thorel
New Around Here
Information, such as I have
@tannebil: Sorry, no. In your case I'd strongly advise power line networking to connect the WAP's, don't use a repeater as they are the least stable (data from others, not this particular network), and data rates tend to be terrible.
@claykin: Yes, the wired interfaces never fail. The failures cover at least three generations of hardware, including the latest shipping as of Feb'12.
@tannebil: No further progress, the owner has had no time to pursue this (but still resetting things by power cycles...).
@Mark Uhde: The overlap areas are using 1/11, so is already similar to a cellular network. All SSIDs and config data (except channel) are identical. Aside from the one repeater, there are no same channel overlaps (unit to unit), there are regions where a client has choices between both stations on one channel and at most one on a different channel.
The experiments separating the channels and/or SSIDs is pending. No idea when we'll get back to it (if ever).
@tannebil: Sorry, no. In your case I'd strongly advise power line networking to connect the WAP's, don't use a repeater as they are the least stable (data from others, not this particular network), and data rates tend to be terrible.
@claykin: Yes, the wired interfaces never fail. The failures cover at least three generations of hardware, including the latest shipping as of Feb'12.
@tannebil: No further progress, the owner has had no time to pursue this (but still resetting things by power cycles...).
@Mark Uhde: The overlap areas are using 1/11, so is already similar to a cellular network. All SSIDs and config data (except channel) are identical. Aside from the one repeater, there are no same channel overlaps (unit to unit), there are regions where a client has choices between both stations on one channel and at most one on a different channel.
The experiments separating the channels and/or SSIDs is pending. No idea when we'll get back to it (if ever).
