So i if have a Ap then 1km away a repeater of that AP, both with Omnis on and i setup a client in the middle of the two im still going to find 2 networks.
You are going to see two APs. Like I said, a client doesn't know if an AP is a wired AP or a repeater. If the client is in the middle it will just connect to the one with the best signal, that's all it cares about.
Do you think that they are ever going to design technology that combines the wireless.
Cause i just cant grab the concept, its so point less haveing to APs covering 1 area when its only going to use one. its just liek bad planing,
to do it efficianlty you have to plan your network layout so well and have a map with each AP's coverage.
Yes, and that is partly the reason why GSM telephony is so expensive.. part of those costs go towards planning and maintaining coverage throughout the expected coverage area. Broadband wireless is very similar to GSM telephony in concept. You have a number of 'cells' (wireless=APs, GSM=base stations) which have a determined coverage depending on the antenna they use. If they use omnis, they have a 360deg coverage. If you need to extend coverage further away, you add another cell, and you get another 360deg coverage around that new cell. Clients (wireless=stations, GSM=mobile phones) constantly look for a better cell and 'move' (wireless=roaming, GSM=handover) between the cells to ensure a good connection.
The client uses the network name (wireless=SSID, GSM=Network ID) to decide if a cell is part of the same network or part of another, foreign network. So as long as all the cells are broadcasting the same network name, the client device will keep moving between cells to achieve the best signal.
phew.. that's a mouthful..
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network for all the technical info.
The only reason i can think why i would want to do this is if each AP was overloaded and coulnt cope with the clients.
Yes, and just imagine if you could, in theory, cover the whole of USA (or even just a whole city) with just one GSM cell, you would have thousands, possibly millions of client devices fighting for their turn to access the cell... that would simply not work.... same goes for wireless. So you have many 'small' cells each handling a bunch of clients.
The other reason why you'd take a cell approach is because RF power (especially microwave frequencies which are used by wireless) gets lost very quickly in the air, so you would need a very, very, very, very powerful transmitter to cover a whole country with just one AP.. and your clients would need just an equally huge transmitter at their homes to transmit back to the AP.
Just a thought,
Say you picked up 2 networks (your tower) one has signal of -75 and te other -60
if you had a RB with 2 wireless cards couldnt you set them up like a bridge, so the one card connects to the one AP and the other to the 2nd AP.
Yes, you could, because the RB has 2 wireless cards, which means you have 2 clients. To the AP, the two clients appear as two independent clients, the AP doesn't know they are physically in the same box.
Hope this helps.
PS: this topic is starting to sound like a wireless support line.. please create a new topic if you have new questions.