NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
To repeat or not to repeat...
Actually, this is a quesiton about the AC1200 WAC104, not a Nighthawk router, but does involve one. I'm looking to use said AC1200 as a wireless repeater for my Nighthawk AC1750 R6700v3. Can it wor...
If, as you say, "there is no [AC1750] configuration for Wireless Repeating Function available top operate as a WiFi base station with a repeater base," then that's extremely strange as my forever old WG624s allowed for that set-up. Whoddathunk they'd cripple they're more modern equvalents?!
And, as you say, "the WAC104 can be configured as a Wireless Repeater Base Station as a hub and one or more WAC104 in a WiFi Repeater in spoke config," that sounds about right because, as beforementioned, that's exactly how I set up the WG624s. But, that doesn't help me in my current situation because I have an AC1750 and AC1200.
Welp, then I have a 30- some-odd-dollar paperweight, but hey, at least I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
SaidSo wrote:Whoddathunk they'd cripple they're more modern equvalents?!
Two reasons:
- Based on almost 30 years of experience in the CPE home/SOHO/SMB networking world, based on many successes and much more failures of wireless repeating, based on my discovery of poor security on repeater links, based on interoperability experience, based on the performance impact, ...: Because it's a promise they can't hold. The point is that these repeater functions are not really standardized. Repeating works nice with a router or AP and another AP with the same chipset. If the implementation differences isn't to big it might work with the next gen chipset from the same chipmaker. One day you buy a new router - different chipset than the AP, to bit jump in wireless technology, change in repeating security,... no more repeating. That's why they support it on a bunch of WAC104, but no longer on a mixed pack of routers. It's kindof a "dead" feature.
- Not a secret: Wireless extenders are no longer requiring semi-proprietary repeater functionality. And this became a major business.
SaidSo wrote:Welp, then I have a 30- some-odd-dollar paperweight, but hey, at least I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
Welp (hey I just learnt a new word, thx!) pleasure, here we go: Install a network cable between your R6700v3 router LAN port and the WAC104, and configure it as a wireless access point. Best investment ever. Even if this seems to require a loong trip to a shop. Having travelled major parts or the US and CAN I can imagine how far such a journey can be.
Regards from tiny Switzerland, and don't shoot the messenger please...
-Kurt
If I'd connect a network cable between the R6700v3 and the WAC104, it'd be a pretty long run and dangling out in the open. That's why it'd be cool to have it a repeater. Not a big deal that it can't be, just disappointing.
Keep in mind that repeaters cut bandwidth in half due to the need to be in constant contact with the signal it's repeating
Right, think I've heard that. But, the halving of the bandwidth isn't a problem if, as in my case, the would-be wireless repeater WAC104 is physically ehternet tethered to the R6700v3, correct?
