Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[johnson]

What a nightmare!

Forgive my laymans input, but I have found that WPA2 is a non trivial cryptographic load for these 400mhz MIPS routers... even with only a few wifi devices I have seen 50%+ CPU load during use that disappeared when offloaded to another device. I do not think the wifi client limit is at all related to DHCP.

As a stop gap solution you could add any available wifi routers as dumb APs by disabling their DHCP servers, giving them a non conflicting IP on the same subnet and putting them on different SSIDs. Split 3 ways, channel 1,6,11 (12?), you could cover the houses 30 or so devices.

I'm sure more clever things could be done sharing the same SSID, but if I wanted something to work thats where I would start.

[g3uiss]

@kitz. I think using another router as and AP is the easiest solution. I know where a suitable router is!

 I could configure the ranges for you if needed, and helpful

Tony

[kitz]

Thanks Guys

Yes I will have to put another router on me thinks and use as an AP. 
I've currently got a lot of the plugs pulled out and this morning the Front door cam triggered fine when the postman came and the clip stored fine to the cloud so the Hub managed to grab an IP too, but then the Show dropped out so I couldn't get a live view or if I'd needed I wouldn't have been able to converse over the 2 way intercom. 

@Tony   thanks - sorry not yet responded to your PM but yes will sort something.   I will be parking all day tomorrow around the corner from you, but don't anticipate being home until late but certainly need to arrange some other day.     I'm a bit concerned that that router will also suffer the same limitation especially after seeing it happen with the Hub Zeros too.     I have a TPlink VR900 which may be worthwhile trying first as that is dual band and has 2 wireless chips, just need to get it out of the loft.

[d2d4j]

Hi

I thought I had better check the draytek for max Wi-Fi connection and found the following

It may help or not sorry

Many thanks

John

How many wireless stations can be associated with a DrayTek wireless router ?
64 client for 2.4Ghz Wi-Fi and 5Ghz Wi-Fi separately. But please be advised that the bandwidth available for each wireless client is retrieved by the total bandwidth divided by the number of clients. Therefore, 20 to 30 is in general the maximum recommended range.

[g3uiss]

That negates my potential solution to use a Draytec as a AP ( @kitz I have some older ones in stock to loan)

It would seem to me a pro-consumer AP is likely the longer term solution and more straightforward perhaps.

Tony

[d2d4j]

Hi

@guise - sorry even the older draytek AP on g should I believe spin upto to 64 clients on Wi-Fi

And this is only for Wi-Fi connections which lans are not included

Sorry if I  wrong though sorry

Many thanks

John

[sevenlayermuddle]

Pondering this, I would speculate that an AP may want to allocate a non-trivial amount of RAM for each client, to cater for retransmission buffers.  I wonder if that may be a factor that in limiting the number of clients, with consumer-grade hardware?

I’ve never looked into 802.11 in detail and I’m not offering to do so now, so above may be utter twaddle or it may not.

Edit:
PS:  I get the impression this device shows memory usage on a status page.  Have you looked to see if it is affected much by the number of attempted WiFi clients?

[Alex Atkin UK]

Pondering this, I would speculate that an AP may want to allocate a non-trivial amount of RAM for each client, to cater for retransmission buffers.  I wonder if that may be a factor that in limiting the number of clients, with consumer-grade hardware?

I’ve never looked into 802.11 in detail and I’m not offering to do so now, so above may be utter twaddle or it may not.

Edit:
PS:  I get the impression this device shows memory usage on a status page.  Have you looked to see if it is affected much by the number of attempted WiFi clients?

I'd guess no, as the Ubiquiti nanoHD only has 128MB RAM but is supposed to handle 200+ clients under potentially much more complex environments (eg per user rate limiting) than a residential gateway, though granted on a router the NAT table can eat a fair amount of RAM.

I think its more down to the CPU.  Its why if baffles me that some people use their router as a NAS, its stealing precious CPU cycles away from routing.

[kitz]

Anyone got an idea what I could have done wrong here please as I can't seem to get the Zyxel to recognise the TPlink.   I thought this was going to be straight forward but I've been messing with it for hours trying to get it working. *     

Zyxel

192.168.1.1
255.255.255.0

- Disabled wireless
- Disabled DHCP 


TPLink
 - Set IP to 192.168.1.99
 - Set operation mode from DSL Mode to Wireless Router Mode
 - Enabled DHCP
 - Assigned IP pool .100 to .199
- Lease 1440 mins
- Default gateway 192.168.1.1
- Primary DNS 1.1.1.1
- Secondary DNS 8.8.8.8


If I set the Zyxel back to DHCP it still cant find the TPlink.  I have even tried putting a rule into the static DHCP table assigning the TPlink's MAC address to 192.168.1.99.
I can get my phone to connect to the TPlink, but there is no routing out on to the Internet.

----

I'm even having intermittent problems connecting to the internet from my PC since I assigned a static IP of 192.168.101 to it (did this to try connect to the TPlink GUI).   

Its almost like the Zyxel keeps forgetting what is supposed to be connected and will drop a device.   Once an IP has been dropped its horrendous trying to get connected again.
As regards trying to get connected again, that is not new and has been going on for a couple of weeks (See previous mention of phone using mobile data when I thought it was on wifi).   It seems to be a constant struggle for an IP to be released in order to get a new connection possibly something to do with lease time?




-----------------
*I'm soooo peed off, cause right now nothing aside from the PC is connected.   
Was supposed to be going out for the day to something I'd been really looking forward to for ages..  but was too ill & in pain and so thought I'd do this as it "shouldnt take long".    

[d2d4j]

Hi kitz

I could be wrong sorry as I read it quickly but you have both devices set as 192.168.1.1

I assume zylex is modem only not gateway

Many thanks

John

[kitz]

TPlink IP is 192.168.1.99
Should that also be the gateway address in the TPlink?   I was only trying to use it for wireless access point.   
I think I may have tried putting .99 in at one point I shall try again.   



---
Edited typo.   Sorry. 

[d2d4j]

Hi kitz

Sorry your having a bad day

I thought your zylex was 192.168.1.1 and tp link was 192.168.1.99

Is the tp link connected to zylex hardwired

Sorry I thought you were using zylex as modem only

Many thanks

John

[d2d4j]

Hi kitz

Sorry just a thought, have you connected the incoming network cable to correct wan port on tp link

Many thanks

John

[g3uiss]

You could leave DHCP on the Zyxel. No DHCP on the TP link. Sounds like a clash to me. It doesn’t matter where DHCP comes from as long as the device is on the same subnet.

Tony

[kitz]

Sorry just a thought, have you connected the incoming network cable to correct wan port on tp link

Sorry relised my typo and corrected it seconds before your post.
Yes tplink is hardwired


>>  have you connected the incoming network cable to correct wan port on tp link

There's only 4 LAN ports and I assumed it was LAN1
Just tried LAN4......  and voila!

Thank you. <3