My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem coupled
to a wireless router.
What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 07:47:47 +0200, "William"
<william@planet.nl> wrote:
>My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem coupled
>to a wireless router.
>What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>
Distance between the two computers might be a secondary
factor as the ideal would be a wireless or wired link direct
to the router. For that you'd need the obvious, either a
long enough piece of cable or a wireless card (and existing
router needing to have) with good enough signal to keep the
connection viable.
Since this is your neighbor, should be presume this 25
meters is also divided by a couple of walls? That will
significantly reduce signal strength, as would other
structures including trees, bushes, etc. In difficult
enough situations it might require external antennas for
both ends, router and your end. On your end, if antenna
extension cable would need be too long, you might need a
bridge on your premises then wire (or wirelessly) connect
that to your system.
In other words, at that distance there are a number of
variables that could result in it working or not. I would
assume it will not work well (if at all) to simply put a PCI
network adapter in your system and expect the signal to
travel through two exterior walls, particularly if those
walls have metal-foil lined insulation on them.
"William" <william@planet.nl> wrote:
>My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem coupled
>to a wireless router.
>What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
Assuming your neighbor has given you permission to use his router,
there is also a minor technicality that the ISP may not allow the
neighbor to share it with you.
Otherwise, just about any wireless client card for your computer
(PCMCIA or PCI, for a laptop or desktop respectively) will do it
*if* you can get a strong enough signal.
The signal depends on what there is over that 25 meter distance
that might interfere with a 2400Mhz radio signal. The
wavelength is very short, so anything from about 2 inches or
larger is significant! Trees with leaves, for example.
Buildings (especially if made of metal or if there is foil or
wire mesh in the walls) and odd things like cars and trucks can
all be a problem. On the other hand, the signal will also
*reflect* off of anything metal that is maybe larger than about
4 inches! That will cause radio connection paths that you
wouldn't think exist! (It might bounce off the house next to
you, to get around the house between you.)
But lets say the neighbor has his Access Point in a window on
the second floor facing your house, and there is nothing
between, except for wood framed walls in your house. It might
work just anywhere! It might work only at a window facing the
neighbor's house too...
Also, if this is a desktop computer you can buy "high gain" antennas
that will improve the signal strength.
If it doesn't work just anywhere you can get a "repeater" that
will help. That is an Access Point that supports what is called
WDS, and it will almost certainly have to be the same brand as
whatever AP that your neighbor has. But what you do is put your
AP in a location where it can connect to the neighbor's AP, yet
in a good position to make a connection between it and your
computer.
Each of a client card, a high gain antenna and an AP with WDS
generally costs between $50 and $200. You could carefully shop
and do it all for $150 (or less if you don't need all three), or
you could just as easily plonk down $600 too.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87pssrtovv.fld@barrow.com...
> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote:
>>My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>>coupled
>>to a wireless router.
>>What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>>between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>
> Assuming your neighbor has given you permission to use his router,
> there is also a minor technicality that the ISP may not allow the
> neighbor to share it with you.
>
> Otherwise, just about any wireless client card for your computer
> (PCMCIA or PCI, for a laptop or desktop respectively) will do it
> *if* you can get a strong enough signal.
>
> The signal depends on what there is over that 25 meter distance
> that might interfere with a 2400Mhz radio signal. The
> wavelength is very short, so anything from about 2 inches or
> larger is significant! Trees with leaves, for example.
> Buildings (especially if made of metal or if there is foil or
> wire mesh in the walls) and odd things like cars and trucks can
> all be a problem. On the other hand, the signal will also
> *reflect* off of anything metal that is maybe larger than about
> 4 inches! That will cause radio connection paths that you
> wouldn't think exist! (It might bounce off the house next to
> you, to get around the house between you.)
>
> But lets say the neighbor has his Access Point in a window on
> the second floor facing your house, and there is nothing
> between, except for wood framed walls in your house. It might
> work just anywhere! It might work only at a window facing the
> neighbor's house too...
>
> Also, if this is a desktop computer you can buy "high gain" antennas
> that will improve the signal strength.
>
> If it doesn't work just anywhere you can get a "repeater" that
> will help. That is an Access Point that supports what is called
> WDS, and it will almost certainly have to be the same brand as
> whatever AP that your neighbor has. But what you do is put your
> AP in a location where it can connect to the neighbor's AP, yet
> in a good position to make a connection between it and your
> computer.
>
> Each of a client card, a high gain antenna and an AP with WDS
> generally costs between $50 and $200. You could carefully shop
> and do it all for $150 (or less if you don't need all three), or
> you could just as easily plonk down $600 too.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
"William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
> coupled to a wireless router.
> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>
ummm, a 25 metre cable..........if my math is correct
and what form do those meters take, I can think of gas, electricity and
water only.....
"Glittery Gary" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dd1vsa$a2r$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>> coupled to a wireless router.
>> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>>
>
> ummm, a 25 metre cable..........if my math is correct
>
> and what form do those meters take, I can think of gas, electricity and
> water only.....
My apolgies for the spelling error. I am a Dutchman and my English is
consequently not as perfect as yours.
"Glittery Gary" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dd1vsa$a2r$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>> coupled to a wireless router.
>> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>>
>
> ummm, a 25 metre cable..........if my math is correct
Don't we say "maths" in this country, or have we already started saying
"math"? I think it sounds moronic when Americans say math, it just sounds
wrong; like saying physic rather than physics.
"William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:dd24og$ilc$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>
> "Glittery Gary" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:dd1vsa$a2r$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>>> coupled to a wireless router.
>>> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>>> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>>>
>>
>> ummm, a 25 metre cable..........if my math is correct
>>
>> and what form do those meters take, I can think of gas, electricity and
>> water only.....
> My apolgies for the spelling error. I am a Dutchman and my English is
> consequently not as perfect as yours.
"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote in message
news:dd275a$t3u$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:dd24og$ilc$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>
>> "Glittery Gary" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:dd1vsa$a2r$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>
>>> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>>> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>>>> coupled to a wireless router.
>>>> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>>>> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ummm, a 25 metre cable..........if my math is correct
>>>
>>> and what form do those meters take, I can think of gas, electricity and
>>> water only.....
>> My apolgies for the spelling error. I am a Dutchman and my English is
>> consequently not as perfect as yours.
>
> I blame the French.
>
> ss.
>
yes, I always find it confusing where to put those French letters........
"William" <william@planet.nl> wrote:
>"Glittery Gary" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:dd1vsa$a2r$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>>> coupled to a wireless router.
>>> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>>> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>>>
>>
>> ummm, a 25 metre cable..........if my math is correct
>>
>> and what form do those meters take, I can think of gas, electricity and
>> water only.....
>My apolgies for the spelling error. I am a Dutchman and my English is
>consequently not as perfect as yours.
Your English is *fine*.
First, all spelling flames on Usenet are lame by definition.
Second, they are almost always wrong in some way.
Third, "metre" and "meter" are two proper spellings of the same
word, and either is acceptable. (Dictionary quotes on request.)
Forth, few of the rest of use can speak or write a second language
as well as you do.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87slxnrz27.fld@barrow.com...
> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote:
>>"Glittery Gary" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:dd1vsa$a2r$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>
>>> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>>> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>>>> coupled to a wireless router.
>>>> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>>>> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ummm, a 25 metre cable..........if my math is correct
>>>
>>> and what form do those meters take, I can think of gas, electricity and
>>> water only.....
>>My apolgies for the spelling error. I am a Dutchman and my English is
>>consequently not as perfect as yours.
>
> Your English is *fine*.
>
> First, all spelling flames on Usenet are lame by definition.
>
> Second, they are almost always wrong in some way.
>
> Third, "metre" and "meter" are two proper spellings of the same
> word, and either is acceptable. (Dictionary quotes on request.)
>
> Forth, few of the rest of use can speak or write a second language
> as well as you do.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87slxnrz27.fld@barrow.com...
> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote:
>>"Glittery Gary" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:dd1vsa$a2r$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>
>>> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>>> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>>>> coupled to a wireless router.
>>>> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>>>> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ummm, a 25 metre cable..........if my math is correct
>>>
>>> and what form do those meters take, I can think of gas, electricity and
>>> water only.....
>>My apolgies for the spelling error. I am a Dutchman and my English is
>>consequently not as perfect as yours.
>
> Your English is *fine*.
>
> First, all spelling flames on Usenet are lame by definition.
>
> Second, they are almost always wrong in some way.
>
> Third, "metre" and "meter" are two proper spellings of the same
> word, and either is acceptable. (Dictionary quotes on request.)
>
> Forth, few of the rest of use can speak or write a second language
> as well as you do.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
gosh it's the self appreciation society.............you'll be askin' him for
his phone number next.
"Glittery Gary" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dd2gkd$phu$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:87slxnrz27.fld@barrow.com...
>> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote:
>>>"Glittery Gary" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dd1vsa$a2r$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>>
>>>> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
>>>> news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>>>> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>>>>> coupled to a wireless router.
>>>>> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>>>>> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ummm, a 25 metre cable..........if my math is correct
>>>>
>>>> and what form do those meters take, I can think of gas, electricity and
>>>> water only.....
>>>My apolgies for the spelling error. I am a Dutchman and my English is
>>>consequently not as perfect as yours.
>>
>> Your English is *fine*.
>>
>> First, all spelling flames on Usenet are lame by definition.
>>
>> Second, they are almost always wrong in some way.
>>
>> Third, "metre" and "meter" are two proper spellings of the same
>> word, and either is acceptable. (Dictionary quotes on request.)
>>
>> Forth, few of the rest of use can speak or write a second language
>> as well as you do.
>>
>> --
>> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
>> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
>
> gosh it's the self appreciation society.............you'll be askin' him
> for his phone number next.
>
Also my sincere thanks to you for your most valuable comments.
>
"Synapse Syndrome" >wrote:
> Don't we say "maths" in this country, or have we already started saying
> "math"? I think it sounds moronic when Americans say math, it just sounds
> wrong; like saying physic rather than physics.
I think it's cute and charming (in an anachronistic sense) the way you
inbred, pompous, bad toothed, foul breathed, tea drinking, pansyball
playing, dirty limey *******s say maths. :) :) :)
Jon Danniken wrote:
> "Synapse Syndrome" >wrote:
>> Don't we say "maths" in this country, or have we already started
>> saying "math"? I think it sounds moronic when Americans say math,
>> it just sounds wrong; like saying physic rather than physics.
>
> I think it's cute and charming (in an anachronistic sense) the way you
> inbred, pompous, bad toothed, foul breathed, tea drinking, pansyball
> playing, dirty limey *******s say maths. :) :) :)
>
> Jon
Like Militree instead of military. Is in 'Hospital' instead of a hospital.
I am glad we all know how to speak American instead of Britain.
"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote in message
news:dd274a$mt8$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Glittery Gary" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:dd1vsa$a2r$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>>> coupled to a wireless router.
>>> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>>> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>>>
>>
>> ummm, a 25 metre cable..........if my math is correct
>
> Don't we say "maths" in this country, or have we already started saying
> "math"? I think it sounds moronic when Americans say math, it just sounds
> wrong; like saying physic rather than physics.
>
> ss.
>
Isn't math just short for mathematics? So why says maths?
--
Bearman
America is the land of the free because of the brave.
"William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
> coupled to a wireless router.
> What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
> between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>
I think you'll struggle at that distance. My router signal is bordering
useless on the ground floor when on the top floor of our house (2nd floor UK
3rd floor US). It is a stone house with thick walls/ceilings, but only 8
metres or so away in a straight line.
My router is maxed out with four ports. The router also has a wrireless setup. There is IP room for more machines on the Network. My ISP is a cable modem. What do you think would be the performance if I put another machine on the Network but with a wireless PCI Network adaptor? The computer with the wireless card will be about 6 ft away on the diagonal and about 2ft below the horizontal of the router. The stuff between the machine and the router is a desk and chair.
--
George Hester
_______________________________
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87pssrtovv.fld@barrow.com...
> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote:
> >My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem coupled
> >to a wireless router.
> >What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
> >between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>
> Assuming your neighbor has given you permission to use his router,
> there is also a minor technicality that the ISP may not allow the
> neighbor to share it with you.
>
> Otherwise, just about any wireless client card for your computer
> (PCMCIA or PCI, for a laptop or desktop respectively) will do it
> *if* you can get a strong enough signal.
>
> The signal depends on what there is over that 25 meter distance
> that might interfere with a 2400Mhz radio signal. The
> wavelength is very short, so anything from about 2 inches or
> larger is significant! Trees with leaves, for example.
> Buildings (especially if made of metal or if there is foil or
> wire mesh in the walls) and odd things like cars and trucks can
> all be a problem. On the other hand, the signal will also
> *reflect* off of anything metal that is maybe larger than about
> 4 inches! That will cause radio connection paths that you
> wouldn't think exist! (It might bounce off the house next to
> you, to get around the house between you.)
>
> But lets say the neighbor has his Access Point in a window on
> the second floor facing your house, and there is nothing
> between, except for wood framed walls in your house. It might
> work just anywhere! It might work only at a window facing the
> neighbor's house too...
>
> Also, if this is a desktop computer you can buy "high gain" antennas
> that will improve the signal strength.
>
> If it doesn't work just anywhere you can get a "repeater" that
> will help. That is an Access Point that supports what is called
> WDS, and it will almost certainly have to be the same brand as
> whatever AP that your neighbor has. But what you do is put your
> AP in a location where it can connect to the neighbor's AP, yet
> in a good position to make a connection between it and your
> computer.
>
> Each of a client card, a high gain antenna and an AP with WDS
> generally costs between $50 and $200. You could carefully shop
> and do it all for $150 (or less if you don't need all three), or
> you could just as easily plonk down $600 too.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:51:26 GMT, "George Hester"
<hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My router is maxed out with four ports. The router also has a wrireless setup. There is IP room for more machines on the Network. My ISP is a cable modem. What do you think would be the performance if I put another machine on the Network but with a wireless PCI Network adaptor? The computer with the wireless card will be about 6 ft away on the diagonal and about 2ft below the horizontal of the router. The stuff between the machine and the router is a desk and chair.
If you want utmost performance (especially so close that
intra-wall cable isn't necessary) consider adding a switch
to your router to give you additinal ports.
A rough approximation of wireless performance would be you'd
get performance in the 15-25Mbps range with
supposed-54/108Mbps 802.11g, or about 3/5ths of that with
802.11b. The disparty is the difference between theoretical
transfer and real-world rates after overhead, interference,
TCPIP and wifi overhead and other misc issues are factored
in.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:v2uaf1t7jrvdbjcr7ld0a7noo01hopqinl@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:51:26 GMT, "George Hester"
> <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >My router is maxed out with four ports. The router also has a wrireless setup. There is IP room for more machines on the Network. My ISP is a cable modem. What do you think would be the performance if I put another machine on the Network but with a wireless PCI Network adaptor? The computer with the wireless card will be about 6 ft away on the diagonal and about 2ft below the horizontal of the router. The stuff between the machine and the router is a desk and chair.
>
>
> If you want utmost performance (especially so close that
> intra-wall cable isn't necessary) consider adding a switch
> to your router to give you additinal ports.
>
> A rough approximation of wireless performance would be you'd
> get performance in the 15-25Mbps range with
> supposed-54/108Mbps 802.11g, or about 3/5ths of that with
> 802.11b. The disparty is the difference between theoretical
> transfer and real-world rates after overhead, interference,
> TCPIP and wifi overhead and other misc issues are factored
> in.
OK what is a switch and how would it attach to the router? Does it go in one of the port openings which then has more port openings which the machines then hook into? The trouble is each port opening has an IP address. Would a switch having more that one port have trouble with IP address coming out of one port on the router?
I have just gotten a Hub but I think I'll ask about this seperately.
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:47:34 GMT, "George Hester"
<hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>OK what is a switch and how would it attach to the router?
They filter and forward network traffic. Essentially, in
simplest terms for your use, plugging a switch into your
router is the equivalent of the router having more ports.
>Does it go in one of the port openings which then has more port openings which the machines then hook into?
Yes
>The trouble is each port opening has an IP address.
No, each machine does. If you plugged them into a switch,
they will still either receive DHCP configuration from your
router or retain their otherwise-assigned IP addresses the
same as if any/all were directly connected to the router
(actually it's the router's integral switch) port.
>Would a switch having more that one port have trouble with IP address coming out of one port on the router?
No, you can even daisey-chain switches. Don't think of a
port having an IP number, it is the host that just (happens
to be) connected to that port that has the IP number and
thus, so long as it's connected in your local lan still, the
rules for it having (whichever IP number and however it got
it) remain the same.
>
>I have just gotten a Hub but I think I'll ask about this seperately.
That's fine, use the hub instead since you already have it.
The difference is that the hub doesn't do the filtering, it
broadcasts traffic on all ports instead of only the one
route to the destination. That can be a performance problem
when several systems are connected and simultaneously
"needing" high throughput but for your purpose it will work
fine.
"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GngJe.5567$N93.3677@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:v2uaf1t7jrvdbjcr7ld0a7noo01hopqinl@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:51:26 GMT, "George Hester"
> <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A rough approximation of wireless performance would be you'd
>> get performance in the 15-25Mbps range with
>> supposed-54/108Mbps 802.11g, or about 3/5ths of that with
>> 802.11b. The disparty is the difference between theoretical
>> transfer and real-world rates after overhead, interference,
>> TCPIP and wifi overhead and other misc issues are factored
>> in.
>OK what is a switch and how would it attach to the router?
>Does it go in one of the port openings which then has more
>port openings which the machines then hook into? The
>trouble is each port opening has an IP address.
No, each *device* (ie. computer) has an IP address.
>Would a switch having more that one port have trouble with
>IP address coming out of one port on the router?
Nope, just continue to allocate IP addresses to each additional
machine.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:47:34 GMT, "George Hester"
><hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>OK what is a switch and how would it attach to the router?
>
>They filter and forward network traffic. Essentially, in
>simplest terms for your use, plugging a switch into your
>router is the equivalent of the router having more ports.
>
>>Does it go in one of the port openings which then has more
>> port openings which the machines then hook into?
>
>Yes
>
>>The trouble is each port opening has an IP address.
>
>No, each machine does. If you plugged them into a switch,
Each "network interface" has an IP address (and can have more
than one too), and a "machine" (host) may have multiple network
interfaces. But there can be many "ports" on each interface
too, which is where hubs and switches come into the picture.
The context here has been to call the RJ-45 jack a "port", but
keep in mind one or many such ports might be associated with a
single "network interface". I.e., several RJ-45 jacks can be
associated with the same IP address(es). (And for the most
part, in this discussion, IP addressing can be ignored.)
>they will still either receive DHCP configuration from your
>router or retain their otherwise-assigned IP addresses the
>same as if any/all were directly connected to the router
>(actually it's the router's integral switch) port.
>
>>Would a switch having more that one port have trouble with
>> IP address coming out of one port on the router?
>
>No, you can even daisey-chain switches. Don't think of a
>port having an IP number, it is the host that just (happens
>to be) connected to that port that has the IP number and
>thus, so long as it's connected in your local lan still, the
>rules for it having (whichever IP number and however it got
>it) remain the same.
There are some caveats that need to be explained though.
>>I have just gotten a Hub but I think I'll ask about this
>> seperately.
>
>That's fine, use the hub instead since you already have it.
>The difference is that the hub doesn't do the filtering, it
>broadcasts traffic on all ports instead of only the one
>route to the destination. That can be a performance problem
>when several systems are connected and simultaneously
>"needing" high throughput but for your purpose it will work
>fine.
Lets restate that in a different way, and point out the
significance of how hubs and switches differ.
A /hub/ has multiple ports, and every Ethernet frame received
on any one port is transmitted on all of the others. There is
no *isolation* between the ports. Hence a 5 port hub with four
devices connected to it sends all data to all devices. If a
packet sniffer, a wireless device, or whatever unsecure device
is connected to the 5th port, it can see *all* traffic.
A /switch/ has multiple ports, but it switches packets only to
appropriate ports, each of which knows the unique MAC address of
the Ethernet device connected to it. Only Ethernet frames
addressed to that MAC address will be sent on that port. Hence
traffic for each port is isolated from the others, and cannot be
"sniffed" on ports other than the incoming and outgoing pair.
All of the above is done at the *Ethernet* *frame* level, and
does not involve IP addressing or routing at all.
There is one other catch to extending the number of router ports
that needs to be kept in mind when laying out network
topography. A ten port switch or hub connected to a 4 port
router is fine... *if* the aggregate traffic going to the
router port is less than the bitrate of the single port! Hence
if 1 port goes to the router and 9 ports go to
devices/hosts/whatever that typically generate large amounts of
traffic to the router, that 1 port will be a bottleneck.
The devices are able to use their full bitrate to each other
without causing a bottleneck.
Hence if you have a file server that is heavily used by all of
the devices on the switch, it should (all other things being
equal) be connected to a switch port rather than a router port.
Put things like bandwidth limited WAN connections, Internet
connections, print servers, and the like on those extra router
ports, and keep all of the high bandwidth devices on ports of
the *same* switch.
Routing, which involves IP addresses, does not happen in a hub
or a switch, and will only be seen between *interfaces* on the
router (as opposed to between "ports"). Many of the Wireless
router/access-points being sold have *two* interfaces, labeled
WAN and WLAN/LAN. The WAN has one port, which is connected to
the Internet modem and the WLAN/LAN has 4 or more ports. There
is *routing* between the WAN and the other ports, but no routing
takes place between the WLAN/LAN ports (which are actually on a
6 port switch, with one port connected internally to the
WLAN/LAN interface, one port connected to the wireless, and 4
ports with RJ-45 connectors).
Some units allow the internal switch configuration to be
modified, and in fact each LAN port *can* have an IP address,
with routing between them. But don't assume that without
verifying it.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Schrodinger wrote:
> "William" <william@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:dd1its$tnj$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>
>>My neighbor has a laptop which uses the internet thru a cable modem
>>coupled to a wireless router.
>>What hardware/software do I need to use the same router. The distance
>>between the 2 computers is about 25 meters.
>>
>
>
> I think you'll struggle at that distance. My router signal is bordering
> useless on the ground floor when on the top floor of our house (2nd floor UK
> 3rd floor US). It is a stone house with thick walls/ceilings, but only 8
> metres or so away in a straight line.
>
> Any 802.11g card will do anyway.
>
>
I'm inclined to agree.
For every inch (.025m)of solid material which the signal passes
through,in a straight line, range will be decreased by 120-180 inches
(3-4.5m).
As Floyd said earlier in the thread, it might work if his window and
your window face each other, with both PCs near the windows. Otherwise,
additional hardware will be required.
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:34:21 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
L. Davidson) wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:47:34 GMT, "George Hester"
>><hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>OK what is a switch and how would it attach to the router?
>>
>>They filter and forward network traffic. Essentially, in
>>simplest terms for your use, plugging a switch into your
>>router is the equivalent of the router having more ports.
>>
>>>Does it go in one of the port openings which then has more
>>> port openings which the machines then hook into?
>>
>>Yes
>>
>>>The trouble is each port opening has an IP address.
>>
>>No, each machine does. If you plugged them into a switch,
>
>Each "network interface" has an IP address (and can have more
>than one too), and a "machine" (host) may have multiple network
>interfaces. But there can be many "ports" on each interface
>too, which is where hubs and switches come into the picture.
True, but this is not necessarily useful within the context
of the thread. His need was rather simple so the answer was
simplified too.
>>That's fine, use the hub instead since you already have it.
>>The difference is that the hub doesn't do the filtering, it
>>broadcasts traffic on all ports instead of only the one
>>route to the destination. That can be a performance problem
>>when several systems are connected and simultaneously
>>"needing" high throughput but for your purpose it will work
>>fine.
>
>Lets restate that in a different way, and point out the
>significance of how hubs and switches differ.
Let's use some common sense instead, he simply needed to
know the effect of choosing one over the other, what will
meet his needs.
>
>A /hub/ has multiple ports, and every Ethernet frame received
>on any one port is transmitted on all of the others. There is
>no *isolation* between the ports. Hence a 5 port hub with four
>devices connected to it sends all data to all devices. If a
>packet sniffer, a wireless device, or whatever unsecure device
>is connected to the 5th port, it can see *all* traffic.
This is true but not so useful within the context of the
thread. Keep in mind that no matter what a thread is about,
we could endlessly elaborate about the involved technology
and in the end it would just be a lot of waste.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>This is true but not so useful within the context of the
>thread. Keep in mind that no matter what a thread is about,
>we could endlessly elaborate about the involved technology
>and in the end it would just be a lot of waste.
In the end, if he has learned about the pitfalls *before hand*
he won't be having to fix them after the fact.
I don't think a word of that was not useful within the context
of the thread. The fact that the OP didn't yet know what the
next step will be doesn't mean he won't be taking it.
What you told him wasn't so much wrong as it was confusing,
imprecise, and did not provide enough detail to indicate why any
given choice might be the right one. The OP doesn't need to
know your decision or mine so much as needing to know how to
make the decision.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:10:37 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
L. Davidson) wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>This is true but not so useful within the context of the
>>thread. Keep in mind that no matter what a thread is about,
>>we could endlessly elaborate about the involved technology
>>and in the end it would just be a lot of waste.
>
>In the end, if he has learned about the pitfalls *before hand*
>he won't be having to fix them after the fact.
>
>I don't think a word of that was not useful within the context
>of the thread. The fact that the OP didn't yet know what the
>next step will be doesn't mean he won't be taking it.
Perhaps, but if he had been interested in the entire
switching knowledgebase, there are online tutorials for
that. Usually someone is seeking more directly applicable
information towards their expressed goal.
kony I think you have refined my understanding of this. I be looking for a switch now. thx.
--
George Hester
_______________________________
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:jb8bf1ldg34p1btmv46dhb0opci9antus0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:47:34 GMT, "George Hester"
> <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >OK what is a switch and how would it attach to the router?
>
> They filter and forward network traffic. Essentially, in
> simplest terms for your use, plugging a switch into your
> router is the equivalent of the router having more ports.
>
>
> >Does it go in one of the port openings which then has more port openings which the machines then hook into?
>
> Yes
>
>
> >The trouble is each port opening has an IP address.
>
> No, each machine does. If you plugged them into a switch,
> they will still either receive DHCP configuration from your
> router or retain their otherwise-assigned IP addresses the
> same as if any/all were directly connected to the router
> (actually it's the router's integral switch) port.
>
> >Would a switch having more that one port have trouble with IP address coming out of one port on the router?
>
> No, you can even daisey-chain switches. Don't think of a
> port having an IP number, it is the host that just (happens
> to be) connected to that port that has the IP number and
> thus, so long as it's connected in your local lan still, the
> rules for it having (whichever IP number and however it got
> it) remain the same.
>
>
> >
> >I have just gotten a Hub but I think I'll ask about this seperately.
>
> That's fine, use the hub instead since you already have it.
> The difference is that the hub doesn't do the filtering, it
> broadcasts traffic on all ports instead of only the one
> route to the destination. That can be a performance problem
> when several systems are connected and simultaneously
> "needing" high throughput but for your purpose it will work
> fine.
>
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:7ojcf1lp5rj60t7q1oi7ls340eispl0c6n@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:34:21 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
> L. Davidson) wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> This is true but not so useful within the context of the
> thread. Keep in mind that no matter what a thread is about,
> we could endlessly elaborate about the involved technology
> and in the end it would just be a lot of waste.
>
>
>
>
No no it was way over my head. But I saved it and will refer back to it. I appreciate getting all the information and I appreciate your information too kony.
Wireless router 
Linear Mode
