On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:36:30 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
| On 22 Jul 2006 02:53:51 GMT,
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
| <e9s3vv029ba@news2.newsguy.com>:
|
|>On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:20:12 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
|>| On 21 Jul 2006 21:31:29 GMT,
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
|>| <e9rh3h01m3u@news2.newsguy.com>:
|>
|>| A key principle of networking is to carefully plan the network first,
|>| then implement it. Rushing ahead is a bad idea.
|>
|>That's what I did. But it was based on the _assumption_
|
| That's _not_ careful planning. ;)
You are correct, it's not ... in the context of the information I should
have known, but didn't. It would have been just right had wireless
interfaces connected to the air in the same way that they would connect
to a common bus. My mistake was assuming a wireless technology that
was made the way I would have made it.
|>that wireless
|>would not have limitations intentionally built in that it does have.
|
| It doesn't. It simply has different products just like wired
| networking. You can't use a wired bridge as a wired router, just as you
| can't use a wireless client bridge as a wireless router. You can't hook
| one wired port to more than one other wired port, just as a wireless
| client can be hooked up to more than one access point.
Sure you can hook one wired port to more than one other wired port.
I've set up numerous networks that way, with hundreds of computers.
It is called bus technology. It's how ethernet used to be before
physical point to point CAT5 style became the new way. Almost all
the networks I installed that way were 10 mbps over RG-58 grade
coax with BNC T-connectors for taps.
That bus technology is very much like radio in a lot of ways. When
any station sends a signal, all other stations get it. They might
reject it if the checksum doesn't match, or the MAC header indicates
it's not for them. But those are decisions made above the media
layer.
Radios is, of course, different. Problems can be very exaggerated.
Some nodes can't hear certain other nodes and some help is needed.
An access point could certainly act as a repeater for this. Still,
the radio channel is still effectively equivalent to a bus. Let
any device accept frames from any other device on the same bus,
as long as appropriate SSID and key match, and then let the layer
above check it for correct MAC, etc.
|>Ironically, now that I know such limitations do exist, I was expecting
|>to find lots of resources that I didn't look for before that would tell
|>me this. I've looked around and found a lot of resourses, none of which
|>tell me what I needed to know to do a correct plan.
|
| Yet lots of them do exist, including the wikis below and the wealth of
| links they contain.
I could not find one that says an access point cannot talk to another
access point. Nor could I find one that says a client cannot talk
to another client.
|>| 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.
|>
|>Except for my sister-in-law's laptop, no roaming is needed.
|>
|>My original thinking of this was at the very least everything in my house
|>would all be on one WLAN.
|
| Read what I wrote more carefully. You've already run into a common
| problem caused by non-unique SSIDs.
If I was wiring my house with coaxial ethernet, it would all be in one
broadcaste segment. There might be reasons for wanting to split it up.
But if I chose not to, the attached devices would not be choosing to
refuse a frame just because of what kind of device the sender is. I
could attach computers, switches, routers, etc, to this coaxial bus.
They might refuse certain frames or packets because of the nature of
how that's supposed to be done in layer 2 or layer 3 (for example,
"no route to host").
If a router gets a frame addressed to it (destination MAC equals its
own), it's going to pass it up to the next layer in the stack, which
looks at the IP address to see what to do net. It's never going to
refuse to do that just because the frame came from a device that is
a router. It won't care, or even know.
|>This little old bridge I do have will not talk _directly_ to the
|>printer. I would need to have something running that WILL talk to the
|>printer. The WGT624 does.
|
| That's because the printer is a client that needs an access point
| (WGT624), not another client (little old bridge). Read the resources
| and all the material I've now posted here.
What is the terminology for a device that takes a frame it gets from
the radio (only if SSID and key/phrase match) and passes it on to layer
2 where the destination MAC address is used to look up the next path
to send the frame to? Note that I am asking about one that makes no
other judgements about it. In the wired world, this would be called
a switch or bridge (a small case of a bridge). There seems to be no
analogy for wireless because in wireless, other judgements are made,
such as "if it came from a client, and I'm a client, I'll ignore it".
So I would get there is no terminology for it in the wireless world.
|>| Are you trying to create a big network covering both houses, where
|>| everything can talk to everything? If so, you're options include:
|>
|>I was going to try that. Having it cover just my house alone would
|>be an accomplishment, it seems.
|
| Actually pretty easy.
With an excess of components, sure. There's a router, and over there
is a client. To communicate to each from one point requires TWO
classes of devices (a bridge to talk to the router, and a router to
talk to the client). Had that been done on a coax ethernet, exactly
ONE interface would be needed to talk to the router AND the printer.
|>| 1. One WLAN covering both house. Wireless probably won't work, and a
|>| bitch to use both broadbands.
|>
|>I already have the cross-usage of broadbands figured out. My file server
|>in my house has a running Squid proxy. That's a start to get HTTP access.
|>If my proxy can reach my DSL, then any machine that can reach my proxy
|>can at least do HTTP via my DSL. The file server going into my brother's
|>house can have the same thing.
|>
|>I don't need to use both broadbands by direct reach to the respective routers.
|
| As I wrote, forget all that cool stuff until you finish the network.
Many parts of this network won't come into place for a while. For
example, the DSL is not here, yet. Maybe in two months it will be.
the file server for my brother's house is yet to be built and the
parts haven't even been selected (I'll be building one for my house
at the same time, retiring the old file server, which might go to
some other use, maybe bumping another machine that ends up being
used my one of my brother's kids).
So basically, the network is a work-in-progress. I expected to buy
ONE more wireless device even under my idealistic but misguided plan.
What I bought now was to get at least something going, to be ready
for the DSL, and to make the printer practical (because there was no
place to put it where it could be wired directly). Had I not found
a wireless printer, I'd have probably put off getting a printer for
a while longer.
|>| Here you go -- add a wireless client bridge (WCB), and everything
|>| connects to everything: <http://i5.tinypic.com/20p7rro.png>
|>
|>That's looks viable. Would a WCB be usable in place of the WGPS606
|>even with a WCB at my brother's how?
|
| The WGPS606 is a WCB (Wireless Client Bridge), plus a network switch and
| network printer server.
It seems they can certainly combine stuff. I wish someone would
combine a client bridge with an access point and maybe even a router.
|>I consider manual configuration not a hassle. And I can run DHCP on
|>a Linux box just as easily.
|
| Running any sort of DHCP on separate bridged networks is asking for
| trouble, as I explained.
Of course. DHCP would be just for sloppy convenience. If it was
part of the same ethernet broadcast segment, then redundant DHCP
servers would be configured to all give IP addresses within this
one big subnet. All such addresses would work anywhere on it just
like the 1200 node switched networks I've built wired.
|>Your diagram shows the WCB at my brother's house, wireless to the WGT624
|>in my house, and wired to the WGT624 in his house. Would it be possible
|>to reverse that where it would be wired to the WGT624 in my house and
|>reach the WGT624 at his house by wireless under his SSID? I'm asking
|>that to both understand what this is doing ... AND to be sure the WGPS606
|>would not interfere with it.
|
| Yes, opposite configuration of the WCB link will work.
Great.
|>Can a WCB be used in lieu of the WGPS606?
|
| Again, the WGPS606 is a WCB (Wireless Client Bridge), plus a network
| switch and network printer server.
I've found that it, too, has the same cheap flimsy permanent 2dbi antenna.
I'll look around for a WCB with a removeable antenna with a standard RF
connector. Then I can make or buy a gain antenna if I need one (which
I have expected is a definite possibility).
The WGPS606 is priced a good bit more than the WGT624. If that cost
went into a beter quality product, it would be worth it. I suspect
it went into adding USB ports, printer server software, and associated
licensing ... all wasted. I'll look for other WCB's. But knowing
this one should work helps figure this out.
FYI, Netgear's tech support said there was NO Netgear product with
an ethernet port that would talk to the WGT624, and that I needed to
get a PC card to do so. I may call back and ask that again, and if
they still say no, then pop the WGPS606 on them and ask if that one
would work. The thing is, the very highly compressed voice line to
India they are using really ruins the music on hold.
|>What vendor device models are WCBs to choose from?
|
| Lots, including the WGPS606. Sometimes called Wireless Gaming Adapters,
| although beware of those that can only handle a few or even just one
| device. But since you seem to fancy yourself a hacker, I've already
| recommended running third-party firmware in wireless client bridge mode
| on a suitable box (e.g., Linksys WRT54G, which you may be able to find
| for cheap -- just be sure to get a good version). See the wikis for
| more info.
I understand that the gaming adapters do work different by emulating the
MAC address of the wired peer, rather than its own, on the wireless side.
Apparently this is essential for certain gaming devices to communicate
because they will refuse to communicate with devices not of the proper
game type, probably as determined by the MAC prefix (OUI) and maybe more.
Documents I see specifically mention XBOX as needing this.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net /
spamtrap-2006-07-22-0330@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
Re: Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624 