David Wright wrote: > On Sat 07 Apr 2018 at 20:17:56 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote: >> David Wright wrote: >> > On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 16:26:47 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote: >> >> >> >> It's a nuance in the semantics of what it means to "repeat" wifi. >> >> Suffice to say, in order to "repeat" wifi, you have one radio splitting >> >> its time between pretending to be an AP for a client device, and >> >> pretending to be a client device to the upstream AP. >> > >> > Then I'm not sure why you wrote "Good deal". I'd be wanting the >> > wireless connectivity described above as not needed, though obviously >> > on a separate band/channel. Were you implying that that would kill >> > throughput for everything too? >> >> If he's using the buffalo device to "repeat" the wifi signal (which he >> isn't), then yes the throughput would tank. > > OK, I'll just assume you don't know. Anybody else actually doing this > (separate band (like 2/5 GHz) or channel (like channel 1/6/11) for the > backhaul (inter-router) link)?
If you have a device repeating a WiFi signal, it *will* use the same channel as the upstream AP. It *cannot* use a different channel. In the event you have a dual-band AP, and the following conditions are true - 5GHz uplink - 2.4 GHz for clients Then you are not "repeating" the WiFi signal to the downstream client devices (and the throughput losses I mentioned would not come into play). -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
