While I was doing research on wireless connection limits, I stumbled upon this question. Zypher's answer seems to suggest connection capacity benefits of wireless access points over wireless routers. Is there actually a connection capacity benefit to using a pure access point? It seems that the connection limit for a router is based off of mechanical limitations (interference, etc), so does the router attached to the Access Point make a difference?
Router – Wireless Access Point connection benefits over Wireless Routers
access-pointconnectionrouterwifi
Related Solutions
First I add that some of these replies need clarification.
There are two kinds of overlap, one is channel overlap where the frequencies overlap, and the second being signal overlap.
You MUST have signal overlap for all devices to have coverage in all areas, or even most devices in most areas.
Secondly, there are various schools of thought for frequency overlap and some manufacturers even suggest putting all APs on a common channel. In the case of roaming IP phones this case becomes even stronger as a phone may hop across APs while in a call. This of course depends much on the hardwae of the phones and antenna placement and design.
Let us assume that we had a large open area that we wanted wifi coverage in. Now lets take a pole and place it in the middle of the area. Now we place 4 directional 90 degree antennas on the pole, each 90 degrees from the other . In this situation one may make a strong case for having all APs on the same channel to facilitate roaming. In theory there is little signal overlap but all frequencies overlap.
Now we have an open area with walls on four sides. and place an AP on each of the four walls. The signals WILL overlap from each of the 90 degree antennas , so we may want to consider using separate non overlapping channels on each AP , however there are only 3 non overlapping channels. 1, 6 , and 11. So instead we do the best we can in North America this might be 1, 4, 7, and 11 , each AP having SOME necessary frequency overlap. Of course in a perfect world this might be better accomplished with three APS in a triangular configuration.
In my home I have toyed with APs on Same channel and separate channels and in the end I see little coverage difference., I do see however that some devices such as wireless IP phones can more easily hop to another AP while in a phone call. I see that in most areas I do not have more than 2 overlapping signals and each on channel 4 at present. As I sit here I can launch wifi seeker on my android and see either of the 2 available APs and even connect to either. This of course is easier to test with separate SSIDs but more practical to use common SSIDs fopr everyday use.
While the slow client is transmitting data, due to CSMA-CA, no other client can transmit. A slow client will take significantly longer to transmit its packet of data than a fast client.
Similarly while the AP is talking to a slow client all other wireless devices on that channel will have to wait for their turn. The slower the device the longer that the channel is in use for both transmit and receive packets.
Many APs will have minimum connection speed configurable. This may help speed up fast clients, but older devices and clients will be unable to connect.
This particularly shows up with a bad connection where the combination of a slow connection and, probably more importantly, retries plugs up the capacity sufficiently to effectively block the other channels by consuming most of the capacity of the connection.
Best Answer
Let's straighten some stuff out first. A "wireless router" is usually a SOHO device that typically contains a router, a switch, and an access point all in a single piece of hardware. Generally speaking, these exist for small networks like a home, or an office with 10 or fewer computers, since there's no need to break these devices out separately. Very rarely on the high-end do you see an AP that also routes - they are typically layer 2 devices.
George's answer wasn't necessarily saying that APs are better than wireless routers, but the OP there was asking about deploying 60+ access points. You definitely don't want 60 extra routers on your network - your routing should be centralized at that size on a core L3 device like a Cisco Nexus or other chassis-based product (Or at least on a set of stacked workstation switches).
If you get a cheapo Linksys wireless AP, it will probably perform very similarly to a cheapo Linksys wireless router. If you've only got 50 bucks to spend, you're not going to really see a difference between the two. On the high end, like a Cisco LAP 3600 series, there is no all-in-one device that is similar, because the people deploying them have no use for such a combo device. When you get into the high end, people have a complex and established routing infrastructure already. They probably have a single VLAN for wireless that traverses their entire switching infrastructure. There's just no reason for someone to want these devices to route as well.
TL;DR - Wireless routers are typically SOHO combo devices. If you're deploying serious wireless equipment, it's all L2, since no one in their right mind would deploy 60 additional routers in their infrastructure.