alexanrs wrote:

At least the page you linked me states the following:

When the configuration is done, put the old router in place. Then connect an Ethernet cable between them, plugging into the regular Ethernet ports of each. Do not connect it to the old router's Internet/WAN port.

If he was to run a cable to the secondary router, he might just as well run a cable directly to the machine.

That's because, as they said, they are using it as an extender.
.
If you have a 4-port router + WAN (converted to AP) then you can connect up to 4 PCs to the AP - you don't need a secondary router unless you want more PCs.
And no, you don't use the WAN port unless you are hard wiring to a broadband router.
.
You are going to make me draw this aren't you.....
.

I had 3 wired LAN segments each with an AP setup as one LAN.
The only wireless was between the APs. They served as bridges between wired segments.
The broadband router was wired and in one of the segments.

dr_st wrote:

Once you decide to go wired, your options are basically limitless. Because there is plenty of hardware there (routers, single-device access points, multi-device access points) that can function as a wireless bridge to an existing wireless router.

Yes. Exactly.

The configurations you linked are about disabling DHCP and using a router as a switch+AP. This requires you to have an existing wired connection and will provide both ports for more wired connections and a secondary wireless network. They go as far as suggesting the same SSID for both routers, which can be troublesome unless there is little overlap on their coverage areas or they use the same wireless chip (I've seen conflicts happen when I set up something like this once, and changing the secondary modem's SSID fixed everything). Note that in that page there is no step about connecting one router to an existing wireless network, just running RJ45 cables.
What it looks like the OP wants is to connect a Win98 PC to an existing wireless network without an accessible wired connection nearby. For that you NEED the router to be able to act as a Wireless client. Every router under the sun should have the hardware for that, but not the software. I know an old DLink router I have somewhere can't do it for the life of it (and with only 2MB of flash memory there is no way to install another firmware), so I had to get an old Linksys (can't remember the model now) and install DD-WRT into it. Then things worked beautifully, though the configuration is a bit more involved than a few TP-Link routers I configured that provided these settings out-of-the-box, or the D-Link extender I also had to set up like that once.

I used to connect to Wi-Fi via D-Link DWA something PCMCIA card on windows 98. The main problem was that a 300A Celly was not powerful enough to work well with D-link utility, but I'm sure it's fixable.

alexanrs wrote:

Every router under the sun should have the hardware for that, but not the software.

It doesn't matter that there are many routers that don't support this mode.

What matters is that there are many routers that do. Choose one of them.

That the configuration in this mode is somewhat more complicated is a fact, with this I agree. Wireless performance also suffers somewhat compared to a setup with no bridges.

Whether it is worth it compared to trying to find and set up a wireless card that can work with Win98 (naturally only SE), is a different question. I have a hunch that in most practical cases the wired connection to a wireless bridge is the better solution for old computers and old operating system.

alexanrs wrote:

The configurations you linked are about disabling DHCP and using a router as a switch+AP. This requires you to have an existing wired connection and will provide both ports for more wired connections and a secondary wireless network. They go as far as suggesting the same SSID for both routers, which can be troublesome unless there is little overlap on their coverage areas or they use the same wireless chip (I've seen conflicts happen when I set up something like this once, and changing the secondary modem's SSID fixed everything). Note that in that page there is no step about connecting one router to an existing wireless network, just running RJ45 cables.
What it looks like the OP wants is to connect a Win98 PC to an existing wireless network without an accessible wired connection nearby. For that you NEED the router to be able to act as a Wireless client. Every router under the sun should have the hardware for that, but not the software. I know an old DLink router I have somewhere can't do it for the life of it (and with only 2MB of flash memory there is no way to install another firmware), so I had to get an old Linksys (can't remember the model now) and install DD-WRT into it. Then things worked beautifully, though the configuration is a bit more involved than a few TP-Link routers I configured that provided these settings out-of-the-box, or the D-Link extender I also had to set up like that once.

I'm sorry you don't like it but it works and it's not even that hard.

dr_st wrote:

It doesn't matter that there are many routers that don't support this mode. […]
Show full quote

It doesn't matter that there are many routers that don't support this mode.

What matters is that there are many routers that do. Choose one of them.

That the configuration in this mode is somewhat more complicated is a fact, with this I agree. Wireless performance also suffers somewhat compared to a setup with no bridges.

Whether it is worth it compared to trying to find and set up a wireless card that can work with Win98 (naturally only SE), is a different question. I have a hunch that in most practical cases the wired connection to a wireless bridge is the better solution for old computers and old operating system.

+1

Appropriate routers are available in all cost segments, so it's not even going to be more expensive.

gdjacobs wrote:

dr_st wrote:

It doesn't matter that there are many routers that don't support this mode. […]
Show full quote

It doesn't matter that there are many routers that don't support this mode.

What matters is that there are many routers that do. Choose one of them.

That the configuration in this mode is somewhat more complicated is a fact, with this I agree. Wireless performance also suffers somewhat compared to a setup with no bridges.

Whether it is worth it compared to trying to find and set up a wireless card that can work with Win98 (naturally only SE), is a different question. I have a hunch that in most practical cases the wired connection to a wireless bridge is the better solution for old computers and old operating system.

+1

Appropriate routers are available in all cost segments, so it's not even going to be more expensive.

One of the reasons I suggested it was that most people that have been into PCs a while already have a collection of routers and NICs around so ideally there would be nothing to buy.
.

PCBONEZ wrote:

One of the reasons I suggested it was that most people that have been into PCs a while already have a collection of routers and NICs around so ideally there would be nothing to buy.
.

I meant ALL cost segments, including the used market and the parts bin!

Hi guys

Thanks for the replies. The reason why I asked this for such an ancient setup is because I have a WLAN card for my Toshiba Libretto 100ct netbook which is also equipped with a Pentium 1 and Windows 98se. The card I use for this is a Netgear WG511. So I thought that an equivalent would exist for a PCI Pentium 1. I should also mention that the PC in question has Windows 98se installed.

So on reading the replies my options appear as follows:

Possibly purchase a Cisco Aironet 350 PCI (slow, and if it works with a Pentium 1)

Use a USB or PCI Cardbus adaptor and use a compatible card (clunky and possibly unreliable?)

Use the wireless router method (have no experience with this so would have no idea what I'm doing! Lol)

I am kind of leaning towards the first one (if it is compatible) as it just seems more convenient/easier. But if anyone has any other suggestions or things to add then please do share.

Regards

gdjacobs wrote:

I meant ALL cost segments, including the used market and the parts bin!

Works for me.

CU_AMiGA wrote:

I am kind of leaning towards the first one (if it is compatible) as it just seems more convenient/easier. But if anyone has any other suggestions or things to add then please do share.

According to their site the Cisco Aironet 350 only supports 802.11b so make sure whatever you want it to connect to also supports 802.11b.

The Netgear WG511 supports both 802.11g and 802.11b so you could be using either.
.

Thanks for that info! That could be a game changer! will double check things!

PCBONEZ wrote:

alexanrs wrote:

What the OP wants is to connect both routers through WiFi and have the secondary one bridge wired connections into the main network.

That's exactly what you can do with what I suggested.
That's how I had my previous residence setup.

He is correct though.

This is not a common feature on most routers and will require a third-party firmware to set up most of the time. On a router that does have this ability with its stock firmware, it's called "WDS".

mockingbird wrote:

PCBONEZ wrote:

alexanrs wrote:

What the OP wants is to connect both routers through WiFi and have the secondary one bridge wired connections into the main network.

That's exactly what you can do with what I suggested.
That's how I had my previous residence setup.

He is correct though.

This is not a common feature on most routers and will require a third-party firmware to set up most of the time. On a router that does have this ability with its stock firmware, it's called "WDS".

Wrong. - Go read the articles I linked to.
Wireless routers already contain an AP. You just have to configure it.
The only way it won't work is if you can not turn off DHCP and you can't set the IP and subnet manually.

There's also the option of serial WiFi. Yes, it's slow.

PCBONEZ wrote:

mockingbird wrote:

Wrong. - Go read the articles I linked to. Wireless routers already contain an AP. You just have to configure it. The only way i […]
Show full quote

PCBONEZ wrote:

This is not a common feature on most routers and will require a third-party firmware to set up most of the time. On a router that does have this ability with its stock firmware, it's called "WDS".

Wrong. - Go read the articles I linked to.
Wireless routers already contain an AP. You just have to configure it.
The only way it won't work is if you can not turn off DHCP and you can't set the IP and subnet manually.

I've done this -- I already know what it entails.

You have 1 router which is the main AP, and then you need the second router to pick up the first router as it's WAN source...

PROBLEM: Most routers expect the WAN source to come from the physical WAN port.

Now, assuming we're using a PC in a remote location that will only be using a Wired LAN card conected to this router, this second router needs to be set up in a way that it is treating the existing WiFi connection as it's WAN. This option does not exist on routers. There is no setting that takes existing WiFi networks, connects to them, and then uses the DHCP IP as its own internet source.

Both articles you link to prescribe plugging the "repeater" into the primary router, in which case, why not just plug the PC to the router already if you're going to run cables that way... The second article you linked to even suggests using ethernet over house power wiring to make the connection to the second router.

I don't think so. What he needs is a simple WDS Bridge. This feature is not uncommon on today's routers. In fact I'd say it's pretty standard. Furthermore, even my old router (an Edimax 6204Wg), which was a pretty basic router, and one that's at least 10 years old, has had this feature in its FW for at least 8 years (and probably even before that).

Look at the examples in the Wikipedia link above. Network 3 is exactly what is needed here;

Network 3: Two wireless base stations employing WDS, but this time the game console connects by Ethernet cable to the remote base station. One packet goes from the game console over cable to the remote, from there by air to the master, and on to the WAN. Reply comes from WAN to master, over-the-air to remote, over cable to game console. Total packets sent over-the-air: 2.

dr_st wrote:

I don't think so. What he needs is a simple WDS Bridge. This feature is not uncommon on today's routers. In fact I'd say it's pretty standard. Furthermore, even my old router (an Edimax 6204Wg), which was a pretty basic router, and one that's at least 10 years old, has had this feature in its FW for at least 8 years (and probably even before that).

Absolutely. WDS is the easiest way to do it for sure...

I can only imagine two scenarios where WDS cannot be used:

1) Only one of the routers supports it
2) There is no physical access to the first router

I had the second scenario happen to me on a job. The place was divided into two areas. One of the areas, where the WiFi router was situated was controlled by someone else and we were not allowed to access it. So I had to go about doing it in that roundabout manner.