80 WiFi devices create lag

[ilyo]

Ok great, I will try this tonight.
I will connect 2 routers to my main router: RT-AC68U, and set them up as AP's with different radios but with the same SSID. In the AP's I will filter 20 MAC addresses each.
That is all that needs to be done right?

 

[CaptainSTX]

Ok great, I will try this tonight.
I will connect 2 routers to my main router: RT-AC68U, and set them up as AP's with different radios but with the same SSID. In the AP's I will filter 20 MAC addresses each.
That is all that needs to be done right?

If you use the AP setting it probably will turn off the DHCP server function but just be sure. One other thing you can do going forward is to leave one AP open with no MAC filtering so unregistered MAC addresses can access the network, Not ideal but it will keep people from screaming when they can't get on because they just got a new phone, etc.

 

[ilyo]

If you use the AP setting it probably will turn off the DHCP server function but just be sure. One other thing you can do going forward is to leave one AP open with no MAC filtering so unregistered MAC addresses can access the network, Not ideal but it will keep people from screaming when they can't get on because they just got a new phone, etc.

Yes great idea. And yes, turn off DHCP on all AP's.
Thanks again, I'll let you know how it went.

 

[sfx2000]

That doesn't prevent association. Clients will connect but won't get IP addresses and will appear to be broken.

Short DHCP leases would help a bit... (actually a lot, in my experience) from a user perspective... high density and mobility (e.g. phones) - which says lots of channels, narrow as they are.

My suggestion is 4 AP's tied back to single router - high RF coverage overlap, single SSID, and a 1, 4, 8, 11 channel plan... not so worried on co-channel interference, as high density AP's will solve this...

OP is in a bad way - but it can be solved... I'm not seeing good answers on this thread.

 

[thiggins]

I'm not seeing good answers on this thread.

Does that include your answer?

 

[sfx2000]

Yep - but that's a gamble OP has to take - but it's a tough spot to be in - boiler room for WiFi...

 

[sfx2000]

Yes great idea. And yes, turn off DHCP on all AP's.

One ring to rule them all - only one DHCP server on a subnet.. and that should be the primary ingress router doing the Gateway and NAT.

80 clients can all be handled on single subnet...

 

[sfx2000]

Anyways - DHCP leases are stateless.. so one can ask any time... and DHCP is layer 3...

MAC association is Layer 2 at the 802.11 layer.. if someone doesn't move, it's not an issue.

 

[ilyo]

Thanks sfx2000 for your reply, but I don't understand your solution fully. Could you perhaps clarify the setup in easier terms?
Appreciate it.

 

[sfx2000]

Thanks sfx2000 for your reply, but I don't understand your solution fully. Could you perhaps clarify the setup in easier terms?
Appreciate it.

Keep the DHCP ease time short - perhaps 600 seconds (10 minutes) - the added traffic is minimal, and a client that gets lost will update it's ip config...

 

[ilyo]

Keep the DHCP ease time short - perhaps 600 seconds (10 minutes) - the added traffic is minimal, and a client that gets lost will update it's ip config...

And regarding the rest of the setup?
Why is release time so important? All users will be with static IP's by the way, MAC bound.

 

[sfx2000]

And regarding the rest of the setup?
Why is release time so important? All users will be with static IP's by the way, MAC bound.

I would recommend not setting static leases... let the server do what it does best...

You mentioned that many are smartphones, so the assumption is they're mobile and moving about - with 2 or 3 AP's, this is a tough situation for the client side, so reducing the lease time helps out here...

 

[ilyo]

I would recommend not setting static leases... let the server do what it does best...

You mentioned that many are smartphones, so the assumption is they're mobile and moving about - with 2 or 3 AP's, this is a tough situation for the client side, so reducing the lease time helps out here...

They won't be moving around, it's a phone store where they are display models.
I want to buy 3 of those: http://www.tp-link.com/lb/products/details/cat-12_TL-WA801ND.html
What do you think? Will they do the job?
Should I only use AP's or should I also use my main router to connect 20 phones?
Thanks

 

[sfx2000]

it's a phone store where they are display models.

A single enterprise grade AP can handle that... if you're a company owned store, they should know this, if you're an authorized reseller, reach back to dealer support...

 

[ilyo]

Yes, but they are 10x more expensive. Do you think 3 of those will work and should I use the main router as well? Thanks again.

 

[sfx2000]

Yes, but they are 10x more expensive. Do you think 3 of those will work and should I use the main router as well? Thanks again.

3 should handle it - and there are standalone AP's that are affordable - EnGenius, for example, has an N600 class that is very reasonably priced at $129 ea (frys.com) - step up a little bit higher - Linksys has an AC1750 class for $179

http://www.frys.com/category/Outpost/Networkingtab/Access+Points/

 

[pege63]

Or why not the AMPED WIRELESS High Power AC2600 WiFi Access Point for 199USD

 

[ilyo]

The problem is that here in Costa Rica or they cost double or are not available, The AC2600 is available and costs $440 and is from TP-Link and not AW. http://articulo.mercadolibre.co.cr/...uter-ac2600-dual-band-gigabit-smart-wi-fi-_JM

I would prefer to buy 2-3 WA801ND's for $80-$120.

 

[sfx2000]

Those would probably do the job...

 

[ilyo]

And I would still use my main router right to connect 20 more wifi's.