On 21 Jul 2006 21:31:29 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
<e9rh3h01m3u@news2.newsguy.com>:

>On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:05:28 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>| What network topology are you expecting with that? The WGPS606 is a
>| wireless client bridge and printer server that will attach to only *one*
>| wireless access point (WGT624) at a time. You can't mesh these all
>| together.
>
>What I'm "expecting" is not a specific topology. I would set up some
>topology on top of it. I might expect some default topology to already
>be set up for less sophisticated users to be able to get up and running
>faster. But that "expecting" implied being able to make box A talk to
>box B wirelessly. I can do that with ethernet regardless of what type
>of boxes A and B are. I expected the same from wireless and have seen
>no online documentation that says I should expect for some boxes to NOT
>be able to talk to certain other boxes, even of their own kind.

Do you want to just rant and waste time? Or do you want to get the job
done? I'm only willing to help with the latter.

In fact wired Ethernet networking can be quite complex, even more
complex than WLAN (wireless LAN). I'd point out some of the many ways,
but I really don't have the time or interest.

The only way I can help you configure a WLAN is if you tell me exactly
what you want to do. Exactly what boxes need to talk to what boxes?
What boxes need to talk to which broadband connections? Give me the
details, and I'll show you how to do it. Keep them a secret, and
perhaps someone else can help you.

A key principle of networking is to carefully plan the network first,
then implement it. Rushing ahead is a bad idea.

>| Why would you do that? With the HP 6980 connected to WGT624(1), it's
>| accessible by all clients in that subnet. Assign a static IP address to
>| the HP 6980, either by fixed DHCP or manually, and you should be able to
>| reach it reliably from any client on that subnet. The HP 6980 shouldn't
>| need a gateway address unless it's going to make connections over the
>| public Internet.
>
>It has a static IP. Everything is in 169.254.0.0/16.

You should be using one of the RFC 1918 Private IP address blocks,
typically 192.168/16

>But I cannot reach
>the printer from the computer. I can reach the WGT624, and see that in
>its list of attached devices there is the MAC address of the HP 6980, but
>without an IP address (which I presume is because it has never seen any
>IP type traffic with it).

DHCP or manual configuration?
Of the computer? What IP address? What netmask?
Of the HP 6980? What IP address? What netmask?

>Apparently my ARP broadcasts from the computer
>are not reaching the printer.
>[BIG SNIP]

Gack! Let's please not go there. Just stick to standard networking.
We need a network topology diagram. If you don't like my first cut, fix
it up.

>That did work when the bridge was peered with WGT624(1). However, it
>sometimes peers with WGT624(2) instead, which break things (and gives me
>nice broadcast storms). I presume using different SSIDs will fix that
>but I have not tried it, yet.

Gack! Each WLAN should have a really unique SSID, at least for
starters. The only time you want the same SSID is when you want
wireless clients to roam between them, which is probably not what you
want even later.

>| When the HP 6980 is connected to WGT624(1), it won't be connected to
>| WGT624(2), and so won't be accessible to that subnet. You would have to
>| bridge the subnets; e.g., by VPN over the public Internet, or with a
>| wireless bridge (other than what you have now).
>
>So this is just a too cheap bridge.

It's not a bridge between the *two* WLANs -- it's just a bridge for
*one* WLAN! If you want to bridge the two WLANs, then you'll probably
need more gear.

Are you trying to create a big network covering both houses, where
everything can talk to everything? If so, you're options include:

1. One WLAN covering both house. Wireless probably won't work, and a
bitch to use both broadbands.

2. Master WLAN at one house, with:

(a) WDS at the other house. Kludge. A bitch to use both broadbands.

(b) Wireless client bridge and access point at the other house.
Better. A bitch to use both broadbands.

3. Each house with its own WLAN, bridged with a point-to-point wireless
bridge. Best bet, but takes two more wireless boxes.

4. Bridge with VPN over the public Internet.

>Given there is no manufacturer name
>on it at all. The MAC's OUI gives me this, in case you are curious:

I'm not, but thanks.

>| How is that an issue? This isn't a mesh; i.e., you can't construct a
>| wireless network covering both houses with just this gear.
>
>Apparently not. But what I want to do is figure out WHAT gear I should
>use, and do so by figuring it out from clearly written documentation,
>which I have not yet found. Such documentation would obviously have to
>state exactly what devices (or classes of devices) can, and cannot, talk
>to each other (including of its own kind), and for classes of devices,
>also tell how to determine which commercial devices are of each class,
>despite misleading sales/marketing jargon and puffing.

That would be a big book on advanced networking, wired and wireless.

>|>The WGT624 has the 108 Mb capability, but it looks like there's no way
>|>for me to use it. I would have been better off with WGR614's.
>|
>| True.
>
>I actually chose those models for their extended range technology, which
>the WGR614 did not have, on the basis that it might increase my chance of
>being able to reach between the houses (I always understood this much was
>never a certainty). So whatever device classes would interconnect the
>two wired LANs, I'd like to have it with that or some other range extend
>technology.

Your best bet for range is MIMO, but that would take MIMO on *all*
devices, which isn't going to happen (HP printer), and might not be
enough in any event. Better to bridge two WLANs with a point-to-point
wireless bridge.

>And it would be a big plus if one of those would ALSO talk wirelessly
>with the WGT624 so I can have ONE wireless device on the wired LAN in
>this house and have it talk wirelessly to both the WGT624 to reach the
>DSL, and whatever is at the other house to reach it's LAN.

Could we please just stay in the world of the possible?

>And reaching the printer is important, too. If that has to be through
>a double hop from the wireless device on the LAN to the WGT624 on the
>DSL and back out over air to the printer, that's fine, as the printer
>bandwidth isn't an issue.

See above.

>| Please be more clear and precise on what you're trying to do, including
>| the entire network topology. Something like
>| <http://i5.tinypic.com/20kujq1.png>.
>
>I can't say what the network topology is, because I don't know which one
>would work in wireless. I've been trying a few I know would work wired.
>
>The picture you show is one possible way, although incomplete.

Then please finish it.

>If youw ant to figure out the best topology for me, here are the parts:

I actually don't want to,

>-- my house --
>
>1. My "computer farm" running on a wired switch. Using wireless PC cards
> here is not an option. 3 ports are available on the switch.
>
>2. My future DSL connection. It shall not connect to anything by wire.
>
>3. Wireless printer. It cannot be connected to the computer farm by wire.
> But a wireless print server might be an option for it (though that
> would sure seem silly, and a bit inconvenient).
>
>4. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
> to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she comes
> over and brings it here.
>
>-- brother's house --
>
>5. My brother's Cable modem.
>
>6. My brother's Windows computer (currently connected directly to the
> cable modem running the cable provided software).
>
>7. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
> to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she has
> it at her home.
>
>8. File server I will place in my brother's house in the future. It may
> be possible to use a wireless PC card on this. It will be Linux
>
>9. My nephew's computer, not networked at all, yet. Probably will be dual
> boot Windows + Linux.
>
>I need the following reachability, whether by layer 2 or layer 3:

Forget the layer stuff.

> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
>1 . Y Y Y - Y - Y N Y = a must
>2 Y . N Y N N N N N! + = a plus
>3 Y N . + N N N N N - = might be useful
>4 Y Y + . N N N N N N = no need for it
>5 - N N N . Y Y + N! N! = I really want to block
>6 Y N N N Y . + + ?
>7 - N N N Y + . + ?
>8 Y N N N + + + . ?
>9 N N N N N ? ? ? .

Here you go -- add a wireless client bridge (WCB), and everything
connects to everything: <http://i5.tinypic.com/20p7rro.png>
* Put your WLAN with a unique SSID (Phil's WLAN) on one channel.
* Put your brother's WLAN with a different SSID (Brother LAN) on a
different channel.
* Use channels with minimal overlap (1, 6, 11).
* Configure DHCP in the two wireless routers (WGT624) for different
subnets in the same private netblock; e.g.,
- Your network: 192.168.1/16 Gateway (WGT624): 192.168.1.1
- Brother's network: 192.168.2/16 Gateway (WGT624): 192.168.2.1
* Turn off DHCP and configure everything manually.
* Put the network printer at a fixed address on your network so
computers on both networks can find it (e.g., 192.168.1.50).
That way:
(a) The wireless client bridge will properly bridge traffic back and
forth between the two networks.
(b) Both networks will use their own broadband gateways.

The hassle is having to configure everything manually to ensure that
both WLANs use their own broadband connections, especially when a
visitor with wireless laptop drops in. (If you use WGT624 DHCP, it
would be unpredictable with bridged networks which WGT624 a given client
would connect to.)

>Note that if 2 devices cannot reach each other, but both can reach computers
>in the computer farm, I can set up routing for them on a computer there.

Forget all that cool computer stuff you know. This is networking.

>Don't assume same for the file server in by brother's house as that is
>likely a year or so away.

I'm not going to assume anything.

>I want NONE of the connectivity to go through the public internet for
>reasons of utilization. ...

OK.

Happy networking!

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>