Database Develop

Need Help Connecting to Extender

The Chromecast connects very easily to the wifi network from the Actiontec router. No problem here.
For the part of the house where I need the Chromecasr, however, I have an Amped Wireless extender (AP300) into which ethernet from the router is connected and all devices in this part of the house have a very strong wireless signal.
The problem is that I can't get the Chromecast to connect to the extender's network, It sees the Chromecast I get the attached message when it tries to add to the network.
I am not very versed in networking so help is appreciated. I did check in the AP300's settings for isolation but couldn't find anything.
Thanks!

Exact same issue here...unable to connect (usually) to the Amped wireless repeater, but connect just fine with the main AP.
I wonder if this is an issue with other repeaters also?
jr461 said:
The Chromecast connects very easily to the wifi network from the Actiontec router. No problem here.
For the part of the house where I need the Chromecasr, however, I have an Amped Wireless extender (AP300) into which ethernet from the router is connected and all devices in this part of the house have a very strong wireless signal.
The problem is that I can't get the Chromecast to connect to the extender's network, It sees the Chromecast I get the attached message when it tries to add to the network.
I am not very versed in networking so help is appreciated. I did check in the AP300's settings for isolation but couldn't find anything.
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

According to their document you need to turn off AP Isolation
support.google.com/chromecast/answer/3210071?hl=en#___plusone_0
---------
Yes. You will need to disable AP/Client isolation, also known as client isolation, on your router. Please refer to your router documentation to learn how to disable AP isolation.
If you do not have access to your router settings, or if you are attempting to connect through a guest, hotel or public network with AP/client isolation, you will be unable to set up your Chromecast.
If you are attempting to connect through a Wi-Fi extender, please check your extender settings. You will need to disable AP isolation on your Wi-Fi extender before setting up Chromecast to work with your Wi-Fi network.
---------
Sounds like they expect it to work on an extender....
mdelac01 said:
Exact same issue here...unable to connect (usually) to the Amped wireless repeater, but connect just fine with the main AP.
I wonder if this is an issue with other repeaters also?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Just for anyone who comes across this thread looking for a solution...
I managed to get it working by going into my Amped Settings at setup.ampedwireless.com , then I disabled LAPP setting. Works like a charm! Could be screwing something up I really have no clue.

Issues setting up chromecast using DLink router

hi, not sure if anyone has tried setting up chromecast using DLink router DIR 605L. I downloaded chrome cast setup app for windows 7, but it couldn't set it up successfully. I then tried doing a manual setup using browser via iphone and was able to add chromecast to wireless network. On the screen it shows that it is connected to the wireless network. However other devices are unable to find it. Youtube on iPhone cannot find it either. Nor does their setup app on Windows. Will try android device later today.
From what I can tell my router is only supports 2.4GHz so its not that. There probably is some router setting that is preventing it from working? Anyone has any ideas?
Thanks!

spike1013 said:
hi, not sure if anyone has tried setting up chromecast using DLink router DIR 605L. I downloaded chrome cast setup app for windows 7, but it couldn't set it up successfully. I then tried doing a manual setup using browser via iphone and was able to add chromecast to wireless network. On the screen it shows that it is connected to the wireless network. However other devices are unable to find it. Youtube on iPhone cannot find it either. Nor does their setup app on Windows. Will try android device later today.
From what I can tell my router is only supports 2.4GHz so its not that. There probably is some router setting that is preventing it from working? Anyone has any ideas?
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was finally able to get it to work by disabling "Wireless Enhance Mode" on the dlink router's console.

Trouble with Chromecast setup
spike1013 said:
I was finally able to get it to work by disabling "Wireless Enhance Mode" on the dlink router's console.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just got my Chromecast and does not work with my Dlink router 605L. How do I disable "Wireless Enhance Mode" on my router? Yes, I am not a techie. Help will be greatly appreciated

Chrome only sees Cast when wired to Router

Hello everyone.
I've been trying to cast from my laptop but I don't see it (No Cast Devices found). I'm able to cast effortlessly from my Android device though.
Now, after poking here and there I tried connecting my laptop directly to the router and then Chrome detected my cast device.
Any idea of what it could be? This may be the wrong forum to post this but not even Google Support has figured out what's wrong.
Thanks!

I have the same problem, obviously I don't know how to fix it

Do you have a dual band router that is broadcasting 2.4 and 5 ghz signals? I've read of people having issues when the Chromecast uses 2.4 and your computer is trying to connect via the 5ghz network. Personally I have iPads and my Android phone connecting over 5ghz while my Chromecast is on 2.4 and don't have any problems. But perhaps it is a router issue. I use a WAP running DD-WRT, so it is better than most OEM routers out there.

sic0048 said:
Do you have a dual band router that is broadcasting 2.4 and 5 ghz signals? I've read of people having issues when the Chromecast uses 2.4 and your computer is trying to connect via the 5ghz network. Personally I have iPads and my Android phone connecting over 5ghz while my Chromecast is on 2.4 and don't have any problems. But perhaps it is a router issue. I use a WAP running DD-WRT, so it is better than most OEM routers out there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There should not be an issue with connecting on different bands unless you segregate the 5ghz band on your router. Most routers are not setup to do that but if you have made changes, it is possible.

I checked the AP isolation thing before posting. So it wasnt that. I also flashed DD-WRT on it just to make sure. Same result.
We all on the same network/SSID.
Google cant figure out why Chrone only sees it only when wired im still waiting for them to come back with a workaround. If they do ill post it.

mogul420 said:
I checked the AP isolation thing before posting. So it wasnt that. I also flashed DD-WRT on it just to make sure. Same result.
We all on the same network/SSID.
Google cant figure out why Chrone only sees it only when wired im still waiting for them to come back with a workaround. If they do ill post it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wild guess... if its not AP isolation maybe your wifi card has a firewall enabled and your Ethernet port doesn't?

Ashcunak said:
wild guess... if its not AP isolation maybe your wifi card has a firewall enabled and your Ethernet port doesn't?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
checked. firewall is off.
weirder, the Chromecast app detects it, but my browser doesnt.
Code:

mogul420 said:
checked. firewall is off.
weirder, the Chromecast app detects it, but my browser doesnt.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm on the same boat with a "similar" problem. I have a Netgear N900 dual band router, but the issue persists while my main laptop (Win7) is connected via WiFi to either band (2.4GHz or 5.0GHz) or if I connect it directly to the router via Ethernet wire. Using the Chromecast app from the same laptop works without a hitch. I can also ping the Chromecast IP address without a problem. I have rebooted several times, uninstalled and re-installed Chrome and the Google Cast extension, but it makes no difference. I believe that the plugin is conflicting with "something" in this specific laptop. The issue is not with the LAN. All devices are on the same Network segment and respond to pings. The Google Cast extension works fine from two other laptops running Win7 with a similar setup, running the same version of the Chrome browser and Google Cast. I can also cast from my Android mobile devices (Nexus 7 & SGS3) using youtube. Suggestions anyone?
UPDATE:
The conflict was being caused by an active "virtual" network adapter. Specifically, the Leaf Network adapter that was installed with Netgear's ReadyShare Cloud. I guess this adapter works as a VPN to connect to the ReadyShare Cloud. I disabled this adapter and the Chromecast discovery worked. Apparently, the Chrome Cast extension is not smart enough to avoid virtual (VPN) adapters and link with the Primary (physical) wired/wireless adapter. At minimum, the extension should have an option to select the adapter to use. I don't user ReadyShare that frequently so having the adapter disabled does not bother me much.

The new update rolling out today is suppose to improve discovery so perhaps it will fix some of these issues.

bozzykid said:
The new update rolling out today is suppose to improve discovery so perhaps it will fix some of these issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the heads up. Is this a firmware update for the dongle or an updated Chrome Cast extension? Regardless, is there a a place where I can read about this update or a way for me to manually download it?
Btw, I found the conflict with my setup... I have updated my previous post.

Got the Chromecast dongle "firmware" OTA update today. It went from release 12072 (shipped) to release 12840.. I don't think this is a "new" update that's supposed to be rolling out today.. If discovery was supposed to be improved with this release, it did not fix the issue with my ReadyShare Cloud virtual VPN adapters. Once I enable the Leaf Network adapter the device disappears from the Chrome Cast pull down. After reading about it a bit more, it appears that this 12840 OTA update patches the exploit used to get root. Oh well... does anyone know if there are any new features or what else is fixed with the 12840 release?

Chromecast in hotels

The main thing that I was hoping to do with Chromecast was to use it in hotels while travelling. From what I'm reading, there are 2 major problems that would make this not a good option for hotels:
1. Sounds like there's not a way currently to accommodate wi-fi hotspots that require a web page login. This is the situation you find in most hotels.
2. The DNS is hard-coded to Google's DNS servers. This means that if you're travelling away from your home country and you need to use DNS proxies to reach restricted sources, (e.g., Netflix, BBC, Spotify), you're out of luck.
Those two restrictions make the Chromecast not very useful for my purposes. Root access would have been an approach to fix item #2, but now that's gone. So, I'm wondering if anybody knows of any development that's underway to deal with these issues? I took a quick look at the Chromecast API and I didn't see any way to manage the wi-fi connection or to change the DNS settings. I'm hoping some clever developer will figure out a way to deal with this.

Interesting, I was hoping to do the same thing. Some hotels don't require login but most do now. Has anyone tested it?
You could use a laptop and a micro router. I carry a mini tplink router to hotels to use. You can put it and a laptop on that router then stream from the browser to the chromecast. Not perfect but a workaround. Not sure if there is a way to stream directly from a phone or tablet yet.

Virtual Router should work, as (I believe) it supports multicast. Unfortunately, quite a few wifi cards will crash when using it, though. I have an Alfa AWUS036H that I use for... security testing... but that unfortunately can't sustain a connection with the software enabled.

I've used my rooted phone as wifi hotspot/router and then connect tablet or laptop to control chromecast. Unfortunately if a phone is in hotspot mode, chromecasting on same phone won't work so need to use second device to control chromecast.

Using a travel router would work, and maybe using a second Android phone as well, but all of that is defeating the purpose of using the Chromecast device. If I have to go through all of that, I might as well just use an HDMI dongle with my Android phone instead of the Chromecast.
The advantage that the Chromecast would have over phone+dongle is that the Chromecast is small and easy to attach to the TV and I wouldn't have to disconnect it when I was finished. That plus the fact that I would be able to use the phone as a remote control.
But if I've got to pack a travel router and set it up to run Chromecast, the convenience factor is gone. Also, unless there's a wired connection available, putting the 2nd phone or router in the picture would provide only half of the wi-fi bandwidth and slow the connection. Hotel wireless connections are usually pretty slow to begin with.
If somebody comes up with a solution to fix these issues on Chromecast, then I will definitely use it. Otherwise, I'll stick with the phone+hdmi dongle.

One advantage to using the CC is quality. The mhl adapters just don't have the quality and at a hotel with decent speed the router is not an issue. Besides you will not loose speed if you are plugging your router into the LAN.
woody1 said:
Using a travel router would work, and maybe using a second Android phone as well, but all of that is defeating the purpose of using the Chromecast device. If I have to go through all of that, I might as well just use an HDMI dongle with my Android phone instead of the Chromecast.
The advantage that the Chromecast would have over phone+dongle is that the Chromecast is small and easy to attach to the TV and I wouldn't have to disconnect it when I was finished. That plus the fact that I would be able to use the phone as a remote control.
But if I've got to pack a travel router and set it up to run Chromecast, the convenience factor is gone. Also, unless there's a wired connection available, putting the 2nd phone or router in the picture would provide only half of the wi-fi bandwidth and slow the connection. Hotel wireless connections are usually pretty slow to begin with.
If somebody comes up with a solution to fix these issues on Chromecast, then I will definitely use it. Otherwise, I'll stick with the phone+hdmi dongle.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
life is better with r00t

willverduzco said:
Virtual Router I have an Alfa AWUS036H that I use for... security testing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Riiiiiiiiight :silly:

willverduzco said:
[I have an Alfa AWUS036H that I use for... security testing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol i have one of those too, and we all know exactly why you have it

http://readwrite.com/2013/08/06/chromecast-hotel-travel-wi-fi-challenges#awesm=~ofCmrzdqug8DvB
http://www.connectify.me/hotspot-chromecast-best-friend/

yeah connectify gives my really inconsistent results. so far only netflix and youtube have worked. music hasn't at all. If I could figure out the cause I'd buy the pro version while its still on sale.

At one point I was planning to get a WL-330NUL mini router. Watch video here. (Supposedly the world's smallest) Given that it's a WiFi router... I believe it could work with the chromecast dongle using a WiFi connected smartphone/tablet/laptop. Looking at the video it appears that in standalone mode it can route using Ethernet on the WAN end and using a laptop it can route using WiFi in the WAN end. In the later scenario the laptop is used to authenticate with the hotel WiFi network and the router dongle appears to act as an AP. Not 100% sure of the second scenario, but it "appears" to be so. The router can be found online for the same price you paid for your chromecast. If I get a chance, before the end of the week, I might stop by B&H Photo-Video and pick one up.
Edit:
Here is another video that shows the features a bit more clearly

I really think that the Chromecast was designed as a way to turn your TV into a "smart" TV... not so much to be a portable device for media streaming. Even bringing it between three houses is annoying as you need to go through the full setup process each time you move between wireless networks since it only stores the most recent network.
Even if you could get it to connect to a hotel's WiFi I would not use it that way, since there's no option to restrict who on the network can cast content to the device.

raptir said:
Even if you could get it to connect to a hotel's WiFi I would not use it that way, since there's no option to restrict who on the network can cast content to the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In hotels all the WiFi connected devices are segregated. Try it. Connect two devices to "most if not all" hotel WiFi networks and the two devices can not connect to each other even while connecting from the same room. This is done for security purposes. With the set up I mentioned with the mini WiFi router any devices connecting to the wireless network created by the mini router needs to authenticate with the AP function of the router.

I use a tplink micro router. I plug into the ether net and it still requires that I log in. So I'm not sure if that will even work.
Life is better with root.

tamanaco said:
In hotels all the WiFi connected devices are segregated. Try it. Connect two devices to "most if not all" hotel WiFi networks and the two devices can not connect to each other even while connecting from the same room. This is done for security purposes. With the set up I mentioned with the mini WiFi router any devices connecting to the wireless network created by the mini router needs to authenticate with the AP function of the router.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, that would work. You're relying on the hotel having a wired connection in addition to wireless, which I do not see as often unless you're staying in business hotels.
Still, my post was more trying to point out that design decisions like only remembering one wireless hotspot make it seem like they did not intend this to be used for travelling.

raptir said:
Yeah, that would work. You're relying on the hotel having a wired connection in addition to wireless, which I do not see as often unless you're staying in business hotels.
Still, my post was more trying to point out that design decisions like only remembering one wireless hotspot make it seem like they did not intend this to be used for travelling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I was not clear enough in my previous post... when "combined" with a laptop the mini router-laptop setup can act as WiFi LAN to WiFi WAN router. The "Laptop's" WiFi adapter links and authenticates with the hotel's WiFi AP and acts as a bridge to the USB connected mini WiFi router. The mini router then acts as a wireless AP for the wireless nodes in your room. Your chromecast and smartphone/tablet would then link and authenticate to the AP in the mini router and talk to each other as they would be in the same WiFi LAN segment. Both of them will then go out to the Internet using the WiFi connection of the laptop WiFi adapter. Take a look at the second video that I added at the end of my initial post.

tamanaco said:
Maybe I was not clear enough in my previous post... when "combined" with a laptop the mini router setup can act as WiFi LAN to WiFi WAN router. The "Laptop's" WiFi adapter links and authenticates with the hotel's WiFi AP and acts as a bridge to the USB connected mini WiFi router. The mini router then acts as a wireless AP for the wireless nodes in your room. Your chromecast and smartphone/tablet would then link and authenticate to the AP in the mini router and talk to each other as they would be in the same WiFi LAN segment. Both of them will then go out to the Internet using the WiFi connection of the laptop WiFi adapter. Take a look at the second video that I added at the end of my initial post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah. I guess I'm just not seeing why you would go through all of that hassle when an HDMI cable would do the same thing. The Chromecast is great for convenience, when you remove that it just doesn't seem like a good solution to me.

raptir said:
Ah. I guess I'm just not seeing why you would go through all of that hassle when an HDMI cable would do the same thing. The Chromecast is great for convenience, when you remove that it just doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It might not be a good solution for you, but for those of us that carry a laptop when we travel having two extra dongles would not be much of a hassle. Remember, even if the chromecast had its own browser to authenticate to the hotels WiFi and access the Internet your smartphone/tablet would not be able see it. You need to create your own wireless LAN segment in your hotel room for both devices to connect and a way for both to have access to the Internet via a router in order for the chromecast to work You need to replicate an environment similar to your home wireless network for the chromecast to work as designed.
Edit: Btw, I agree that having a laptop or tablet with separate HDMI port an HDMI cable is a better solution, but since this thread was about chromecast in hotels I was trying to keep the discussion relevant while exploring a "possible" solution.

tamanaco said:
It might not be a good solution for you, but for those of us that carry a laptop when we travel having two extra dongles would not be much of a hassle. Remember, even if the chromecast had its own browser to authenticate to the hotels WiFi and access the Internet your smartphone/tablet would not be able see it. You need to create your own wireless LAN segment in your hotel room for both devices to connect and a way for both to have access to the Internet via a router in order for the chromecast to work You need to replicate an environment similar to your home wireless network for the chromecast to work as designed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess it just comes down to a matter of opinion. I do carry a laptop when I travel and I still think that plugging it into the TV with an HDMI cable would be easier than going through all that. The chromecast is less capable but more convenient than an HDMI cable, but if you've got a setup that causes the chromecast to be the less convenient option I just don't see why you'd go with it.

raptir said:
I guess it just comes down to a matter of opinion. I do carry a laptop when I travel and I still think that plugging it into the TV with an HDMI cable would be easier than going through all that. The chromecast is less capable but more convenient than an HDMI cable, but if you've got a setup that causes the chromecast to be the less convenient option I just don't see why you'd go with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had updated my post before your reply. In essence we're in agreement about having an HDMI cable, but I believe that the possibility exist for making this work with just a smartphone with bluetooth and the chromecast dongle. My understanding is that the chromecast also has bluetooth capabilities. So a firmware update and basic browser in the chromecast can be use to authenticate with the hotel's WiFi network while the smartphone can act as a remote via Bluetooth. Just speculating here... but who knows.

[Q] Configure CC on open WiFi network with click-through requirement (SOLVED)

I am frequently presenting on open WiFi networks, but the catch on these networks is they usually require click-through on a webpage. The CC cannot preform the click-through so using CC on these networks fails.
I am looking for alternatives to engineer a working solution to allow the CC to work depending only on the open WiFi network with click-through requirements. There are at least two other (less desirable) working methods. First, create my own WiFi hotspot, but this has a significant disadvantage that the audience wants to connect to my WiFi hotspot to experiment with the CC. Second, connect to a secure WiFi network without click-through requirement, but this is frequently not available at my presentation locations. I realize I can use the CC on a secure network with password, as long as it does not require click-through on a web page.
The ideal solution/workaround would allow the CC to connect to some AP or other WiFi point that was bridged or sourced by an "open WiFi network that requires click-through" as these types of networks are most frequently available. Plus the audience is usually already connected to the same network. But, I have not thought of a useful method to accomplish it, likely because of my limited network engineering and hardware knowledge. Two other nice-to-have features would be (1) portability and (2) working with both Windows 7 x64 and Mac OS if a laptop is used to accomplish the bridge or AP.
Methods might include something simple I'm overlooking, or an CC application, or a hardware solution (like turning my laptop into an AP after connecting to the "open WiFi network that requires click-through", or anything else.
Any suggestions highly appreciated.
PS: I am not rooted if recommending an Android device or application.
-----
SOLVED.
The solution was using TP-Link 150Mbps Wireless N Mini Pocket Router TL-WR710N configured in "WISP Client Router Mode". I bought mine on Amazon here for $27.27 USD plus tax. An extra feature is a USB port which can be used to power the CCast.
As discussed in the thread, there is WISP mode *wired* LAN, and WISP mode *wireless* LAN.
Some devices implement WISP mode by connecting to a public WiFi network and giving you *wired* local LAN. Alone, these do not work with CCast because CCast requires a *wireless* local LAN. WISP mode to *wired* LAN does NOT work.
Yet, the TL-WR710N implements WISP mode by connecting to a public WiFi network and giving you a *wireless* local LAN, complete with new Wireless Network Name (SSID) and IP address scheme served by DHCP. This works 100% with CCast.
Once the CCast is configured on the local SSID and local IP (default 192.168.0.1xx) you can cast Youtube, etc., or screen cast from your Android device.
No wonder there is confusion about WISP mode implementation.
Many thanks to people contributing to this thread's discussion!!
Note: Cloning the CCast MAC is *not* required because you can connect any device to the TL-WR710N in WISP mode and use the browser to click-through - authorizing the WR710N MAC on your public WiFi. Then all the clients, including CCast, connecting on the local *wireless* LAN simply work.

You need a program that will let you clone the CCast's MAC address on a computer, unplug the CCast...
Clone the Mac Address, Do the click through, Disconnect the computer UnClone the Mac Address. Re-Connect the CCast.
Connect the computer as normal.
But be warned...Most APs who have a click through page for access also have AP Isolation turned on which makes it impossible to find the CCast to stream to it.

Asphyx said:
You need a program that will let you clone the CCast's MAC address on a computer, unplug the CCast...
Clone the Mac Address, Do the click through, Disconnect the computer UnClone the Mac Address. Re-Connect the CCast.
Connect the computer as normal.
But be warned...Most APs who have a click through page for access also have AP Isolation turned on which makes it impossible to find the CCast to stream to it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay thanks. I will test cloning.
But, if you are correct and most networks have AP Isolation preventing CC, then I need an alternative solution.
------
I was intrigued by this post. But configuring an TL-WR703N with "openwrt+luci web interface" is not clear to me. Yet, this seems a possible good solution.
Also, browsing this link at Cisco made me think what user @bagl0312 accomplished is quite good.

Bob Smith42 said:
Okay thanks. I will test cloning.
But, if you are correct and most networks have AP Isolation preventing CC, then I need an alternative solution.
------
I was intrigued by this post. But configuring an TL-WR703N with "openwrt+luci web interface" is not clear to me. Yet, this seems a possible good solution.
Also, browsing this link at Cisco made me think what user @bagl0312 accomplished is quite good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think there are better options for Remote usage such as Portable routers with the ability to connect to other wireless AP devices for it's WAN,
Or if you already have a cellular data account for your phone, adding one of those MiFi wireless hotspot devices that you can use as a router pretty much anywhere including where there is no free WiFi.
You just have to be careful with the latter option because Data Charges will apply if you use too much Internet access on them.

Asphyx said:
I think there are better options for Remote usage such as Portable routers with the ability to connect to other wireless AP devices for it's WAN,
Or if you already have a cellular data account for your phone, adding one of those MiFi wireless hotspot devices that you can use as a router pretty much anywhere including where there is no free WiFi.
You just have to be careful with the latter option because Data Charges will apply if you use too much Internet access on them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does anyone have any recommended models for *portable* routers with "wifi as wan" capability?

Bob Smith42 said:
Does anyone have any recommended models for *portable* routers with "wifi as wan" capability?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're looking for what's typically known as a "travel router" and the "WiFi as WAN" feature, as least on my Zyxel routers is called "WISP mode" (Wireless ISP).
It does exactly what you said, instead of using a wired connection for WAN, it uses a wireless connection - the router still functions as a router, so you might have some issues with double-NAT-ing in some cases.
I have both the MWR211 (single Ethernet port so you can do wired LAN or wired WAN but not both simultaneously) and MWR222 (two Ethernet ports, so you can do both wired LAN and WAN simultaneousl) - they're almost identical, save for lacking SNMP on the MWR211. I have not had opportunity to use the WISP mode though I've used the 3G (they support most USB cell modems) as backup from time to time.
Info's a little lacking since they're discontinued models, but I got them off a Woot deal while back for under $50.
MWR211/222 manual

bhiga said:
You're looking for what's typically known as a "travel router" and the "WiFi as WAN" feature, as least on my Zyxel routers is called "WISP mode" (Wireless ISP).
It does exactly what you said, instead of using a wired connection for WAN, it uses a wireless connection - the router still functions as a router, so you might have some issues with double-NAT-ing in some cases.
I have both the MWR211 (single Ethernet port so you can do wired LAN or wired WAN but not both simultaneously) and MWR222 (two Ethernet ports, so you can do both wired LAN and WAN simultaneousl) - they're almost identical, save for lacking SNMP on the MWR211. I have not had opportunity to use the WISP mode though I've used the 3G (they support most USB cell modems) as backup from time to time.
Info's a little lacking since they're discontinued models, but I got them off a Woot deal while back for under $50.
MWR211/222 manual
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This information was helpful. I read the manual. I will have to test the double-NATing with CC, e.g. issues with WAN accessing private vs public network IP as described in the manual. I found an inexpensive MWR222 to evaluate.
I suspect its wireless WAN mode will help, but when set in that mode it looks like it may not (guess) simultaneously have hotspot capability. Still, in that case, I can connect a small AP to its Ethernet LAN and probably get the CC working. I will test my hypothesis and report CC results once I receive the device.
I also found an inexpensive TL-WR703N with memory updates (RAM, Flash) that is supposed to support OpenWrt. I will flash it with OpenWrt once I get it and report CC results. Hopefully, I can reproduce @bagl0312 configuration with CC with success.
I am starting to understand the networking issues and configurations required. Everyone's help is appreciated. Thanks.

Bob Smith42 said:
This information was helpful. I read the manual. I will have to test the double-NATing with CC, e.g. issues with WAN accessing private vs public network IP as described in the manual. I found an inexpensive MWR222 to evaluate.
I suspect its wireless WAN mode will help, but when set in that mode it looks like it may not (guess) simultaneously have hotspot capability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You wouldn't want hotspot capability if you are using it in WAN mode anyway since you will be using the Wireless internet connection from the location and not the data plan of your Cell Service.
Thats why you want the WAN/WISP option in the first place to stop from having to eat into your Data Allotment on your Cell Carrier account.

Asphyx said:
You wouldn't want hotspot capability if you are using it in WAN mode anyway since you will be using the Wireless internet connection from the location and not the data plan of your Cell Service.
Thats why you want the WAN/WISP option in the first place to stop from having to eat into your Data Allotment on your Cell Carrier account.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. I need both, unless someone figures out another workaround (see below).
The CC has two requirements:
(1) connect to public IP (internet) for data, and
(2) connect to local IP (android devices, chrome on laptops, iphones, etc) for remote control and mirroring.
CC configurations issues with WiFi services offering access to public IP (internet) are:
(1) Both open or encrypted networks frequently have web page click-through requirements that CC cannot perform, and
(2) CC and connecting WiFi devices must connect point-to-point on the local IP network which is frequently blocked (AP isolation, etc).
I agree with you because I do not *want* a dual WiFi network solution, but I have found no alternatives so far. lol
We can engineer a dual WiFi network solution for sure, but it might be easier to address some of the core usability issues of the CC in some other (more clever) way. Some other workarounds might include combinations from (or may not be possible):
(1) Cloning MAC on CC to bypass click-through requirements.
(2) Add BT capability on CC. Overcome AP isolation on the local IP network using high bandwidth BT for remote control and screen mirroring.
(3) Add browser capability on CC for click-through, and mouse or touch control for CC.
(4) Clever method to defeat WiFi local IP network AP isolation between CC and devices.
(5) Others?
Hopefully someone is already working on better solutions.

Bob Smith42 said:
No. I need both, unless someone figures out another workaround (see below).
The CC has two requirements:
(1) connect to public IP (internet) for data, and
(2) connect to local IP (android devices, chrome on laptops, iphones, etc) for remote control and mirroring.
CC configurations issues with WiFi services offering access to public IP (internet) are:
(1) Both open or encrypted networks frequently have web page click-through requirements that CC cannot perform, and
(2) CC and connecting WiFi devices must connect point-to-point on the local IP network which is frequently blocked (AP isolation, etc).
I agree with you because I do not *want* a dual WiFi network solution, but I have found no alternatives so far. lol
We can engineer a dual WiFi network solution for sure, but it might be easier to address some of the core usability issues of the CC in some other (more clever) way. Some other workarounds might include combinations from (or may not be possible):
(1) Cloning MAC on CC to bypass click-through requirements.
(2) Add BT capability on CC. Overcome AP isolation on the local IP network using high bandwidth BT for remote control and screen mirroring.
(3) Add browser capability on CC for click-through, and mouse or touch control for CC.
(4) Clever method to defeat WiFi local IP network AP isolation between CC and devices.
(5) Others?
Hopefully someone is already working on better solutions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the Router will do the proper NAT Translation for you for the Internet access...
When the CCast asks for something from the internet it asks the portable router then the portable router will use the location WiFi to get it and then send it to the CCast.
The CCast doesn't need a public IP it only needs to be connected to a device that can get internet data.
what you do have to do however is use a different IP Range on the DHCP server of the portable router...
So if the Router gets an IP like 192.168.1.x from the WiFi you have to use a different set like 192.168.2.x for your DHCP server...

@Bob Smith42 's concern is valid, I didn't think about the fact that WLAN as WAN takes out the AP functionality. I just confirmed this.
So, really what we end up needing is still two devices - a wireless bridge to get wireless to wired - either a router in WISP mode or something like Cisco/Linksys WET610N (I keep laughing at the "Up to 300 Mbps" as it only has a 100 Mbps Ethernet port), and a router to provide the AP...
IMO, the "local WiFi" network really is the best way to go. It may seem redundant at times, but at least you can still do stuff if you have no WiFi, or WiFi is paid per-client (it's changing, but a number of hotels I've been at were like this).
As for other mechanisms, maybe the "Don't need to be on the same WiFi" feature that's coming will address this, but I don't think it will. Then again, I didn't think screen casting would happen on older hardware like my Galaxy S3, and it does (via MirrorEnabler), so maybe I'll be pleasantly proved wrong again.

bhiga said:
@Bob Smith42 's concern is valid, I didn't think about the fact that WLAN as WAN takes out the AP functionality. I just confirmed this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then I stand corrected and have to add thats just bad design...You should be able to to simply connect the Portable to the WiFi and then use it as your Wireless AP for multiple devices otherwise what is the point of this WISP mode at all? Unless it is to turn Wireless into Wired only...
Google does have a solution to solve this in the pipeline...That Proximity streaming we talked about where you can stream to it over Cell data without being connected to the home network.
But thats just going to ring up data charges I would think.

Asphyx said:
what is the point of this WISP mode at all? Unless it is to turn Wireless into Wired only...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's exactly what WISP is for. The MWR2xx series mainly takes a wired/wireless ISP connection and turns it into a wireless/wired connection with USB modem backup.
The MWR222 can also do wired-wired with USB failover since it has two Ethernet ports.
Given the age of the design I'm not sure the WiFi chip they use can operate as both client and AP simultaneously.

bump
Thread updated. TL-WR710N works 100% with CCast on all (tested so far) WiFi networks.

Bob Smith42 said:
bump
Thread updated. TL-WR710N works 100% with CCast on all (tested so far) WiFi networks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats how I understood those Portable routers were supposed to work so you could add things like Portable Wireless printers all the while having internet access from configured Wireless APs...

Ok so I picked up this 710N router on Amazon since I had a gift certificate I needed to use and while the promise of this router seems to be there I'm having real issues getting it to work properly but part of that has to do with it really requires a WIRED Connection to set up properly.
It does seem to do what we would need in a Hotel but I have not been able to mimic that on this unit using my own router and I'm suspecting that maybe my Router is not supporting it or I'm just reading the settings wrong.
I'll keep trying here and see what it requires...I Might need to set up the guest network cause the issue might be the click through is not there or my regular router is set to NOT allow another AP to connect...Just got it today so I will continue to play with it.

Asphyx said:
Ok so I picked up this 710N router on Amazon since I had a gift certificate I needed to use and while the promise of this router seems to be there I'm having real issues getting it to work properly but part of that has to do with it really requires a WIRED Connection to set up properly.
It does seem to do what we would need in a Hotel but I have not been able to mimic that on this unit using my own router and I'm suspecting that maybe my Router is not supporting it or I'm just reading the settings wrong.
I'll keep trying here and see what it requires...I Might need to set up the guest network cause the issue might be the click through is not there or my regular router is set to NOT allow another AP to connect...Just got it today so I will continue to play with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rest assured, it works great for me. E.g. when I was at Starbucks (requires click through, has AP isolation) I got CCast working with WISP on my private SSID. Testing a few corporate locations today. The CCast took a while to *finish* setup, it hung first time. So I pulled power and tried twice. Second time worked. Not very scientific, sorry. I definitely used my laptop to click through on Starbucks and I was wired during setup. I will attempt to run some configuration tests non-wired too (thanks for update). The big advantage of the 710N is inexpensive, if you have AC power source.
Also, I found another awesome portable router, better for CCast in my situation but also more expensive, e.g. $60 USD. I configured this one completely non-wired.
-----
UPDATE: The HooToo TM04 does *not* work on certain networks. Do Not Buy!!! Read below...
------
HooToo TM04 product webpage here, and amazon here. It is a really new item.
This item costs $60 USD on amazon. It has 6000 mah battery and without external power it can power two USB items (1) CCast plus second USB item (like phone, tablet, drive, pico projector, etc). Has two battery recharging modes: wall AC (faster) or microUsb. Lots of other features. Good review videos on YouTube here.
Good luck.

@Asphyx
# TL-WR710N
I configured my CCast on another network (so it required reconfiguration at Starbucks) and took it back to Starbucks. I plugged the TL-WR710N into AC power, without wiring anything on NIC WAN nor LAN, and waiting about 2 minutes. Since I had already configured the 710N for WISP mode it restarted in that mode. It was the *same* location I had previously configured WISP, so that probably helps. (I will test WISP on new location tonight).
At this point I tried CCast setup. I connected my Nexus 7 (2013) to the 710N WiFi SSID. Using the Nexus 7 I attempted to setup the CCast, and completed all the input configuration screens. But, the Setup screen *hangs* after confirming name and entering my WiFi SSID password. By hanging I mean the CCast app big circle keeps spinning and after about 5 minutes returns an error. But, this error is wrong because the CCast device is actually configured and working.
I must perform the Starbucks click-through on the Nexus 7 2013 to register the 710N MAC address to access the internet.
While the CCast app circle is spinning I switched to YouTube and it casts perfectly. Also, I can screen cast the Nexus 7 2013. I tried a couple tricks but the CCast app never successfully *completed* setup, yet the CCast device works 100%. Hmmmm.
# HooToo TM04
-----
UPDATE: The HooToo TM04 does *not* work on certain networks. Do Not Buy!!! Read below...
------
So, I substituted the HooToo TM04 at Starbucks. The configuration was completely wireless (never used NIC cables) and basically the CCast app setup completed successfully! All the CCast device features (YouTube internet cast, local Nexus 7 2013 screen cast) worked 100%. Very simple and smooth configuration with no glitches.
# Summary
The difference was only the CCast app setup result, The 710N *hangs* with a spinning circle and eventually returns an error dialog, but the CCast device is configured and working 100%. The HooToo completes setup correctly, and CCast device is configured and working 100%.
I am now wondering if there is a setting on the TL-WR710N required to allow CCast app setup to complete successfully (even though the CCast device is configured and working)?
I will test further. Any comments or feedback requested.

Bob Smith42 said:
@Asphyx
# TL-WR710N
...
But, the Setup screen *hangs* after confirming name and entering my WiFi SSID password. By hanging I mean the CCast app big circle keeps spinning and after about 5 minutes returns an error. But, this error is wrong because the CCast device is actually configured and working.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Chromecast setup app has done the same to me a few times - and that's on my home WiFi that works fine.
I wouldn't worry about it too much, I think it's just some kind of timing glitch.
As long as exiting and returning to the Chromecast setup app reports Ready to Cast and Chromecast works, it's good to go.

Oh I'm sure it does work Bob, I'm just missing something and what makes it worse is I was trying to do this all through Wireless and a mobile device which this unit is difficult to setup with.
I set up WISP mode but the issue is on reboot it didn't give me an SSID to reconnect.
I'm sure I'm just borking something in the settings so when I have the chance to do this all via wired connection I will play with it a bit more...