WDS vs. Extend a wireless network

If your an Apple Fanboy, you can use multiple Apple Airport Extremes in a "Roaming Network" configuration. This is the absolute "best" way to extend a wireless network because it preserves maximum bandwidth on the network. It's exactly the way a good commercial system is designed. Each access point is connected back to the main access point via an ethernet cable. Read this Apple articel Article: HT4260.

Meraki is still a better solution for a business environment.

I tried the following setup

iPhone 3GS <-- wifi g (54 Mbps)--> 1st gen Airport Express g only <-- PowerLine (200 Mbps) --> TimeCapsule <-- ethernet (1 Gbps) --> Cable Modem <-- (120/10 Mbps) --> INTERNET

Excellent help Bob, the picture you painted of the hub-and-spokes vs daisy-chain should be in the manual/kb articles...

Trying to follow your directions, neither the option key together with Wireless Mode you mention, reveals 'WDS' in Airport Utility 6.0 (600.92), nor does this version seem to have a 'configure manually' option.

What version of the application do you refer to, or where should I look in v6.0?

Although the power line ethernet adapter would be a workaround, I wonder if two AirPort Extremes (APE 1 and 2 below) back to back could be used, where APE2 creates a new network and APE3 extends the APE2 network: using ... for wireless, ___ for wired, I ascii paint:

basestation.......APE1_____APE2.....APE3

Probably this gives a heavy throughput penalty, but it would be the only solution if APE2 and APE3 are in two parts of the building that are electrically separated (ie. where two ethernet power line adapters would not see each other).

Trying to follow your directions, neither the option key together with Wireless Mode you mention, reveals 'WDS' in Airport Utility 6.0 (600.92), nor does this version seem to have a 'configure manually' option.

What version of the application do you refer to, or where should I look in v6.0?

This is an older thread that was active before AirPort Utility 6.0 was introduced.

With AirPort Utility 6.0, Apple dropped a number of features and options. If you are running Lion, and you need WDS settings, your only option is to download and install the more functional AirPort Utility 5.6 for Mac OS X Lion , which can co-exist on your Mac with AirPort Utility 6.0.

AirPort Utility 5.6 was introduced on the same day as 6.0, but apparently a number of users have missed this.

I wonder if two AirPort Extremes (APE 1 and 2 below) back to back could be used, where APE2 creates a new network and APE3 extends the APE2 network: using ... for wireless,

In theory, this would work, assuming that you can get a strong wireless connection between devices. But, I have not tried this type of setup, so cannot predict what the results will be, performance wise.

I think you save yourself a lot of future headaches if you can figure out a way to run Ethernet cabling to each wireless access point. The money invested to do this would be well spent.

The setting I'm using now is as follows:

- a TC with double network on 2.4GHz and 5 GHz.

- a 1st gen AExp extending the g@2.4GHz, connected to the TC via a Powerline 200 Mbps

- a 2nd gen AExp extending the n@5GHz, connected to the TC via WiFi

Bob Timmons wrote:

Otherwise, if you are concerned about bandwidth loss on the network, you should connect the TC to your main wireless router using an Ethernet cable. That is the only way to maintain maximum bandwidth on the network.

I am installing a 5th Generation Airport Extreme Base Station (MD031LL/A Model A1408) as my Wireless Router.

1st Question is: Is this the absolute latest model of the Airport Extreme?

The Airport Extreme Base Station will be connected directly to my City's FiberOptic System in a bedroom near the back side of my house. Speed of my connection will be 40 Mbps.

NO modem is required.

My DEll Dimension 9200 running Widows XP Professional (with Service Pack 3) that is in a separate building in my back yard will be hard-wired directly to the Airport Extreme Base Station.

The WiFi in the house will be used only for my iPhone 4S and my wife's iPad 3.

A printer will also be connected directly to the Airport Extreme Base Station to be used for printing by the iPhone 4S and the iPad 3.

It is my hope that the WiFi signal will be strong enough to reach into the separate building in my back yard.

But, if the signal is not strong enough for me to use my iPhone 4S there on WiFi, here is my Question:

Can I subsequently also hard-wire a new Airport Express to be placed in that separate building in my back yard?

Since the Airport Express would be hard-wired, I assume I would not lose any bandwidth by doing this?

I understand the the Airport Express would only add WiFi to that separate building & I could not hard wire another computer to it (No port to do that)?

If I do the same thing, but use an Airport Extreme instead of an Airport Express, would any of your answers change?

THANKS in advance for your assistance.

1st Question is: Is this the absolute latest model of the Airport Extreme?

Yes. This version has been shipping since June 2011.

It is my hope that the WiFi signal will be strong enough to reach into the separate building in my back yard.

It might be. This will be on of those things where you do not know if it will work well until you try.

Can I subsequently also hard-wire a new Airport Express to be placed in that separate building in my back yard?

I assume that you mean hard wire the Express back to the AirPort Extreme here. If that's the case, you can certainly do this. You could configure the Express to create a separate wireless network with separate log on.

Or, set it up to use the same wireless network name, same wireless security settings and same wireless password as the main AirPort Extreme. Then, everything will behave as if it were one large wireless network. Computers will automatically connect to the wireless access point with the strongest signal.

Using a wired Ethernet connection to the "remote" router will maintain maximum bandwidth on the network, and it always the best way to add more wireless coverage if it is needed.

I understand the the Airport Express would only add WiFi to that separate building & I could not hard wire another computer to it (No port to do that)?

That's correct.

If I do the same thing, but use an Airport Extreme instead of an Airport Express, would any of your answers change?

Using the AirPort Extreme, you would have a simultaneous dual band wireless signal in the remote area, providing both a 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz signal. The Express can only provide one band...either 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz....but not both at the same time.

The 3 Ethernet LAN ports on the AirPort Extreme would be "live", so you could connect Ethernet devices to any of the available LAN ports.

The USB port on the AirPort Extreme will support a printer, as does the Express. But, the Extreme will also support a hard drive at the USB port while the Express will not.

Bob Timmons wrote:

Or, set it up to use the same wireless network name, same wireless security settings and same wireless password as the main AirPort Extreme. Then, everything will behave as if it were one large wireless network. Computers will automatically connect to the wireless access point with the strongest signal.

I would want it to all be the same (name, password, settings) & behave as if it were one large wirleless network.

It would be primarily for me to get WiFi for my iPhone 4S - so the Airport Express would work for just that. 2.4 GHz is all the iPhone can use anyway.

But, if I wanted to be able to use the iPad on WiFi in that separate building, Would I have to go with another Airport Extreme to get the 5 GHz or would the fact that the iPhone was using the 2.4 GHz make the iPad also limited to only the 2.4 GHz?

Would I do that by "extending the network" or by some other manner (Express or Extreme)?

If you want the iPad to use 5 GHz, then you will need an AirPort Extreme to provide both 2.4 GHz for the iPhone and 5 GHz for the iPad.

If you go with the AirPort Express, you will have to configure it for 2.4 GHz to work with the iPhone, so the iPad will be limited to 2.4 GHz as well.

Would I do that by "extending the network" or by some other manner (Express or Extreme)?

No, the "extend a wireless network" setting would be used if the remote AirPort device was connecting to the main router using wireless only.

You will be connecting using Ethernet, so you would use the "Create a wireless network" setting and configure the AirPort to use the same wireless network name, same security settings and same password as the main AirPort Extreme. The "remote" AirPort must also be configured in Bridge Mode.

AirPort Utility will usually detect the network settings and recommend Bridge Mode for this type of setup.

Apple's instructions to set up this type of network....called a "roaming network" are here:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4260

THANKS - You have helped me TREMENDOUSLY ! ! !

Because I was not the original poster, I could not give you the credit for "This solved my Problem" - but it did solve my problem.

Yea, maybe I could have ended up at the same conclusion - but you saved me endless hours of time & stress.

So, I did the next best thing.

I liked every reply you gave in this thread (so actually, that might have been better).

I have read your other replies in several other threads & am impressed with your level of knowledge & your willingness to share it with others.

Keep up the good work.

For everyone else reading this thread:

If someone gives you advice that helps you, take the time to give them the credit they deserve.

Either "Like" their reply or give them the credit that they "Solved Your Problem".

Many of us would be up the proverbial "creek without a paddle" if it would not be for these guys & gals.

Also, if you have the knowledge & ability to do so, help someone else with their problem.

Thank you, sir!

I'll bet you thought you had heard the last of me.

There is only 1 Ethernet cable run into the separate building in my back yard to which my desktop computer is hard wired.

And I want that Desktop compter to always be hard wired.

So, if I wanted to put the 2nd Router in that building, I would have to run a 2nd Ethernet cable into the building - if I use only the Airport Express.

To avoid having to run the 2nd Ethernet cable into the building, I would need to use an Airport Extreme.

I would disconnect the only Ethernet cable from my desktop computer & instead connect it to the 2nd Airport Extreme. Then I would run a very short Ethernet cable from the 2nd Airport Extreme to my desktop computer.

Although the Airport Extreme is more expensive than the Airport Express, I would save the cost of running a 2nd Ethernet cable to the separate building in my back yard.

Is all of the above correct?

Is all of the above correct?

All correct.

An alternative would be to add a simple Ethernet switch at the end of the single Ethernet cable, and then connect both the desktop and the AirPort Express to the switch.

A simple 5-Port Ethernet switch will run about $40-50 or so. You will still have a couple of Ethernet ports available for future use as well.

Something like this, for example:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/5-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Switch-10-100-1000-Mbps/101048 35

OK, I subscribed to my City's Fiber Optic System for Internet, Video (Digital HD TV), & Telephone to replace my Cox Internet & Cable TV and my AT&T phone service.

Because my Cox Internet service was only in the building in my back yard, there was already a coaxial cable run from the Cox box on my house, up into my house attic, & then down into an underground PVC conduit to the building in my back yard.

In that same PVC conduit is a Cat 5 cable for my telephone service.

Both the coaxial cable & the Cat 5 cable for the telephone are only about 3 1/2 years old.

I did not have a Router, so of course I did not have WiFi nor a home network (house nor separate building).

Someone from the City's Fiber Optic System came out to do a site survey to see what the wiring requirements would be.

From the New City's Fiber Optic box on my house, they will run an Ethernet cable (Cat 5a or 5e I believe) to the Airport Extreme Router in my house.

I then have 2 options:

Run an Ethernet Cable from the Router back up into my house attic & then down into the underground PVC conduit to the building in my back yard to connect that directly to my Desktop computer there.

OR

Since the telephone does not utilize all of the wires in the Cat 5 cable that is already there, they would use the unused wires in that same telphone cable to attach an Ethernet plug to be plugged into my Desktop computer.

They would still have to run a short Ethernet cable from my router up into the house attic.

Then, they would "splice" the short Ethernet cable into the existing Cat 5 cable currently being used only for telephone service to the back building.

This 2nd option would mean that they do not have to fish a new Ethernet cable in the PVC conduit (about a 50 - 70 foot distance).

They assure me that there would be no bandwidth degradation by doing the 2nd option and they do it all of the time where such a cable already exists.

After installation, they would test the speed of the internet sevice at the box, at my router, and at my desktop computer - to make sure I was getting the full bandwidth (40 Mbps) at all 3 locations. And I can periodically do a Speed Test myself at my Desktop to confirm that it continues with no bandwidth degradation.

Does anyone see any problems with me allowing them to do the 2nd option?

There would be an additional cost if I make them do the 1st option, but I am more than willing to pay it if it would mean a better internet connection to my desktop.

Does anyone see any problems with me allowing them to do the 2nd option?

This would be fine for Internet connection service.

But, if you plan to copy files from one location to another on the network a lot, make sure that the cabling will support Gigabit Ethernet....1,000 Mbps.....as CAT5e cable will do. I suspect that the proposed wiring would support Fast Ethernet....100 Mbps, but not at all sure about 1,000 Mbps.

If you do not plan to do a lot of file transers, copies, etc from location to location on the local network, then the Fast Ethernet 100 Mbps connection would probably be OK.