cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
1007
Views
0
Helpful
7
Replies

A simple question (I think :-))

Henri0001
Beginner
Beginner

Hi all

I hope that you can help me , tried to find the answer by looking at brochures etc. but could not find the answer.

- My objective: have 2 Access Points at home which extend the reach of my current .11n network in a seamless fashion when I move around without ever losing the connection

- My base setup: single wireless .11n router

- What I tried so far:

- power line adapters to build a wired network

- one of the power line adapters has a built-in .11n Access Point

- set the AP to have same SSID / WAP key as the router

- hoped that PC would seamlessly switch from Router to AP seamlessly

- What is the issue:

- yes the PC can switch from one to the other, but first it needs to eg lose the connection from the router, look around, and then connect to the AP

- so I get disconnected for some seconds before connecting again

There has to be a simple solution to this (eg what I experience at the office every day )

Note: from what I read a Wireless Repeater is not a good solution because it halves the bandwidth (and even worse if I were to have 2 of them)

Can you please help me with what would be the simplest solution to this objective?

Thanks very much in advance

Henri

7 Replies 7

rocater
Participant
Participant

Hello Henri,

Currently in the small business line of wireless we do not have a true seamless roaming solution. This is a feature support by our enterprise devices. More precisely, a wireless LAN controller is needed.

I have seen with several of our APs that when moving from one AP to the other that only 1-2 packets are dropped during the transition. This however is an ideal amount of loss and the normal is in the range of 4+ packet loss.

Hi Robert

thanks very much for your advice.

This sounds actually a lot better than what I experienced which was lose connection for several seconds. Am I right in understanding that losing 4+ packets would actually not be noticed by the user and the connection would not appear to be broken?

Henri