The Site > Old Forums > Qwest > Actiontec GT701-WG as Access Point?

reply to msj

Re: Actiontec GT701-WG as Access Point?

Yes, it's working fine Mike. In fact I have now disconnected the other access point. Turning off DHCP was one of the first things I did. Msj is correct that the WAN side is not involved; it perpetually and unsuccessfully tries to connect to a DSL provider, but it doesn't appear to affect the LAN ports. The LAN ports act like they are on a single switch, except that I did have to assign the Actiontec an IP address on the router's LAN subnet.

Msj's comment about the Actiontec not trying to get an IP address on the local side brings up an interesting comparison. My Linksys WCG200 works as an access point only when I assign an IP address on the LAN side AND allow it to get its IP address from my router on the WAN side. Note that it gets that IP address from my router not through its cable port (which is where you would expect the WAN interface to be), but through an Ethernet port. It appears that the Ethernet port on the WCG200 can operate as both a WAN connection and a LAN connection. I don't know why it needs an IP address on its WAN side in order to function, but it does. Possibly this relates to the way cable internet operates as opposed to DSL. For the cable modem, the choice is either static or dynamic IP addressing, whereas DSL has various flavors of PPP. In any event, setting a static WAN address won't work. It needs to get a WAN address through DHCP; it needs to get that address from my router; and it is connected to my router via Ethernet. Unless these conditions are met, I can't reach the internet through this device (although I can reach other devices on my network).

As for the Actiontec, the reason it took me so long to set it up was that I had a physical cable problem. I tried the correct configuration early on, but I didn't realize that there was a problem with the Ethernet jack I was using. For comfort, I moved to a different room, and continued trying different configurations. After seeing msj's post last night, I tried the correct configuration again, this time using a different jack, and voila, it worked.

Thanks, all, for helping me work through this.

reply to christcorp

If you don't mind, let me paraphrase what I believe to be the procedures, and tell be if that is correct. Pretending this is a scenario that someone may have.

1. Main network up and running. i.e. DSL modem to wireless router. Wireless portion turned on. Physical 4 port switch in router connected to local computers. (Normal Setup for many people).

2. Have a computer that has no wireless capabilities in another room. Extending a cat-5 cable to that room is not practical.

3. Connect this computer to the lan output of the Spare GT701-WG you have sitting around. Set the computer to a static IP, gateway, etc... of the subnet of the main working wireless router from step (1).

4. Set the spare GT701-WG to wireless on, and set it's WAN section also to a static IP address of the subnet of the main working wireless router from step (1).

5. Turn OFF DHCP in the spare GT701-WG.

6. Stir Briskly and add flavoring as desired. Drink and enjoy.

Does this sound right, or am I missing what the OP was trying to do? Thx... Mike...

Mike, as msj said, you don't want to set the WAN side up with a static IP in the router's subnet. If I remember correctly, this actually caused problems, I think because of conflicts (my router was rejecting packets because they were from the wrong interface). While I didn't try all combinations, I suspect you could give the WAN side of the Actiontec a dummy IP address, or set it to get its address through DHCP. It doesn't matter. The WAN side just sits there and the status reports that it is "connecting . . ." but it never does. It's looking for DSL input which never comes.

I don't know whether you should keep NAT on: it may be necessary to communicate with the Actiontec, but probably not.

The scenario you described requires the Actiontec's wireless interface to connect to the router's wireless interface. I don't know why that wouldn't work, but I haven't tried it. As msj said, I have the Actiontec connected to my network via Ethernet. I didn't use this device as my dsl modem because my router, switch, and wiring all comes into the basement where the reception is not as good. I put this Actiontec upstairs to get better coverage, and used a second (non-wireless) Actiontec to connect to Qwest.

Msj, is it correct to say that the LAN side of the Actiontec simply functions as a switch, connecting the Ethernet, wireless, and USB ports? Can you think of why my wireless cable modem, when used in a similar way, requires its WAN port to obtain an IP address from my router in order to pass traffic from my laptop to the internet? If the cable modem were functioning as a simple switch, that wouldn't be necessary. Perhaps it's a firewall issue?

I have a question about the electrical behavior of this Actiontec, slightly OT, that baffles me. As I mentioned, I have Ethernet jacks distributed around the house, terminating at a 16 port switch in my basement. When I connected the Actiontec to two different jacks on the second floor, it required a crossover cable for the status light to go on. When I connected to a jack on the first floor, a straight through cable worked fine (I didn't try a crossover cable on that jack). I tested the jacks, and they are all wired the same. I tested the cables and tried other equipment on the jacks, and everything is normal.

What could cause the Actiontec to behave this way? The only thing I could think of is that the signal to the upstairs jack is weaker or noisier, but even that wouldn't explain why the crossover cable works upstairs. I suppose that if the quality of the signal is affected by both the distance traveled and whether a crossover is required, and if the Actiontec's Ethernet port is autosensing, you might get this result. But it's just weird.

I could start a new topic on this question, but everything's working OK, and I'm mostly just curious.

Depending on the switch, do all ports have auto-sensing ports?

Back to the original subject, I'm wondering if setting the WAN side of the GT701-wg, for my purposes, to transparent bridge mode would be better? If the lan port is still active, which it must be even in transparent bridge mode, then based on the posts here, the wireless should also be active. Transparent bridge mode would disable and bypass all router and modem functions. Basically leaving a single port ethernet, a USB, and the wireless acting as a 3 port switch. Things that make you go hmmmmmm? Later... Mike....

Regarding transparent bridge mode, it doesn't matter. I tried it, and it works fine. But so long as DHCP is turned off, the other modes work fine too.

On the other topic, when I said auto-sensing, I was referring to the Actiontec's Ethernet port. However, your point is well taken. The ports on my switch, a Netgear FS-116, are all auto-sensing. I suppose the auto-sensing feature could be somehow defective on the two upstairs ports I tried. That would also cause the behavior I saw.

Mike, I tried to set up a configuration somewhat like the one you described, but I couldn't make it work. I turned off the radio in my laptop, then connected via Ethernet to my wireless cable modem, leaving the Actiontec on and connected by wire to my router. I could connect to the cable modem, but I couldn't get through it to anything else on my network.

I understand that your desired configuration is different. You essentially want to use the Actiontec as a wireless Ethernet card. I'm not too confident that would work either. Of course, the simpler thing would be to go out and buy a cheap wireless card -- even a USB card -- for the computer in the far room. But that would deprive you of the opportunity to tinker with the Actiontec. :>)

Yes, I have been tickering, the main reason of course, and haven't been able to get it to work. The reason isn't for this particular laptop. (It has a wireless card). My purpose would be two fold. 1st: To make the actiontec into a repeater of sorts. 2nd: To allow a non-wireless device like a Security IP web cam, a voip adapter, a network printer, etc... have the ability to be placed in an area that doesn't have ethernet cable running to it. This is sort of what I thought you were originally trying to do. I don't think it can be done, but I have always respected msj's opinions and expertise. If he responds that it "Should" work, I'll keep tinkering. Thx... Later... Mike...

Regarding the ports, the ethernet port on the Actiontec is not autosensing, so the other end has to be autosensing for the connection to work with either type of cable. Otherwise you need to have the correct cable depending on your wiring and switch configuration.

As far as Mikes desired configuration, I thought some more about this and realized that it won't work in reverse in the particular case mentioned. This has nothing to do with the bridging in the Actiontec, but instead is an issue with the wireless setup. 802.11b and 802.11g have two different modes of wireless operations: Ad-Hoc and Infrastructure. Ad-Hoc mode is able to support peer-to-peer wireless, i.e. it would allow two laptops to connect directly to eachother without having a wireless AP to make the connection. Most laptop wireless devices (PC cards or built in) allow you to choose either Ad-Hoc mode or Infrastructure mode. Infrastructure mode is more like client/server. laptops are clients and wireless AP's and routers are servers. Most wireless AP's and routers do not allow you to put them into Ad-Hoc mode, or to put them in Infrastructure mode as a client. They usually only run in Infrastructure mode as a server.

What this means is that two wireless devices that are running in Infrastructure mode as a server, i.e. the Actiontec and the wireless in your other wireless router won't talk to each other.

Now, I believe this limitation is in the firmware and could possibly be changed with custom firmware. I believe OpenWRT for the Linksys WRT54g allows you to put the wireless in Ad-Hoc mode.

So, in summary, what caseydoug wants to do does work. What Mike wants to do won't work, unless the other end of the wireless connection is something running Infrastructure mode as a client (i.e. a laptop), which probably isn't a real practical solution.

Mike, I believe Linksys makes a wireless Ethernet bridge (WET54G) that will do what you want. It's under $100.

msj, that was a helpful explanation, and is certainly consistent with what I've been seeing.

FWIW, the Actiontec has been working great in its new role. Much quicker in connecting my laptop to the network than the cable modem I was using, and more stable. It covers everything in a fairly large house; I haven't tried going outside -- Seattle has been in a deluge the last few days.

Yea, I'm familiar with wireless ethernet bridges. I was just hoping, by the way we were talking, that the 701 could be used in such a fashion. It's always nice to recycle used parts. I've got too many parts floating around. Well, it was a nice thought.

While I didn't think what I was looking at could be done, I did learn that making the 701 into an AP isn't that difficult. I don't really have a need for an AP, but it's good to see some additional uses for it. Thx again... Later... Mike....