1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

WRT610 v2 - set up as Access Point (AP) only using stock firmware?

Discussion in 'Cisco/Linksys Wireless Routers' started by luckman212, Nov 16, 2009.

  1. luckman212

    luckman212 LI Guru Member

    Hi, I bought a pile of WRT610N's (6 of 'em) for a fairly difficult wireless setup at a customer's site. Foolishly I thought the stock firmware would allow setting some of them up as "AP only" mode- similar to "WAN disabled" mode in DD-WRT or Tomato. I just want to have 1 router designated as the "master" and the others are just APs all hardwired back to the main unit and acting as wireless APs.

    This must be possible. Can I leave WAN as "DHCP", assign hard-IPs to the other units and use some sort of static routing to force all traffic through the main router?

    Or is there a better way??
     
  2. luckman212

    luckman212 LI Guru Member

    bump - nobody's got any idea on this? this seems like it should be pretty basic.
     
  3. howardp6

    howardp6 Network Guru Member

    Turn off the DHCP server on all the router, you want to use as access points and give each an unique address and set the WAN port to DHCP. The first on can be 192.168.1.2, the second 192.168.1.3.... and save your setting. The DHCP server on the WRT610 you are using as a router should not providing address that overlap the address you gave each of the access points. In the advanced routing setting disable NAT on all of the access points. The access points should be connected to the WRT610 from port one of each access point to one of each of the four ports of the WRT620 you are using as a router. The SSID of each of the access points and the router should be different. You have an issue with the number of available non-overlapping channels in the 2.4 GHz band, each of the WRT610's use two channels and at best you only have three to four channels available to you, so you will have to experiment with the placement of the router/access points and channel selection. The WRT610 is a dual band unit with a 5.8 GHz radio, so it would be best to use dual band NICs. If any of the router/access points pick up the signal of another of the units you are setting up, it will stop transmitting. Place the routers/access points as high up as possible to get maximum coverage. Make certain you have some sort of encryption on the wireless signals. I doubt you will be able to use all six of you WRT610s, be cause of the channel limitations.
     
  4. luckman212

    luckman212 LI Guru Member

    Thanks for the info. I've set it up the way you specified, I have only done limited testing but so far it seems to work OK. Couple more things:

    1) Do I really need to have a different SSID on all the routers? Because these WRT610's already have 2 separate SSIDs (one for 5ghz and one for 2.4ghz) so that would mean 2x6 = 12 :eek: different SSIDs to program into each wireless device that wants to have full coverage on the network. Yikes! Right now I have them all sharing a common SSID and the laptops seem to jump from one AP to the next as the signals get stronger/weaker.

    2) no matter what I do, I cannot access the web GUI of the r2-r6 routers from outside, despite having set up static IPs for them and port forwarding to their --> port80 on each router.

    For example, I have set up router #1 (r1) as 192.168.1.1 and made a port forward of :8082 --> :80 to the "r2" router (192.168.1.2) which is attached to the LAN port of r1. When I go to http://<wan-ip>:8082/ from outside, I get nothing. I checked the logs of the r1 and the request does seem to come in and get forwarded ok, and other port forwards (remote desktop, vnc) are working ok so I don't know why these aren't. I suspect some kind of NAT issue. I have NAT disabled on the r2-r6 routers, and enabled on r1.
     
  5. howardp6

    howardp6 Network Guru Member

    No you do not have to have different SSID, the only reason I recommended you set it up that way is so you could more easily identify the router you are actually connecting to. On your second question are you trying to access and to configure the routers remotely? The NAT on router one would prevent the remote access. It adds a measure of security since the routers connected to router one cannot be accessed through the WAN port. I would have disabled remote access, since the router is more secure that way. I would also have the router drop any external pings. How may routers did you get to use? You are limited to four gigabit ports.
     
  6. luckman212

    luckman212 LI Guru Member

    Yes I was trying to access them remotely. I guess that is just not possible.
    When I access them from the LAN, it works fine.

    I have a cat6 cable connecting the gigabit port from r1 to a 24-port gigabit switch. The other routers are connected to the switch, along with a PC and some other devices. So far so good.
     
  7. howardp6

    howardp6 Network Guru Member

    The only issue is the interference to nearby wireless networks. By using dual bands any nearby network will be interfered with.
     
  8. luckman212

    luckman212 LI Guru Member

    This guy lives in a really old building with nightmarishly-thick plaster walls. Believe me, the neighbors would be LUCKY if they could get 1mW of signal from this guy's place.
     
  9. howardp6

    howardp6 Network Guru Member

    Just asking. the draft wireless-n router were notorious about about being unfrirendy to nearby networks. It must be a rather large building. Other than the expense, why did you not use CISCO equipment and standard access points, since they can be powered by the ethernet connector. The wireless N equipment throughput can be topped by beamforming equipment in the future.
     
  10. luckman212

    luckman212 LI Guru Member

    Cost. i priced Ruckus and Cisco and it was 10-20x more expensive. Cost was crazy and I think I get 50-75% of the performance for 10% of the price from this cheap-o linksys hardware. When DD-WRT is avail. for this model the gap will narrow even further.
     
  11. howardp6

    howardp6 Network Guru Member

    If it was for a business, part of the costs could be a write off, and the equipment would have been more robust. I guess you did not want to drill holes and have pipe chases. Wireless networks are inherently insecure even with WPA2.
     
  12. luckman212

    luckman212 LI Guru Member

    This is for a home. Like I said the issue wasn't holes & pipes, it came down to dollars & cents.
     
  13. howardp6

    howardp6 Network Guru Member

    Good luck.
     
  14. luckman212

    luckman212 LI Guru Member

    You don't sound optimistic :erm:
     

Share This Page