I'm not sure if our 3 routers, in our wifi network, should be on separate channels (so each can maximize the bandwidth per channel) ?

Our office is networked via WiFi. It is in the shape of a 'L' and is made up of 4 rooms. In 3 of these rooms are 3 routers.

A: Billion BiPAC 7404VNPX. Internet Gateway. VOIP Device. (Firmware: 6.03)

B: Asus RT-N12 (firmware: 1008) Repeater Mode

C: Asus RT-N12 (firmware: 1008) Repeater Mode

[ A ]
[   ] ______
[ B ][     C]
 ---  ------

The reason why the 'C' device is over on the far end of the room is because we have a few devices that connect via ethernet to the back of that device.

That is the reason why I have 3 routers >> to extend the wifi from device 'A' all the way around the corner to the devices, at location 'C'. Otherwise, anything in room 'C' cannot see the wifi (too much interference).

Anyways, here's a scan of the WiFi network using inSSIDER 2.0.

alt text

This screen shot was taken on my MacBook pro a foot or so away from router 'B'.

Now, should I be placing each router on it's own channel? with the end of the each router range touching the next one?


  • Router A on channel 1.
  • Router B on channel 9.
  • Router C on channel 13.


  • I was going to give the optimal channels for the least interference, but they're repeaters and I'm not quite certain how those work with regards to channels. Dec 20, 2010 at 4:04
  • 1
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you don't have any performance problems as-is, leave it be. As Ignacio pointed out, some repeats need to be on the same channel, others can be on different channels. In any case the repeaters are going to take up twice the bandwidth than if you used 3 WAPs to begin with.
    – Chris S
    Dec 20, 2010 at 4:41
  • @Chris S : so true ... but i'm not sure if this is considered 'broke'. Why? sometimes the connection on Router C or B feels like they have dropped / can't connect.
    – Pure.Krome
    Dec 20, 2010 at 10:40

2 Answers 2


as Ignacio suggests, repeaters MUST be on the same frequency

Repeaters are a nasty way to network an office As you probably already know, the (already slim) bandwidth is halved

If you can spare the extra cash, install one more router beside Router B & connect them together via ethernet So, assuming device C only has wired devices connecting to it, set it up as a client-bridge as with the extra router....

Router A (AP)

Router B (CL)===Router B2 (AP)

Router C (CL)

This setup will give you full wireless bandwidth (depending on congestion) It will also allow you to seperate the frequencies

Router A & B - Ch1 Router B2 & C - Ch9

Wireless devices will be able to connect to Routers' A & B2 and there should be enough signal for all four rooms, otherwise you'll want a C2 :-)

  • @Bytemee : i can't afford the extra cash for a 4th router (just yet) at least. If repeaters are nasty, what other (wireless) options are there to extend a wifi network? Also, the 2x RT-N12 repeaters can also operate as Access Points, instead of just Repeaters ... should I make the AP's instead?
    – Pure.Krome
    Dec 20, 2010 at 10:41
  • Switching the points to WAP and using wired backhaul is always preferred. It conserves bandwidth, allows diversified channeling, and is much more reliable.
    – Chris S
    Dec 20, 2010 at 14:15
  • @Chris S : but i don't have and wired cable I can lay ... so this means I'm stuck with using the devices as REPEATERS to extend the wifi bubble from device A down and around to device C ?
    – Pure.Krome
    Dec 21, 2010 at 1:02

OK, without purchasing another router the only thing you can really do is run ethernet

Either run the cable between A & B or B & C, whatever is most convenient and set them as AP or repeater depending on your needs

But as Chris S said, taking out repeaters makes things far more reliable

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .