wifi question

On 20/12/2014 13:06, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:54:50 +0000, Peter Crosland wrote:

On 19/12/2014 22:15, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:25:56 +0000, Peter Crosland wrote:

On 19/12/2014 13:23, Bill Wright wrote:
Roger wrote:

It's because channels 1, 6 and 11 are the only ones that dont overlap
each other. Any of the channels in between overlap 1, 6 or 11
(whichevr 2 they are inbetween) as well as each other.

It appears to me (could be wrong) the the energy distribution is
greatest on the nominal channel, and falls off towards the edges of the
group of channels actually used. In that case it would be better to use
intermediate channels, even though there would be some overlap.

The real answer is to move to the 5Ghz Wi-Fi band. This may mean buying
a new router and Wi-Fi dongle but is well worth it in my experience if
you are in an urban area.

Until all your neighbours have done the same.

Nonsense! There is much more bandwidth available on 5Ghz so there is
less chance of intereference.

All the neighbourhood doesn't have wifi ATM. One day they will.

But we are discussing the present not the future.


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 13:19:28 +0000, Johny B Good
wrote:

Two out of the six nearest wifi have no security. How do you identify the
location of the house with no security?

Log in and set security yourself, then see who comes asking for help.


A properly designed wireless router should make it totally impossible
under _any_ circumstance for a wirelessly connected user to gain admin
access in order to do just as you've suggested but ISTR seeing just
such a monumental piece of stupidity demonstrated by at least one
model of WiFi enabled router.

A great many users of home internet kit do not possess an ethernet
cable, or in some cases any device with an ethernet port. Trust me,
I've spoken to lots of them. If it wasn't possible to configure a
router by wireless, how would they ever do it?

In view of the above, supplying brand new routers with security off,
and "admin" and "password" as the default login details is not a very
good idea. It wouldn't matter if everybody knew what to do and had the
wherewithall to do it, but many don't.

Some routers nowadays are supplied with individual default login
details which are also printed on a sticker or card, which is much
better. They're just gobbledygook numbers and letters, though you can
change them to memorable names if you want. Even if customers don't
know how to log in and change them or the only device they have is a
smartphone or game console, at least the system is usable straight
away without their neighbours being able to mess with it.

Rod.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:05:15 +0100, Martin wrote:

Use a wifi repeater/amplifier in a house
where walls etc. reduce signal. Price from about £12 (Aldi) to £35 for a really
good one.

Wireless repeaters will only give half the available local speed at
best. If this is an issue, an ethernet or powerline extension to
another access point is the way to go.

Including extensions in every room and all over the garden?

You may be able to effect a worthwhile improvement with one cable
extension to one strategically placed wireless access point. Wherever
you place it, a wireless access point fed with a cable will give a
better performance than a wireless access point fed by wireless, which
is effectively what a repeater is.

I don't have a performance problem when using a repeater.

Try a speed test while connected wirelessly to the main router, then
try it again while connected wirelessly to the repeater.

Rod.

"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:34:34 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:13:49 +0100, Martin wrote:

Two out of the six nearest wifi have no security. How do you identify the
location of the house with no security?

Log in and set security yourself, then see who comes asking for help.


A properly designed wireless router should make it totally impossible
under _any_ circumstance for a wirelessly connected user to gain admin
access in order to do just as you've suggested but ISTR seeing just
such a monumental piece of stupidity demonstrated by at least one
model of WiFi enabled router.

It'll be interesting to see how Martin gets on if he tries your
suggestion. :-)

I wonder if anyone's keeping a black list of such 'security
braindead' WiFi routers available for inspection anywhere on the 'net?

My Belkin allows admin login via Wife for a start. And the Wife was enabled
by default with no password when I got it. The manual only tells you to set
up security *after* you have got the Wife working, so if you don't have any
Wife devices I suppose you would leave it unsecured. Disabling Wife is
buried in the router setup screens somewhere.

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:34:34 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:13:49 +0100, Martin wrote:

Two out of the six nearest wifi have no security. How do you identify
the
location of the house with no security?

Log in and set security yourself, then see who comes asking for help.


A properly designed wireless router should make it totally impossible
under _any_ circumstance for a wirelessly connected user to gain admin
access in order to do just as you've suggested but ISTR seeing just
such a monumental piece of stupidity demonstrated by at least one
model of WiFi enabled router.

It'll be interesting to see how Martin gets on if he tries your
suggestion. :-)

I wonder if anyone's keeping a black list of such 'security
braindead' WiFi routers available for inspection anywhere on the 'net?

My Belkin allows admin login via Wife for a start. And the Wife was
enabled by default with no password when I got it. The manual only tells
you to set up security *after* you have got the Wife working, so if you
don't have any Wife devices I suppose you would leave it unsecured.
Disabling Wife is buried in the router setup screens somewhere.

My Belkin allows admin login via Wi-Fi for a start. And the Wi-Fi was
enabled by default with no password when I got it. The manual only tells you
to set up security *after* you have got the Wi-Fi working, so if you don't
have any Wi-Fi devices I suppose you would leave it unsecured. Disabling
Wi-Fi is buried in the router setup screens somewhere.

(****ing spell checker.)

--
Max Demian

Max Demian wrote:

My Belkin allows admin login via Wi-Fi for a start. And the Wi-Fi was
enabled by default with no password when I got it. The manual only tells you
to set up security *after* you have got the Wi-Fi working, so if you don't
have any Wi-Fi devices I suppose you would leave it unsecured. Disabling
Wi-Fi is buried in the router setup screens somewhere.

(****ing spell checker.)


It worked quite well as a joke though.

Bill

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 00:12:57 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:34:34 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:13:49 +0100, Martin wrote:

Two out of the six nearest wifi have no security. How do you identify
the
location of the house with no security?

Log in and set security yourself, then see who comes asking for help.


A properly designed wireless router should make it totally impossible
under _any_ circumstance for a wirelessly connected user to gain admin
access in order to do just as you've suggested but ISTR seeing just
such a monumental piece of stupidity demonstrated by at least one
model of WiFi enabled router.

It'll be interesting to see how Martin gets on if he tries your
suggestion. :-)

I wonder if anyone's keeping a black list of such 'security
braindead' WiFi routers available for inspection anywhere on the 'net?

My Belkin allows admin login via Wife for a start. And the Wife was
enabled by default with no password when I got it. The manual only tells
you to set up security *after* you have got the Wife working, so if you
don't have any Wife devices I suppose you would leave it unsecured.
Disabling Wife is buried in the router setup screens somewhere.

My Belkin allows admin login via Wi-Fi for a start. And the Wi-Fi was
enabled by default with no password when I got it. The manual only tells you
to set up security *after* you have got the Wi-Fi working, so if you don't
have any Wi-Fi devices I suppose you would leave it unsecured. Disabling
Wi-Fi is buried in the router setup screens somewhere.

(****ing spell checker.)

There's something to be said for totally eschewing spell chuckers
altogether. At least the mistakes and typos are all your own work. :-)
--
J B Good

On 20/12/2014 12:02, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 20/12/2014 00:00, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 19/12/2014 19:25, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 19/12/2014 13:23, Bill Wright wrote:
Roger wrote:

It's because channels 1, 6 and 11 are the only ones that dont overlap
each other. Any of the channels in between overlap 1, 6 or 11
(whichevr 2 they are inbetween) as well as each other.

It appears to me (could be wrong) the the energy distribution is
greatest on the nominal channel, and falls off towards the edges of the
group of channels actually used. In that case it would be better to use
intermediate channels, even though there would be some overlap.

The real answer is to move to the 5Ghz Wi-Fi band. This may mean buying
a new router and Wi-Fi dongle but is well worth it in my experience if
you are in an urban area.



5GHz seems to have much less ability to go through walls though.

What kind of wall and how thick? I can't detect much difference between
my 2.4 and 5Ghz network anywhere in my house.



Brick wall.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

On 20/12/2014 09:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gregory wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

alan_m wrote:

I have my router configured to band 4

you will partly overlap with everyone using ch2,3, 5 and 6.

Yes - meaning more than twice the chance of your packets being corrupted.

Twice the chance of half the damage, compared to being slap-bang on the
same channel as a near neighbour ...


A half damaged packet still has to be dropped.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

On 20/12/2014 14:01, wrote:
Martin wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 23:58:44 +0000, Brian Gregory
wrote:

On 19/12/2014 23:46, Andy Burns wrote:
alan_m wrote:

I'm detecting 32 nearby wi-fi identities. The congested
bands are 1, 6 and 11.

I have my router configured to band 4 which I'm sharing with only a
couple of other wi-fi users.

Even if nobody else near you is using ch4, you will partly overlap with
everyone using ch2,3, 5 and 6.


Yes - meaning more than twice the chance of your packets being corrupted.

Doesn't wifi work the same way as Ethernet does when there are collisions?

Yes, surely it does, I've quite often used relatively weak signals on
channels crowded with other much stronger signals.

In fact I *think* the time division on WiFi is sort of cooperative
rather than by collision detection as on hard-wired ethernet isn't it?



That's my understanding.
But co-operation can only really occur when the interference is
co-channel and not just overlapping.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.