This topic has been marked solved and closed to new posts due to inactivity. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.
My first post here. I've been running two R6250 in my home network, one as Wifi router and one as an access point. It all ran fine for a year or so - until my cable modem died. Replaced the modem with a new Netgear CM600. Now having trouble with Netgear Genie. On the ADVANCED tab, none of the screens load/display, making it impossible to change any of the settings. They were there before. This is happening with both R6250s. Tried updating the firmware on one of them. Tried resetting on both of them. Have deleted google chrome history repeatedly. None of these things seemed to make a difference. I don't know what to do. A little help please.
Now that Netgear Genie on the main R6250 (the one used as router) can see the second R6250 (the intended AP), I would like to set the intended AP to work as a stand alone wireless access point. Problem now is connecting to the intended AP. routerlogin.com only gets to the main R6250. Using Chrome and entering the intended's IP fails to connect - times out every try. The connection between R6250s is wired ethernet plugged into one of the LAN ports on the main R6250 and into the WAN port on the intended R6250. Got any ideas? How can I reach netgear genie on the intended AP?
> Now that Netgear Genie on the main R6250 (the one used as router) can > see the second R6250 (the intended AP), [...]
This "Netgear Genie" is the web-browser interface? (Ever helpful, Netgear uses the name "Genie" for more than one thing. Netgear routers have a web-browser interface called "Genie", and Netgear offers application programs for various computers/pads/phones, which are also called "Genie".)
"see" how, exactly? Is "the second R6250 (the intended AP)" already configured as an AP, or is it still (or back) in full-function router mode?
> I would like to set the intended AP to work as a stand alone wireless > access point.
What's a "stand alone wireless access point"? "stand alone"?
> Problem now is connecting to the intended AP. routerlogin.com only > gets to the main R6250.
That's to be expected. How could one name point to your choice of two different devices? To access the WAP, you'd need to specify its LAN IP address. If it's still in full-function router mode, then you'd need to be connected to its LAN, not the main router LAN. (Or else enable remote management access, and use its WAN address, I suppose.)
> Using Chrome and entering the intended's IP fails to connect - times > out every try.
Which "the intended's IP"? If it's still in full-function router mode, then it has a WAN IP address and a LAN IP address. Each interface (LAN and WAN) has its own address. And you normally need to be on its LAN side to reach its web site.
> The connection between R6250s is wired ethernet plugged into one of > the LAN ports on the main R6250 and into the WAN port on the intended > R6250.
That's reasonable if the second one is already in WAP mode. If it's still in full-function router mode, then the best thing to do may be to connect a computer to its LAN, and switch it to WAP mode.
It would help in understanding what's happening if you revealed the actual IP addresses of this stuff.
My usual advice is to shrink the DHCP pool range on the main router to, say, ".2" - ".199", and configure the WAP LAN address to ".200" or ".250" -- something memorable, and outside the (main router) DHCP pool.
Now when I key routerlogin.com I (still) reach the R6250 router. If I key the IP 192.168.1.222, I reach the R6250 Access Point, which I have now set to be an access point and given it an IP (192.168.1.222). Back on the R6250 router, I have shrunk the DHCP pool range to 2-199, as you suggested.
But I don't think things are where they're supposed to be, because my wireless devices (laptop, ipad, iphones) see the two R6250s as separate pieces; the main router as ssid Netgear87, and the access point as ssid Netgear86. Before the cable modem died, the wireless devices only saw Netgear87 (2.4, and 5).
What else is there? Should I use the same ssid and password on both R6250s?
> [...] Should I use the same ssid and password on both R6250s?
Sure, if that's what you want. Using different SSIDs lets you decide where (and on which radio band) your client device will connect. Using the same SSID (and passphrase) everywhere lets your client device decide.
Everything depends on the local environment, but if the two access points (router and WAP) can sense each other, then they're likely to choose different radio channels automatically. (Or, you could configure the radios manually to use different channels. But watch out for neighbors.) This would let you detect which access point you're using by getting the client to disclose which channel it's using.
On the bright side, you could choose a more interesting SSID (and a more memorable passphrase) than the Netgear default one(s).
OK. I gave both access points the same ssid and the same password. Also manually set both access points to use the same channel for 2.4 and to use a different channel for 5.0. Its been a week or so and everything seems to be working well.
> Its been a week or so and everything seems to be working well.
Ok.
> [...] Also manually set both access points to use the same channel for > 2.4 and to use a different channel for 5.0. [...]
What's the rationale for that? I'd expect that 2.4GHz would have a longer range than 5GHz, so sharing a channel for 2.4GHz would be more likely to cause interference than it would for 5GHz. If open channels are available in your neighborhood, then why share any for either band?
Thought both WAPs had to be using the same channel (per band) in order for client devices to connect once to my wifi network and communicate with both WAPs as they move around the house.
Is it just the ssid and passwored that need to be the same in order for that to happen?
> Thought both WAPs had to be using the same channel (per band) in order > for client devices to connect once to my wifi network and communicate > with both WAPs as they move around the house.
If I doubted me, then I'd run the experiment. Trust no one, I always say.
> Is it just the ssid and passwored that need to be the same in order for > that to happen?
That's my claim. A client always uses a point-to-point link with one access point or another. When a client talks to one, the other can be only a source of interference, not reinforcement.
> Everything does seem to be working as expected.
I'm not saying that it can't work with two access points on the same channel, but I'd expect less interference between them if they were on different channels. If your two access points are far apart, then the difference might be small. But think about what happens if you bring the two access points closer to each other. Does the second one seem likely to improve communication between the client and the first one? I'd expect not. Now, define "far enough apart". But, as I said, I might trust a well-designed experiment over my thoughtful analysis.
