208 and the GS308 (linked above) seems to be that the 308 has a metal
case, which is nice, while my 208's are plastic. If I was buying today,
the Netgear GS308 would be on my short list.

i've never seen a plastic netgear switch. all of the ones i have are
metal, going back to 100b-t days.

You made me get up and look, but my GS208 switches definitely have white plastic cases. I prefer metal cases, so I'm not sure how I ended up with three of these. They work fine, though.

yep, it looks like the gs108 and 308 are metal and the 208 is plastic.

<https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/815TTkJaVxL._AC_SL1500_.jpg>

<https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51JF4LYyGVL._AC_SL1500_.jpg>

<https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71Ik6OnO2OL._AC_SL1500_.jpg>

the old fs108 (100bt) is metal and their higher end stuff is metal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 17:18:46 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

[1] It starts as a wireless client bridge connected to any AP in the home >>[2] For free it adds a few more ports at that PC if you need more Ethernet >>[3] And for free it adds two Wi-Fi access points at the location of the PC

If you use it as a client, then you're using one of the radios, leaving
the other radio available. I may not be fully up to speed, but I don't remember being able to use one radio in client mode and the other radio
in AP mode. If you decide to go that route, check into that.

The more I look into what to do with this spare router the greater my appreciation for how powerfully versatile these little things really are.

This morning I flashed it with DD-WRT so now it's even more versatile.

I'm going to set it up in one of two configurations, depending on where I decide to put it (and if I can get the setup to work how I think it will).

The two weakest locations current in the house are the kitchen & a bedroom where the kitchen could use stronger signal & the bedroom has a desktop PC.

[1] Bedroom PC Ethernet set up as wireless client + wireless repeater.
[2] Kitchen standalone Internet station, set up as a wireless repeater.

I don't see any disadvantage of this other than it uses up the one Ethernet >>port most PCs have but if you're not using it, then that's not a drawback.

Not a con because where you initially had one Ethernet port, now you
have three.

I don't see any disadvantages no matter how I set it up because I gain
three ports (you can even gain four ports with dd-wrt settings) and I gain
two access points (but I see above you say maybe I only gain one AP).

My two choices I'm focusing on learning how to set up are these two.

[1] Bedroom PC Ethernet set up as wireless client + wireless repeater.
This accomplishes three things, for free, because it is probably a
stronger connection over Wi-Fi to the router (via the wireless bridge)
and it adds one (or two?) strong access points in the bedroom
(for things like a cellphone and laptop PC to use) and it adds three
(or four?) Ethernet ports to the PC (DD-WRT has a setting to make the '
yellow WAN port into a LAN port so that would add four extra RJ45s).

[2] Kitchen standalone Internet station, set up as a wireless repeater.
This accomplishes two things, for free, because portable devices in
the kitchen can make use of the one (or two) access points of the
spare router, and if needed, it adds four (or five) Ethernet ports too.

Either way, it's more useful than a dumb switch would be so I'm glad people were able to help guide me to put the spare router to a better purpose.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In alt.internet.wireless Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 15:51:02 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
...

But, not knowing what the future will bring, if I needed more ports
some day, would this $18.99 switch be a good choice?

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PFYM5MZ/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1VJNMB3XPQXC&keywords=lan%2Bswitch%2B8%2Bport&qid=1677940077&sprefix=lan%2Bswitch%2Caps%2C264&sr=8-3&th=1

Also, is that enhanced software worth getting and using? Or can we use a >free third party software?

What enhanced software? If you mean 3rd party router firmware, yes,
that's generally free, but it's not applicable to a switch.

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PLFCQVK/ after clicking on its "8 Port with Enhanced Features" style:
"* Plus software with easy-to-use interface offers basic managed capabilities to configure, secure, and monitor your network"
--
"It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way." --Proverbs 19:2. Winter is back, but without its annoying rain & winds. No naps 4 days 2 make this old ant pass out & wake up very early like 10 PM to 5 AM.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In article <2UydnR1WFd_xm5n5nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

Also, is that enhanced software worth getting and using? Or can we use a >free third party software?

What enhanced software? If you mean 3rd party router firmware, yes,
that's generally free, but it's not applicable to a switch.

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B07PLFCQVK
/ after clicking on its "8 Port with Enhanced Features" style:
"* Plus software with easy-to-use interface offers basic managed capabilities to configure, secure, and monitor your network"

spec sheet:
<https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91mZ0NQjqKL.pdf>
NETGEAR � Plus Switches meet this growing need by providing
fundamental network features such as VLANs, QoS, and IGMP Snooping
that will help optimize the performance of business networks. Plus
Switches are the perfect upgrade from the plug-and-play unmanaged
switch, delivering essential networking features at a very affordable
price.

it looks like it's more than just an unmanaged switch, although it's
not as comprehensive as a higher end model.

the 'software' is built in and accessed via a web browser.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

"dan" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote

| Who wouldn't want extended range for free without cost or waste?
| And who wouldn't want to save landfills from one more piece of waste?
|
| My thoughts are that I hate to waste things, and buying a new "anything"
is
| a tremendous waste for the environment if everyone acted that way.
|

That makes sense, *if* it really adds notable usefulness
to re-use the old router. I didn't understand that you're
going mostly wireless. I had bought a switch for adding
more cables and thought that was what you wanted
to do. I don't have any experience with wifi extending
options because I simply don't use wifi. Sorry to confuse
things.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 09:14:55 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:

| Who wouldn't want extended range for free without cost or waste?
| And who wouldn't want to save landfills from one more piece of waste?

That makes sense, *if* it really adds notable usefulness
to re-use the old router. I didn't understand that you're
going mostly wireless. I had bought a switch for adding
more cables and thought that was what you wanted
to do. I don't have any experience with wifi extending
options because I simply don't use wifi. Sorry to confuse
things.

Please do not apologize. I learned a LOT from this thread, and, from that learning, I acquired a healthy APPRECIATION for how powerful routers are!

Even old routers.

I apologize that I started asking only how to turn the old router into a
dumb switch but then when I started learning what an old router could do, I "moved the goalposts" to asking how to make it a more useful Repeater
Bridge.

It took most of the night last evening to set it up and debug why it wasn't working the way it's documented, but I can simplify the final results that
it's WONDERFUL to be able to plug in a Repeater Bridge almost ANYWHERE in
your home that has "low signal" strength - and voila - it's fantastic!

No wires!

I put the spare router inside a cabinet in the kitchen powered up.
Then I tested it by connecting with phones and laptops in the kitchen.

Instantly I have a VERY STRONG wireless signal strength in that kitchen.

A wonderful versatility is that if I need a VERY STRONG signal somewhere
else in the house, or even outside the house (if it's not too far away),
I can just pick up that spare router and move it to that location.

Any location that is close enough to receive "some" signal from any access point in the house (notice very clearly I didn't say the home router!), can
get instant HIGH SIGNAL strength simply by plopping the spare router there.

That's pretty useful don't you think?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On 2023-03-05 13:25, dan wrote:

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 09:14:55 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:

| Who wouldn't want extended range for free without cost or waste?
| And who wouldn't want to save landfills from one more piece of waste?

That makes sense, *if* it really adds notable usefulness
to re-use the old router. I didn't understand that you're
going mostly wireless. I had bought a switch for adding
more cables and thought that was what you wanted
to do. I don't have any experience with wifi extending
options because I simply don't use wifi. Sorry to confuse
things.

Please do not apologize. I learned a LOT from this thread, and, from that learning, I acquired a healthy APPRECIATION for how powerful routers are!

Even old routers.

I apologize that I started asking only how to turn the old router into a
dumb switch but then when I started learning what an old router could do, I "moved the goalposts" to asking how to make it a more useful Repeater
Bridge.

Never apologize for asking and learning.

This is one of the goals of usenet: people helping people.

And it doesn't mean you get the answer you're looking for.

And the discussion refreshes information, explores ideas and takes us
down the odd rabbit hole.

Unfortunately a few big egos come along and prance in various ways.

It took most of the night last evening to set it up and debug why it wasn't working the way it's documented, but I can simplify the final results that it's WONDERFUL to be able to plug in a Repeater Bridge almost ANYWHERE in your home that has "low signal" strength - and voila - it's fantastic!

No wires!

I put the spare router inside a cabinet in the kitchen powered up.
Then I tested it by connecting with phones and laptops in the kitchen.

Instantly I have a VERY STRONG wireless signal strength in that kitchen.

A wonderful versatility is that if I need a VERY STRONG signal somewhere
else in the house, or even outside the house (if it's not too far away),
I can just pick up that spare router and move it to that location.

Any location that is close enough to receive "some" signal from any access point in the house (notice very clearly I didn't say the home router!), can get instant HIGH SIGNAL strength simply by plopping the spare router there.

That's pretty useful don't you think?

Yes indeed - glad this is working for you. I have a spare WiFi router
and now I'm tempted to do similar: I can put it in the attic above the
centre of the house. Has to go through the ceiling but that's better
than the 2 walls it's penetrating now to get to the kitchen and patio (3 walls). OTOH, it would made wired access to the router not very practical.

Another route would be a (brieflyly exposed) cable through the basement
into the crawlspace and up into the LR. Already have some speaker wire
on that last segment.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 20:41:44 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

OK thanks. I don't think that's for me.

I tend to agree ...

It took many hours last night but I have earned a newly found appreciation
for how WONDERFUL having a spare router can be, in that I can plug it in
almost anywhere in the house, and I get instant high signal strength there.

All I need is electricity and signal from somewhere (which can be either
the home router's access points, or any other access point around my home).

What took the most time this week was mainly in learned enough to DECIDE
what to do with the spare router, where I didn't know for the longest time
what the difference was between setting up the spare router "Wireless Mode"
as an AP, Adhoc, Client, Client Bridge, Repeater or Repeater Bridge.

While I first asked to set it up as a "dumb switch", I soon realized these
two were the most versatile options for extending the main router's range. https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Image:Client_Bridge.jpg https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Image:Repeater_Bridge.jpg

And of those, the more versatile option turns out to be a Repeater Bridge.

A Repeater Bridge has the following advantages.
[1] It can be placed anywhere there is enough signal from anything
[2] That signal can be from the main router or from a nearby access point
[3] There's no need for any wires (other than for the power supply)

What you gain with a Repeater Bridge wherever you plop it down, is
[1] You gain five Ethernet RJ45 ports for free (one is configurable)
[2] You gain a strong access point wherever you plop the Repeater Bridge
[3] I can't figure out even a single downside to a Repeater Bridge setup

Can you think of any downside to this approach for everyone to use?

Instead of throwing away this spare router, just by the act of turning it
into a Repeater Bridge allows me to plop it anywhere that has any signal
from any access point (not just from the main router's access points) and instantly I get strong signal with no wires wherever I place it.

That's really nice!
What could be better than that!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 16:47:23 -0200, dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

It took many hours last night but I have earned a newly found appreciation >for how WONDERFUL having a spare router can be, in that I can plug it in >almost anywhere in the house, and I get instant high signal strength there.

<snip>

What you gain with a Repeater Bridge wherever you plop it down, is
[1] You gain five Ethernet RJ45 ports for free (one is configurable)
[2] You gain a strong access point wherever you plop the Repeater Bridge
[3] I can't figure out even a single downside to a Repeater Bridge setup

Low throughput comes to mind when dealing with repeaters. If you're ok
with that, the rest is good.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 20:41:36 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

Every router with more than one LAN port has an Ethernet switch built
in, almost always a 5-port switch where the 5th port is internally
connected to the router section.

I found out that you're right that the DD-WRT software I flashed has an
option to turn the now unused WAN RJ45 port into a usable LAN RJ45 port.

Repeater Bridge DD-WRT Setup > Basic Setup > Network Setup > WAN Port >
Assign WAN Port to Switch = checkbox

That makes all five ports (4 LAN + 1 WAN) RJ45s into usable LAN ports.

Yesterday I finished setting it up as what DD-WRT calls a Repeater Bridge. https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Image:Repeater_Bridge.jpg

My plan is to plop that Repeater Bridge (inside or outside) wherever I need stronger signal (if it has enough signal from any access point nearby).

Not only does that "new" Repeater Bridge give me instant strong signal
anywhere I plug it in, but it also gives me those five Ethernet ports
I had asked for when I first opened this thread.

One of those five Ethernet ports could be useful to plug a pc into if the
pc doesn't have a wireless NIC but if it only has an Ethernet NIC instead.

That way the Repeater Bridge also adds Wi-Fi to a pc.

All this is for free.
[1] Instant high signal strength for wireless devices like phones & laptops
[2] No wires other than the need for the power connection
[3] Five Ethernet ports
[4] Connects to any access point (not just to the one main home router)

I'm trying to think of a downside to having set up the spare router as a Repeater Bridge, and I just can't think of any. Is there any downside?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 17:16:44 -0200, dan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 20:41:36 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

Every router with more than one LAN port has an Ethernet switch built
in, almost always a 5-port switch where the 5th port is internally
connected to the router section.

I found out that you're right that the DD-WRT software I flashed has an >option to turn the now unused WAN RJ45 port into a usable LAN RJ45 port.

Repeater Bridge DD-WRT Setup > Basic Setup > Network Setup > WAN Port > >Assign WAN Port to Switch = checkbox

That makes all five ports (4 LAN + 1 WAN) RJ45s into usable LAN ports.

Yesterday I finished setting it up as what DD-WRT calls a Repeater Bridge. >https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Image:Repeater_Bridge.jpg

My plan is to plop that Repeater Bridge (inside or outside) wherever I need >stronger signal (if it has enough signal from any access point nearby).

Not only does that "new" Repeater Bridge give me instant strong signal >anywhere I plug it in, but it also gives me those five Ethernet ports
I had asked for when I first opened this thread.

One of those five Ethernet ports could be useful to plug a pc into if the
pc doesn't have a wireless NIC but if it only has an Ethernet NIC instead.

That way the Repeater Bridge also adds Wi-Fi to a pc.

All this is for free.
[1] Instant high signal strength for wireless devices like phones & laptops >[2] No wires other than the need for the power connection
[3] Five Ethernet ports
[4] Connects to any access point (not just to the one main home router)

I'm trying to think of a downside to having set up the spare router as a >Repeater Bridge, and I just can't think of any. Is there any downside?

The last time I tried a repeater experiment, which was also the first
time I tried a repeater experiment, the current WiFi protocol was
802.11g, which provides up to 54 megabits of throughput in theory. A
repeater necessarily cuts that in half, minus a bit more for switching
overhead and collisions, so I was hoping to see about 20-25 mbits but I
could only manage about 12-15mbits. That was the end of that experiment.

WiFi has come a long way since then, but repeaters still suck, in my
mind, because whatever WiFi protocol your old router supports, you're
only likely to see about 35-40% of the theoretical rate. That's too much
of a hit for me, so I always look for other options.

Bottom line, your LAN ports may or may not be limited to only 100mbits,
but that's probably not the limiting factor. It's probably the WiFi
link. Note that signal strength doesn't necessarily correlate to
throughput capacity. It's possible to have a very strong signal that's completely unusable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 14:15:40 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

I'm trying to think of a downside to having set up the spare router as a
Repeater Bridge, and I just can't think of any. Is there any downside?

The last time I tried a repeater experiment, which was also the first
time I tried a repeater experiment, the current WiFi protocol was
802.11g, which provides up to 54 megabits of throughput in theory.

Also for me the last time I tried a repeater experiment (which was also the first time I tried a repeater experiment) the router was the WRT54Gv5.

I think at the time it wouldn't handle wireless repeating so I wired it.
That's (I hope) the last time I'll ever crawl around stringing cables!

I do understand that the main downside you're saying is the router is old.

A
repeater necessarily cuts that in half, minus a bit more for switching overhead and collisions, so I was hoping to see about 20-25 mbits but I
could only manage about 12-15mbits. That was the end of that experiment.

Does this "dual band" DD-WRT "Repeater Bridge" solve the speed problem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJYb3bMzN6g

WiFi has come a long way since then, but repeaters still suck, in my
mind, because whatever WiFi protocol your old router supports, you're
only likely to see about 35-40% of the theoretical rate. That's too much
of a hit for me, so I always look for other options.

That seems reasonable that the biggest drawback is likely that the speed is probably something less than half of what it would be had it been wired.

Bottom line, your LAN ports may or may not be limited to only 100mbits,
but that's probably not the limiting factor. It's probably the WiFi
link. Note that signal strength doesn't necessarily correlate to
throughput capacity. It's possible to have a very strong signal that's completely unusable.

That makes a second drawback which is that the ports on an older router are likely to be slower than the ports that might be on a newer router.

So that's two known drawbacks.
[1] The speed is less when it's a Repeater Bridge than if it was wired
[2] The five Ethernet ports are still slower than the latest in speeds

Thanks!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 13:41:09 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

That's pretty useful don't you think?

Yes indeed - glad this is working for you.

What I didn't know was how VERSATILE a router is, where, in the end, I got
my five Ethernet ports after all. https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Image:Repeater_Bridge.jpg

What I love is this DD-WRT Repeater Bridge is portable.

I can plop it to anywhere inside or out that needs more signal strength.
Or that needs Ethernet ports.

All for free.

I have a spare WiFi router
and now I'm tempted to do similar.

I watched this great Repeater Bridge setup video but only after I couldn't
get the DD-WRT Repeater Bridge to connect to the Internet. https://youtu.be/oJaYE9Yk7gc

The issues I think had prevented Internet connections were [1] the Gateway
& Local DNS had to be the same and [2] I didn't know that I had to choose
in the "Advanced Routing" tab between the "Operating Mode" of "Router" & "Gateway" and [3] I think it was important that I finally played with the boolean choices for the "Services" settings on "DNSMasq" & "Local DNS."

I'm not sure if I needed all three, but only after changing all three did
the Internet suddenly show up using the router as a DD-WRT Repeater Bridge.

I can put it in the attic above the centre of the house.

Portability is the beauty of this Repeater Bridge.

The only requirements I can think of are these as far as I know.
[1] You need AC power in your attic
[2] You need "some" signal strength from any access point in your LAN
[3] Your router has to be a Wi-Fi router that DD-WRT supports

Has to go through the ceiling but that's better
than the 2 walls it's penetrating now to get to the kitchen and patio (3 walls). OTOH, it would made wired access to the router not very practical.

I think you only need to decide between a Client Bridge or Repeater Bridge. https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Image:Client_Bridge.jpg https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/images/9/9b/Repeater_Bridge.jpg

This is a humorous video explaining the kinds of choices involved. https://youtu.be/rmB7n-ABNaA

For a single subnet LAN, I think the Repeater Bridge works the best. https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Repeater_Bridge

Notice that most of the time people seem to connect it to the access point which is inside the main home router but mine connects to any access point.

There are even ways to set up the Repeater Bridge in dual band mode. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJYb3bMzN6g

Another route would be a (brieflyly exposed) cable through the basement
into the crawlspace and up into the LR. Already have some speaker wire
on that last segment.

Cabling is nice. But more physical work.

If you do set up your extra router with DD-WRT as a Repeater Bridge, you'll want to specifically make a decision about these three issues which got me.

DD-WRT Repeater Bridge https://youtu.be/ByB8vVGBjh4?t=35
Setup > Basic Setup > Network Setup > "Gateway" & "Local DNS" settings
[1] I didn't have Internet until I set them both to "192.168.1.1"

DD-WRT Repeater Bridge
Setup > Advanced Routing > Operating Mode > "Router" & "Gateway" setting
[2] I didn't have Internet until I changed from "Gateway" to "Router"

DD-WRT Repeater Bridge
Services > Services Management > DNSMasq > "DNSMasq" & "Local DNS" settings
[3] I didn't have Internet until I enabled both of them but the videos
say to disable "DNSMasq" but it didn't work for me so maybe it doesn't
matter because after I did all three, finally the Internet showed up.

I'm still a noob but if you have questions, feel free to ask for help.
A friend said he'd give me an old router so I can try setting up another.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On 05/03/2023 18:25, dan wrote:

I apologize that I started asking only how to turn the old router into a
dumb switch but then when I started learning what an old router could do, I "moved the goalposts" to asking how to make it a more useful Repeater
Bridge.

I used an old router as a wifi access point on a different LAN segment.
I was having (and I'm still occasionally having) problems accessing a
certain website from my Android phone, but only over my VDSL internet connection and not over anyone else's or over my phone's mobile internet connection. Sometimes the network gets into a state where a request for
a page on the site times out.

So I wanted to get a Wireshark trace of the conversation. Sadly I fell
foul of the router's desire to keep traffic local to one LAN segment. I
tried with a Wireshark PC connected to the same wireless access point as
the phone, as opposed to PC on an Ethernet port and phone on wifi, but
even that didn't see all the traffic for a web-page access. I thought
that all devices connected to the same wifi node were regarded as the
same "LAN segment" in terms of traffic filtering - evidently not.

So I bought a managed switch which offered port mirroring: one Ethernet
port is *defined* to see all the traffic on another port. Not having a
wireless access point, I connected an old router (with NAT turned off)
to the port that was being mirrored, having given that router a unique
SSID to which I connected my phone. I connected the Wireshark PC to the
port that was receiving a mirror of the router/access-point, with
another port connected to the rest of my LAN. Now I could guarantee that
any traffic between my phone and the internet (and hence the misbehaving
site) would be echoed to the Wireshark PC.

It worked a treat. I saw some very odd behaviour, with TCP packets from
the phone to the site retrying at 2, 4, 8, ... seconds because they
never got a response from the web server. I'm not sure quite how to
interpret the results and where the blame might lie, but at least I've
got the trace so my ISP and/or the web site owner can investigate further.

For now I take the coward's way out: when I want to access that site I
turn off wifi on my phone to force it to use mobile internet instead.
Normally it works, but then for a week or so it consistently fails. My
router gets allocated various different WAN addresses by my ISP, in
various different subnets; also the order of primary and secondary DNS alternates from time to time (presumably the DHCP-like mechanism that
the ISP uses to allocate WAN IP to the router hands out different
addresses when the connection is renewed). However my theory was untrue: whether the phone could or couldn't access the site did not seem to be
affected by which range of IP addresses or which order DNS server were
used by the router's WAN connection.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 13:53:58 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

What you gain with a Repeater Bridge wherever you plop it down, is
[1] You gain five Ethernet RJ45 ports for free (one is configurable)
[2] You gain a strong access point wherever you plop the Repeater Bridge >>[3] I can't figure out even a single downside to a Repeater Bridge setup

Low throughput comes to mind when dealing with repeaters. If you're ok
with that, the rest is good.

Thank you for all your help and advice which was instrumental in getting
the Repeater Bridge working as a portable hotspot with Ethernet ports.

It seems that's the main drawback which is lower speed because of two
things that conspire together, the first being it's an old router after all
(so for example, the Ethernet ports are not the fastest speeds) and the Repeater Bridge function itself lowers the throughput.

Two things I briefly tested because I was curious are NEVER shown in any of
the descriptions I've seen so far of how Repeater Bridges work are
[1] You can connect to any of your LAN access points, not just the router
[2] Any client can still connect to the same access point you bridged to

That's kind of neat in that everything that worked for wireless clients
(like phones & laptops) before the Repeater Bridge was set up, still works.

I had thought making the router bridge to (let's call it) AccessPoint1,
that AccessPoint1 wouldn't be available to other wireless clients at the
same time. But it is.

What's even better is that a friend gave me a second (even older) router to play with today and I set it up to connect to the same AccessPoint1.

So, for example, I can bring up BOTH Repeater Bridges on my PC so that I
could take screen shots of each page side by side in my web browser to
compare the setup differences (they're versions of the DD-WRT software). https://freeimage.host/i/HWGtxCx

In one old router, for example, you can see the Repeater Bridge only seemed
to have worked when I set "DNSMasq" to Enable & "Local DNS" to Disable. https://forum.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=319049

In another old router, the Repeater Bridge only seemed to have worked when
I set both the "DNSMasq" & "Local DNS" to Enable.

It doesn't help things that I don't even know what a "DNSMasq" is. :-(

This description says it's just a cache so I don't see why it mattered. https://blog.flashrouters.com/2011/10/10/advantages-of-dd-wrt-3-what-is-dnsmasq/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 17:08:46 -0600, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, Char
Jackson wrote:

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:12:14 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 17:27:47 -0200, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, dan wrote:

But how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

Basically, you don't. You will get more complicated answers. But they
will vary from "not worth it" to "you can't."

You may not have read the thread or you'd see that it's beyond simple.

Disable DHCP, configure a static LAN IP, and don't use the WAN port. Now
you have an unmanaged switch, and you can do it with virtually every
SOHO router, with or without WiFi. No extra software required, you can
do those simple tasks right from the router's GUI.

My mistake then. I didn't think mine had the ability to configure a
static IP for the router. You can do it for the WAN port, but that's not
the same thing. I thought mine was hardcoded to be 192.168.0.1.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

Zaghadka wrote:

My mistake then. I didn't think mine had the ability to configure a
static IP for the router. You can do it for the WAN port, but that's not
the same thing. I thought mine was hardcoded to be 192.168.0.1.

I used to set my gateway to 10.20.30.40 because I thought, at the time,
that anyone could "guess" that it's 192.168.{0,1}.1 but over time, it
became a pain to constantly change all the defaults so I let it go.

I used to change the router MAC addresses for the same reason, but then I realized you can't change the _one_ MAC that matters most for privacy.

For most of us (all of us?) the incoming WAN IP address is handed to us by
the ISP, where mine is a WISP so mine comes to me from a variety of access points, all of which are miles away (so my WAN is set to get it by DHCP).
<https://i.postimg.cc/VvqLKQtQ/wifi.jpg> Typical range is about 10 miles

Given most of us are using MAC randomization now, that negates the
"assignment" of a static IP on the router to be handed to devices.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Rh87RNrV/macaddr02.jpg> Random MAC on every connect

This is particularly pernicious when you have an iPad as Android handles
the MAC randomization better (IMHO) in that Android 10 made it the default
for MAC randomization per SSID (which routers can easily handle); but
Android 11 added the capability (which I use all the time) for MAC randomization per connection (which routers have a hard time handling).

Hence, for a "static IP address" on my Android, I make that request on the phone itself, using a set of IP addresses outside the router DHCP range.

I never fully understood how reserving IP addresses works, but if you
randomize your MAC address per connection, it's harder on the router.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nchSVcmS/vysor30.jpg> Static/Reserved IP address

If you ask why you want a static IP address when you're randomizing the MAC
on every connections, it's because of Windows scripts I use with Android.
<https://i.postimg.cc/5NrK7jtg/scrcpy16.jpg> powershell hide-console trick

Some of those scripts use the Android unique serial number though, and therefore those scripts which don't need a static IP address work anyway.
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgvzsMRm/scrcpy25.jpg> Connect over Wi-Fi sans USB

But many of the Windows networking scripts require the Android IP address.
<https://i.postimg.cc/BvJdKWzt/webdav06.jpg> Both sdcards mounted

These scripts are mostly needed when you're networking Android to Windows.
<https://i.postimg.cc/hjkVFyqJ/scrcpy07.jpg> Android mnt as drive letter

Such that, for example, you download a file on Windows and it's on Android.
<https://i.postimg.cc/9FJMKYch/scrcpy21.jpg> Windows Drive: === Android

By doing this magic, you can now just _slide_ APKs from Windows to Android
and they automatically install themselves, which makes setup really easy.
<https://i.postimg.cc/wvsbcNBz/scrcpy05.jpg> Drag APK from Windows

Of course, I'm sure if you're a good Windows coder, you don't need a static
IP address in your scripts so then you can concentrate on solving the fact
that Android randomizes every Wi-Fi connection to the PC using a unique so-called Wi-Fi Debugging Pairing Code (which changes on every connect).
<https://i.postimg.cc/SRRXtvKh/adb16.jpg> Android 12 Wireless Pairing

If someone could solve _that_ problem, they'd be a genius in my book.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to faithfully add related technical experience.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 20:32:49 -0600, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, Zaghadka
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 17:08:46 -0600, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, Char
Jackson wrote:

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:12:14 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 17:27:47 -0200, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, dan wrote:

But how would I turn the old router from routing into a "dumb" switch?

Basically, you don't. You will get more complicated answers. But they >>>will vary from "not worth it" to "you can't."

You may not have read the thread or you'd see that it's beyond simple.

Disable DHCP, configure a static LAN IP, and don't use the WAN port. Now >>you have an unmanaged switch, and you can do it with virtually every
SOHO router, with or without WiFi. No extra software required, you can
do those simple tasks right from the router's GUI.

My mistake then. I didn't think mine had the ability to configure a
static IP for the router. You can do it for the WAN port, but that's not
the same thing. I thought mine was hardcoded to be 192.168.0.1.

Finally found it! Netgear R7000. It was very, very buried on the advanced
page (LAN setup). It simply doesn't exist on the basic page.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ttufsu$t021$1@dont-email.me:

In the end analysis, assuming you have a normal dual access
point router set up either as a wireless client bridge or
as a wireless repeater, as far as I can tell from thinking
about it, both do the same job except the wireless repeater
is restricted to connecting to only another router (and not
another access point) and the wireless repeater is limited
in speed.

Your end analysis isn't quite on the mark.

First off, a router and access point, are technically two different things. A router (in the
SOHO world) is a device that provides NAT translation so many different IP devcies
'inside' the network can share one sinlge 'global' IP address.

An access point, is a wireless device acting as a master radio, that multiple clients can
connect to to get onto a LAN.

A router can be standalone, an access point can be standalone, or it can be a combo-
device offering both functionalites.

So why use an old router as a 'client bridge'? For one, to extend the network, and offer
additional wired ports for other devices. OK...that's it. For one...There is no other use
than to provide a LAN connection for a group of wired devices that may not have wireless capabilities of their own. Three devices can be wired into the LAN ports, and
then all three share the wireless connectivity back to the main AP. One thing it does
do, however, is provide slightly better aggregate throughput, back to that main AP.
There is only one WLAN connection serving those three devices, rather than all three
of them trying to coordinate their WLAN functionality separately.

The other thing, if that old router/AP, IS concurrent dual band, you may be able to
connect the WLAN devices on 2.4, and 'backhaul' it to the main AP at 5.8 or visa-
versa. That way, no speed is 'cut in half' receiving and then retransmitting on the same
AP. Any speed loss that way, is based on the quality and max connection speed of 2.4
& 5.8G connections to said repeater, not because it gets cut in half trying to rebroadcast on the same 2.4 or 5.8Ghz AP.

But, WIRED IS ALWAYS BETTER for reliability and speeds.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In article <XnsAFC382006F148thisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.101.19>, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

The other thing, if that old router/AP, IS concurrent dual band, you may be able to
connect the WLAN devices on 2.4, and 'backhaul' it to the main AP at 5.8 or visa-
versa. That way, no speed is 'cut in half' receiving and then retransmitting on the same
AP. Any speed loss that way, is based on the quality and max connection speed of 2.4
& 5.8G connections to said repeater, not because it gets cut in half trying to
rebroadcast on the same 2.4 or 5.8Ghz AP.

true but in that scenario, you'd be limited to 2.4gz speeds, which are
*slow*.

a better option is a tri-band unit, which uses a second 5ghz band for
the backhaul. there are also quad-band routers.

an even better option (in most cases) is a wired backhaul, however,
wired isn't always an option, and for wifi 6 (and later), wired gigabit
will be a bottleneck.

But, WIRED IS ALWAYS BETTER for reliability and speeds.

not always. that depends on the wire and wireless.

wifi 6 is *faster* than gigabit wired ethernet, but not as fast as
2.5/5/10gb-e wired, which although not common (yet), is starting to
become more prevalent.


most people have gigabit, making it the limiting factor, which is why
many wifi 6 routers have at least one 2.5gb port, some 10gb-e.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:100320231524307943%nospam@nospam.invalid:

In article
<XnsAFC382006F148thisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.101.19>, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

The other thing, if that old router/AP, IS concurrent dual
band, you may be able to
connect the WLAN devices on 2.4, and 'backhaul' it to the
main AP at 5.8 or visa-
versa. That way, no speed is 'cut in half' receiving and
then retransmitting on the same
AP. Any speed loss that way, is based on the quality and
max connection speed of 2.4
& 5.8G connections to said repeater, not because it gets
cut in half trying to
rebroadcast on the same 2.4 or 5.8Ghz AP.

true but in that scenario, you'd be limited to 2.4gz
speeds, which are *slow*.

That is true. But I was just repurposing old gear.

a better option is a tri-band unit, which uses a second
5ghz band for the backhaul. there are also quad-band
routers.

an even better option (in most cases) is a wired backhaul,
however, wired isn't always an option, and for wifi 6 (and
later), wired gigabit will be a bottleneck.

But, WIRED IS ALWAYS BETTER for reliability and speeds.

not always. that depends on the wire and wireless.

wifi 6 is *faster* than gigabit wired ethernet, but not as
fast as 2.5/5/10gb-e wired, which although not common
(yet), is starting to become more prevalent.

Sure, in theory. In a real-world scenario, I'd doubt it. Beleive me, my job *is* wireless.

So, the signalling rate of 2 chain AC radios is up to 866 mbps. I've done a lot of testing,
with these, and the max actual user throughput, is around 600mbps, using UDP only.
To get that speed, you need pristine conditions, signal level up in the neg 40's, and one
AP with only one client.

Once other devices are added to the mix, at different signal levels, which use different
modulation rates, you will never get an aggregate user bandwidth even near that 600mbps mark.

Even WiFi-6 same, thing. Sure, the high theoretical throughput sounds great, but once
you add devices that aren't operating at the highest mod rates at strong signal levels...that will drop.

In reality, GB ethernet isn't 1GB in speed. It's typically full duplex, so simultaneously
1GB in each direction (subject to the capabilities of the PC/switch/gear of the action).

This page has a chart for AC gear, that tells you the required RSSI per modulation rate.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wi-fi-explained-part-iii-assi-abramovitz/

These are theoretical minimum signal levels. This is without multipath, without other
vying for signal time, without outside interference.

Those really high speed numbers for AX are also based on really wide channels, like
160MHz wide, which is 8 'standard' 20mhz wide channels. Right there, subject to massive interference.

I'm going to stick with my original statement...

...for performance and reliability, wired will always beat wireless, at this time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In article <XnsAFC47E35FB124thisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.101.13>, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

But, WIRED IS ALWAYS BETTER for reliability and speeds.

not always. that depends on the wire and wireless.

wifi 6 is *faster* than gigabit wired ethernet, but not as
fast as 2.5/5/10gb-e wired, which although not common
(yet), is starting to become more prevalent.

Sure, in theory. In a real-world scenario, I'd doubt it. Beleive me, my job *is* wireless.

So, the signalling rate of 2 chain AC radios is up to 866 mbps. I've done a lot of testing,

ac (wifi 5) is old.

ax (wifi 6) is the current norm, with wifi 6e available (although
expensive) and soon wifi 7.

Once other devices are added to the mix, at different signal levels, which use different
modulation rates, you will never get an aggregate user bandwidth even near that
600mbps mark.

other devices slow down wired connections too.

Even WiFi-6 same, thing. Sure, the high theoretical throughput sounds great, but once
you add devices that aren't operating at the highest mod rates at strong signal
levels...that will drop.

legacy devices can go on 2.4ghz (or a second or even third 5ghz band if available). mimo also helps.

In reality, GB ethernet isn't 1GB in speed. It's typically full duplex, so simultaneously
1GB in each direction (subject to the capabilities of the PC/switch/gear of the action).

it's slightly less. the difference is not significant in this context.

This page has a chart for AC gear, that tells you the required RSSI per modulation rate.

again, ac is old.

real world wifi 6 (ax) speeds at 10 feet, topping out over 1.6 gbit/s: <https://i0.wp.com/dongknows.com/wp-content/uploads/Asus-GT-AX11000-Pro- Wi-Fi-AX-Performance-Short-Range.png>

real world wifi 6 (ax) speeds at 40 feet, topping out over 1.4 gbit/s
(although a different router): <https://i0.wp.com/dongknows.com/wp-content/uploads/Asus-GT-AX11000-Pro- Wi-Fi-AX-Performance-Long-Range.png>

note the sharp drop-off for routers with gigabit ports, which top out
just over 0.9 gbit/s, a little more than half that of the fastest
multi-gig router.

Those really high speed numbers for AX are also based on really wide channels, like
160MHz wide, which is 8 'standard' 20mhz wide channels. Right there, subject to
massive interference.

there isn't that much interference, most clients support 80 mhz and two
mesh units can use a 160 mhz backhaul.

I'm going to stick with my original statement...

...for performance and reliability, wired will always beat wireless, at this time.

and i'm going to stick to mine, that that it's not that clear cut.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:130320232227338438%nospam@nospam.invalid:

again, ac is old.

No sh*t?

real world wifi 6 (ax) speeds at 10 feet, topping out over
1.6 gbit/s:
<https://i0.wp.com/dongknows.com/wp-content/uploads/Asus-GT-
AX11000-Pro- Wi-Fi-AX-Performance-Short-Range.png>

real world wifi 6 (ax) speeds at 40 feet, topping out over
1.4 gbit/s (although a different router): <https://i0.wp.com/dongknows.com/wp-content/uploads/Asus-GT-
AX11000-Pro- Wi-Fi-AX-Performance-Long-Range.png>

note the sharp drop-off for routers with gigabit ports,
which top out just over 0.9 gbit/s, a little more than half
that of the fastest multi-gig router.

Note, those are tests of ONE router, with ONE client that is capable if WiFi6.

That is just not real world.

Let's see with a few other devices of varying capabilities. Maybe one wireless streaming Netflix, another XBox playing a network game, and several phones, etc. And
let's have varying distances and obstructions, like a home would have.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.internet.wireless

In article <XnsAFC77114C31A4thisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.102.22>, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

real world wifi 6 (ax) speeds at 10 feet, topping out over
1.6 gbit/s:
<https://i0.wp.com/dongknows.com/wp-content/uploads/Asus-GT-
AX11000-Pro- Wi-Fi-AX-Performance-Short-Range.png>

real world wifi 6 (ax) speeds at 40 feet, topping out over
1.4 gbit/s (although a different router): <https://i0.wp.com/dongknows.com/wp-content/uploads/Asus-GT-
AX11000-Pro- Wi-Fi-AX-Performance-Long-Range.png>

note the sharp drop-off for routers with gigabit ports,
which top out just over 0.9 gbit/s, a little more than half
that of the fastest multi-gig router.

Note, those are tests of ONE router, with ONE client that is capable if WiFi6.

correct, which is what's needed for a comparison without adding any
confounding factors.

That is just not real world.

it's very much real world, versus the (inflated) marketing numbers.

Let's see with a few other devices of varying capabilities. Maybe one wireless
streaming Netflix, another XBox playing a network game, and several phones, etc. And
let's have varying distances and obstructions, like a home would have.

that has nothing to do with wired versus wireless, and anyone can
create a scenario to fit whatever conclusion they want.

nevertheless, in the above scenario, a gaming router (which is
basically just canned qos settings) would be a good choice for
prioritizing the xbox. streaming video doesn't use much bandwidth and
phones are normally idle (and rarely use much bandwidth when not), so
custom qos settings might not even be needed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)