topic Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders? in Tech Help - Software/Hardware etc

Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

thedyes0 — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 04:43:28 GMT

Hi,
I just moved from TalkTalk back to Plusnet and the router appears beyond basic...
No real advanced settings... No option to change routers ip, no static up controls and the list goes on, why such a poor router.
I haven't checked yet but if my old HG553 has better specs than this Sagem I think I'll have to switch back as that router is Firbe via Ethernet compatible.
Now the main reason I came here, I used to gave one hg533 router setup in the hallway and then a second near the garage, both linked up by an Ethernet cable, this allowed me to extend the Wi-Fi connection by using the second router as a wireless access point/extender/repeater but I can't find any way to set it up with this Sagem...
Does anyone know how?

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

30FTTC06 — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:28:30 GMT

Did you try 192.168.1.254/expert_user.html ?

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

thedyes0 — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:57:23 GMT

Quote from: 11110_110
Did you try 192.168.1.254/expert_user.html ?

Yep, doesn't give enough control nor does it solve my Wi-Fi extender problem/setup

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

thedyes0 — Sat, 02 May 2015 00:13:47 GMT

Bump, Anyone know how I can get othe rrouters to work as wireless extenders with this sagem router?

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

pwatson — Sat, 02 May 2015 09:59:51 GMT

You can plug the second router in just as you did with your old setup. Nothing needs to be configured in the primary router:
Networking setup:
Set the IP address of the secondary router to an address within the LAN range of the primary but outside the DHCP scope eg 192.168.x.250
Disable the secondary router's DHCP server
Plug the routers together using LAN ports on both devices
Wireless setup:
Set the SSID of the secondary router to be the same as the first to enable devices to connect to either.
Experiment with wireless channel setting for what works for you. Some advocate putting the routers on different channels, I find roaming works best if they're on the same channel.

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

Anotherone — Sun, 31 May 2015 08:47:45 GMT

Quote from: pwatson
Set the IP address of the secondary router to an address within the LAN range of the primary but outside the DHCP scope eg 192.168.x.250

Not exactly sure what you are meaning there with the "outside the DHCP scope eg 192.168.x.250" or what value range "x" should be, but this 2704n will not accept an IP address as valid unless it's within the DHCP range - at least not that I've managed to get working!
I don't claim to be an "expert" when it comes to extenders, but what is wrong with defining the address within the DHCP range and then defining that IP address as Static?

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

pwatson — Sun, 31 May 2015 10:45:16 GMT

The suggestion I gave is generic - I don't have a Sagem 2704 to play with. I believe this router, as with the Thomson 582n, is configured to use the 192.168.1.0/24 network for LAN devices so I'd suggest that the downstream router management address is set to 192.168.1.250 (though see the next point!)
I have yet to see a router that allows its management address to be set via DHCP - It is normally the DHCP server on a network of course. Setting the address of the downstream router to be outside the scope of the primary router's DHCP server ensures that no device will be offered the same address as the one you've picked. I know that the PN supplied 2704 is severely locked down and it seems that its DHCP scope may in fact be 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.253 and this isn't easy to alter? This leaves no addresses for non-DHCP devices but you'll probably(!) be safe to use an address at the top of the range.
Not sure what you mean regarding the relevance of "2704n will not accept an IP address as valid unless it's within the DHCP range" - The management address of the downstream router is purely for LAN devices to be able to change settings easily if needed. The primary router doesn't need to 'know' about the device and there will no traffic between routing elemenst of either device as the downstream router is just bridging between its ethernet switch and wifi tx/rx. You could even set the management address to something on a completely different subnet and it would still work as an AP (though you'd obviously need to add a second address onto a PC LAN connection if you wanted to then manage it!

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

Anotherone — Sun, 31 May 2015 13:14:41 GMT

That's why I made the comment - "generic" in this instant doesn't seem to work on the 2704n and may not on some other routers.
The 2704n will not talk to (nor can you talk back to the 2704n) if the device IP address is not within the DHCP scope (default 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.253) which can be changed (see attached grab btw).
So for example you could change the DHCP range to 192.168.1.10-192.168.1.253, but then if you try to set up a static IP address as say 192.168.1.5 eg.it will say invalid IP address!
As I said, I'm no expert when it comes to extenders, but one point I was making perhaps not too clearly, is that I couldn't see the necessity for the(any) device IP address to be set outside the DHCP range providing the address was then set as Static. Once set as Static then the address will not be used by DHCP anymore.
So in this case, if the default range is left as is, your suggestion of 192.168.1.250 for the "extender" would be fine if you then set it by it's MAC address as static in the 2704n. As this "downstream" device is having it's DHCP disabled then it can be confusing still calling it a "router" as you have said it's technically a switch with wifi.
PS.That 2nd IP address in the screen grab isn't configured by default btw, that's a setting I've added.

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

pwatson — Sun, 31 May 2015 14:33:33 GMT

I'd agree that it's a little confusing referring to the AP device as a router as it's not being used as one but as the solution is for re-purposing a router it's difficult not to refer to it as one I'd also agree that, if it possible to reserve an IP address for it in a DHCP table, that the allocated address can safely exist within the DHCP scope of the primary router. Nonetheless this is an unnecessary step and makes the description of the solution more complex than it needs to be. The management port of the downstream box (referred to as 'the AP' from now on!) cannot be set by DHCP so it is quite possible (likely?) that you won't be able to reserve the address anyway as it wasn't allocated by the router in the first place?
As I said above, the primary router (in this case a Sagem) has no need to be aware of the IP address of the AP, indeed the AP doesn't even need an address... You're only actively using the switch and the wireless parts of the AP so functionally it's identical to extending a network with a switch. There is no 'talking' at an IP level between the router and AP, just forwarding of packets based on MAC address by the switching elements.
If you've got a 2704 and an old router kicking around, give it a go

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

Anotherone — Sun, 31 May 2015 15:04:10 GMT

By "talk to/from" I mean traffic (of any form eg. packets) passing in both directions, though having said that I'm going to double check something in the next day or two and may conditionally amend the previous comment.

Quote from: pwatson
I'd also agree that, if it possible to reserve an IP address for it in a DHCP table, that the allocated address can safely exist within the DHCP scope of the primary router. Nonetheless this is an unnecessary step and makes the description of the solution more complex than it needs to be.

As far as I can tell, it's is a solution that should work on any router and so isn't exactly making things more complex.

Quote from: pwatson
The management port of the downstream box (referred to as 'the AP' from now on!) cannot be set by DHCP so it is quite possible (likely?) that you won't be able to reserve the address anyway as it wasn't allocated by the router in the first place?

I've never had a problem reserving IP address for any device (ie set LAN IP addresses as fixed) on 3 or 4 modem/routers where those device addresses weren't allocated by DHCP but were nevertheless within the DHCP range.
As with all experimentation, it's often a case of finding the time to test these things.

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

pwatson — Sun, 31 May 2015 15:16:29 GMT

Quote from: Anotherone
By "talk to/from" I mean traffic (of any form eg. packets) passing in both directions

The 2704 doesn't even know the AP is in circuit - The MAC address in the packet will still be the final device (which of course probably had its address allocated by DHCP)

Quote from: Anotherone
I've never had a problem reserving IP address for any device (ie set LAN IP addresses as fixed) on 3 or 4 modem/routers where those device addresses weren't allocated by DHCP but were nevertheless within the DHCP range.

I was given to believe that this is quite difficult to do on the 582n (at least from a GUI) for instance? Setting the address outside the DHCP scope will definitely work (subject to your investigation with the 2704 ) with any router and generally requires no configuration. If any is required, it is to shrink the DHCP range if the router has the whole subnet in scope.
Given that the OP posted his query four weeks ago and hasn't posted back there's a fair chance that all is well

Quote from: Anotherone
As with all experimentation, it's often a case of finding the time to test these things.

Indeed

Re: Sagem Router inefficiencies... and wireless extenders?

Anotherone — Sun, 31 May 2015 16:21:17 GMT

Quote from: pwatson
I was given to believe that this is quite difficult to do on the 582n (at least from a GUI) for instance?

Hmm, did mine a while back so don't recall, and in any event had other changes to make via the CLI, so ended up doing it all via the CLI. Refresher course needed

Quote from: pwatson
Setting the address outside the DHCP scope will definitely work (subject to your investigation with the 2704 ) with any router and generally requires no configuration. If any is required, it is to shrink the DHCP range if the router has the whole subnet in scope.

What should be, and what is, aren't always the same!

Quote from: pwatson
Given that the OP posted his query four weeks ago and hasn't posted back there's a fair chance that all is well

Um, not really which is how I came here Waiting for some answers.

Quote from: pwatson
Quote from: Anotherone
As with all experimentation, it's often a case of finding the time to test these things.

Indeed

I'll try and make these things an urgent "roundtuit"