No announcement yet.

Wireless routers

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wireless routers

    Is there a limit to the number of devices that can share a wireless connection? I want to build a wireless network to service an Xbox 360, two TiVos and the occasional laptop along with two wired PCs.

    The next question is whether I can do this with a b/g router or is it necessary to go with an a/b/g router as M$ recommends? Their approved list includes both types, but they point out there would be less interference on the a-band (5 GHz) which could be dedicated to gaming while the b/g band (2.4 GHz) serves everything else. Although, I just checked and our cordless phones are 5.4 GHz...
    Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose!

  • #2
    Re: Wireless routers

    Hmm, I think that would depend on how many simultaneous connections (all at once) your router/hub can take.
    |TG-18th| Acreo Aeneas
    TG World of Tanks Clan Executive Officer
    Former 9th & 13th

    Pronounciation: Eh-Cree-Oh Ah-Nay-Ess
    Still can't say it? Call me Acorn then. -.-

    SSDs I Own: Kingston HyperX 3K (240 GB), Samsung 840 Pro (256 GB), Samsung 840 EVO (250 GB), Samsung 840 x 2 (120 GB), Plextor M5S (120 GB), OCZ Vertex (30 GB)

    TG Primer and Rules


    • #3
      Re: Wireless routers

      theoretically, the number would be (256 x 256 x 256) -1 or 16777215
      the ip subnet would have to be *.0.0.0 .
      this would give you the ability to run *. (0-255) . (0-255) . (0-255)
      the -1 would be for the gateway (the router)
      some routers will not allow you to set a subnet that high, buy a lot will.
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
      The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. -Harlan Ellison

      If all else fails: "rm -rf /"


      • #4
        Re: Wireless routers

        most of them you can have an almost 17 million on (see the figure that ddogg posted) and i challenge anyone to find 17 million computers and test the theory. now, in terms of realism, remember that your router can only disperse the total bandwidth you have coming in and each computer that is active on the network at any given time will take a portion of that bandwidth, which is not always constant.

        for example:
        someone browsing the forums here will not be eating up 1/100th the bandwith as someone downloading music from say, limewire. this is a point people miss because they often assume that 1 computer on a network=100% of the bandwith, 2 computers= 50/50 split on the bandwidth and so divided on down the line. this is far from the truth.

        My home network, for example, has 3 computers, an xbox, an xbox 360, a PS2 and a DVR all running at the same time. I get 0 network lag and i'm able to play NS with 30 ping at the same time my brother is playing CS:S, my roomate is playing halo 2 on XBL and im recording scrubs on the DVR. bandwidth is the key here, the router just tells it where to go.


        • #5
          Re: Wireless routers

          Originally posted by Acreo Aeneas View Post
          Hmm, I think that would depend on how many simultaneous connections (all at once) your router/hub can take.
          If you mean how many simultaneous NAT connections, you are right.

          This one here supports 2048 simultaneous NAT connections.

          Last edited by Dick Blonov; 01-09-2007, 09:35 AM. Reason: Added link.

          «That looks like a really nice house except for that horrible bathroom.» Donrhos

          | |




          TeamSpeak 3 Server




          Twitter Feed