After significant troubleshooting I conclude that the 'migration' that
Megapath conducted in early 2011 to former Speakeasy DSL backhauls has
permanently limited my line speed to 40% of the rated speed and former
actual speed.
As a result, I would like to replace the static IP DSL circuit with a
WiFi-b/g pt-to-pt wireless link to a dynamic IP 20Mbps circuit (and its
FiOS Actiontec MI424 router hosting DHCP for a wired and wireless
192.168.1.X network segment) to support the firewall, switches and
non-DHCP 192.168.168.X private network presently behind the DSL modem.
The 'bridge' signal path is not a path I am able to wire with Cat5
ethernet; it is an approximate 100 ft line of sight distance thru three
floors of older construction. At present, I can access the Actiontec's
existing WiFi b/g AP signal with a laptop, getting an adequate signal
and better throughput than the degraded DSL circuit offers.
What I am thinking of is installing a 'wireless bridge' between the FiOS
Actiontec ethernet WAN port and the former DSL network firewall WAN
port, using 600mw WiFi-b/g equipment.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 06:42:09 -0400, News <News@Group.Post> wrote:
>The 'bridge' signal path is not a path I am able to wire with Cat5
>ethernet; it is an approximate 100 ft line of sight distance thru three
>floors of older construction.
Construction is usually described by the materials used, not the age.
Line of sight means you can see the other end. Since you can't see
the other end through 3 floors, you do NOT have line of sight.
I'm also wondering about these 3 floors. Floors are usually 10 to 15
ft seperation. Unless you're shooting at an angle, 100ft would be 8
to 10 floors.
Make my life easy and kindly describe your situation clearly.
If the 3 floors are wood, with not much else in between, you have a
chance. If the 3 floors are concrete, give up now while you're still
sane. Other possibilities will have varying levels of attenuation. In
my experience, 100ft through 3 floors at an angle isn't going to work
because of all the inside junk it has to penetrate. At an angle, it
also has to pass through walls, which often have aluminum foil backed
insulation inside.
>At present, I can access the Actiontec's
>existing WiFi b/g AP signal with a laptop, getting an adequate signal
>and better throughput than the degraded DSL circuit offers.
Ok, no numbers. In order to get 20Mbits/sec thruput, you'll probably
need a 48 or 54Mbits/sec wireless association. That's difficult to do
even in a single room, much less through 3+ floors or walls. Check
your wireless connection (association) speed. I don't think it can be
done.
>What I am thinking of is installing a 'wireless bridge' between the FiOS
>Actiontec ethernet WAN port and the former DSL network firewall WAN
>port, using 600mw WiFi-b/g equipment.
Typical consumer wireless bridges run about 100 mw output. 600mw will
get you perhaps twice the range. For such power to be effective, it
needs to run 600mw at both ends of the wireless line. Otherwise, you
create an "alligator" (an animal with a big mouth and small ears)
which creates more RF pollution.
>Is this possible? Is this practical?
I don't think it's possible. You might be able to get a connection at
some really slow speed (i.e. 1Mbit/sec) but not at 48/54Mbits/sec
association.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
In <dlc327ljcn3fa6e6a17ont0gp6dg3jpg9f@4ax.com> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
>If the 3 floors are wood, with not much else in between, you have a
>chance. If the 3 floors are concrete, give up now while you're still
>sane. Other possibilities will have varying levels of attenuation. In
>my experience, 100ft through 3 floors at an angle isn't going to work
>because of all the inside junk it has to penetrate. At an angle, it
>also has to pass through walls, which often have aluminum foil backed
>insulation inside.
Of course there's always the ethernet-powerline-ethernet solution.
A matched pair of consumer grade units will range from $75 to $200
or thereabouts.
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
>Promo video is watch-able and well-done. Is the product itself equally
>good?
Can't speak about that specific unit, but the general concept
works pretty well.
I used a mumble mumble Linksys set three years ago to handle
the connection link from my TiVo to the cable modem. (I've since
picked up TiVo's own wireless unit)
The speed was adequate to not only handle the daily updates, but
worked ok for the video downloads.
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/16/2011 12:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 06:42:09 -0400, News<News@Group.Post> wrote:
>
>> The 'bridge' signal path is not a path I am able to wire with Cat5
>> ethernet; it is an approximate 100 ft line of sight distance thru three
>> floors of older construction.
>
> Construction is usually described by the materials used, not the age.
> Line of sight means you can see the other end. Since you can't see
> the other end through 3 floors, you do NOT have line of sight.
>
> I'm also wondering about these 3 floors. Floors are usually 10 to 15
> ft seperation. Unless you're shooting at an angle, 100ft would be 8
> to 10 floors.
>
> Make my life easy and kindly describe your situation clearly.
>
> If the 3 floors are wood, with not much else in between, you have a
> chance. If the 3 floors are concrete, give up now while you're still
> sane. Other possibilities will have varying levels of attenuation. In
> my experience, 100ft through 3 floors at an angle isn't going to work
> because of all the inside junk it has to penetrate. At an angle, it
> also has to pass through walls, which often have aluminum foil backed
> insulation inside.
>
80 feet across, 30 feet up through wood floors and wood lath wall
construction. No metal in either.
Less than 100 feet slant distance; but right, not "LOS".
>> At present, I can access the Actiontec's
>> existing WiFi b/g AP signal with a laptop, getting an adequate signal
>> and better throughput than the degraded DSL circuit offers.
>
> Ok, no numbers. In order to get 20Mbits/sec thruput, you'll probably
> need a 48 or 54Mbits/sec wireless association. That's difficult to do
> even in a single room, much less through 3+ floors or walls. Check
> your wireless connection (association) speed. I don't think it can be
> done.
>
OK, for numbers, I presently get 48Mbps association between the Thinkpad
laptop 3x2 antenna and the Actiontec. Pretty reasonable, actually.
>> What I am thinking of is installing a 'wireless bridge' between the FiOS
>> Actiontec ethernet WAN port and the former DSL network firewall WAN
>> port, using 600mw WiFi-b/g equipment.
>
> Typical consumer wireless bridges run about 100 mw output. 600mw will
> get you perhaps twice the range. For such power to be effective, it
> needs to run 600mw at both ends of the wireless line. Otherwise, you
> create an "alligator" (an animal with a big mouth and small ears)
> which creates more RF pollution.
>
Thinking Engenius EOC-2611P or EAP-3660, both ends @ 600mw.
>> Is this possible? Is this practical?
>
> I don't think it's possible. You might be able to get a connection at
> some really slow speed (i.e. 1Mbit/sec) but not at 48/54Mbits/sec
> association.
>
>
On further consideration?
(Can't do powerline; have tried this and find my 200A panel not friendly.)
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/16/2011 3:10 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> In<dlc327ljcn3fa6e6a17ont0gp6dg3jpg9f@4ax.com> Jeff Liebermann<jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
>
>> If the 3 floors are wood, with not much else in between, you have a
>> chance. If the 3 floors are concrete, give up now while you're still
>> sane. Other possibilities will have varying levels of attenuation. In
>> my experience, 100ft through 3 floors at an angle isn't going to work
>> because of all the inside junk it has to penetrate. At an angle, it
>> also has to pass through walls, which often have aluminum foil backed
>> insulation inside.
>
> Of course there's always the ethernet-powerline-ethernet solution.
>
> A matched pair of consumer grade units will range from $75 to $200
> or thereabouts.
>
> one typical unit:
>
> http://www.staples.com/Netgear-XEB10...product_782584
>
>
Unfortunately, my 200A panel isn't friendly to powerline ethernet
throughput.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
In <EsGdncAasaciZrzTnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> News <News@Group.Post> writes:
[snipppp, regarding powerline ethernet]
>Unfortunately, my 200A panel isn't friendly to powerline ethernet
>throughput.
Unless it's got some wierd type of grounding, surge protections,
or other separations, there shouldn't be an issue.
You might, emphasize might, have to make sure both units
are on the same "leg"s, (either a 50/50 or a 33/66 chance
depending on the input), but that should be the only complication
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/16/2011 5:22 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> In<EsGdncAasaciZrzTnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> News<News@Group.Post> writes:
>
> [snipppp, regarding powerline ethernet]
>
>> Unfortunately, my 200A panel isn't friendly to powerline ethernet
>> throughput.
>
> Unless it's got some wierd type of grounding, surge protections,
> or other separations, there shouldn't be an issue.
>
> You might, emphasize might, have to make sure both units
> are on the same "leg"s, (either a 50/50 or a 33/66 chance
> depending on the input), but that should be the only complication
>
>
Whatever the problem or odds are, they are terminal.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:13:58 -0400, News <News@Group.Post> wrote:
>80 feet across, 30 feet up through wood floors and wood lath wall
>construction. No metal in either.
Is it just lath and wall board, or lath and *PLASTER*? Anything with
water inside is difficult to penetrate. I ran wireless in the SCZ
City Veteran's hall, which was all lath and plaster on the inside
walls. It was totally impossible to penetrate even one wall, much
less 3 walls. However, it worked well down the hallways, and would
penetrate the wood doors easily. So, I stuffed the place with access
points and antennas. It works, but not through the walls. However,
if it's just wallboard, you have a chance of making this work.
If it were not for the slant path, I might suggest going through the
outside of the building. I've run CAT5 out windows and back in again
in desperation. Wi-Fi will also exit through one window, bounce off
the neighborhing building, and re-enter through another window.
However, with a slant path, forget it.
>Less than 100 feet slant distance; but right, not "LOS".
Yep. It's not LOS.
>OK, for numbers, I presently get 48Mbps association between the Thinkpad
>laptop 3x2 antenna and the Actiontec. Pretty reasonable, actually.
Impressive. Is that while moving traffic, or just at idle? 802.11
tends to slow down as the errors increase, and then speed up when the
traffic stops. Measure your thruput with Jperf (or Iperf) and see
what the wireless link can really do.
<http://openmaniak.com/iperf.php>
<http://ssli.ee.washington.edu/courses/ee299/labs/How_to_Jperf.pdf>
You'll need a 2nd machine to act as a server. Use TCP speeds, not
UDP. Bug me if you need setup help.
Another really simple test is ping. Just ping the other end of the
link at the usual 1 second intervals. Run it for at least 5 minutes.
Watch the latency numbers. If the numbers are a constant number of
msec, you win. However, if the numbers increase erratically, vary
radically, or show no response, then you are experiencing packet loss.
The added latency is cause by packet retransmissions, which show up as
additional time needed to send/return a ping packet. It will work
with packet loss and increased latency, but you won't get full
throughput. The usual cause is co-channel interference, but it can
also be caused by reflections and varying signal strength.
Here's my wireless path to the neighbors. It's usually fairly stable,
but I intentionally fired up my iPhone which provided the necessary
interference.
C:\>ping -t 192.168.1.105
Pinging 192.168.1.105 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=64
>Thinking Engenius EOC-2611P or EAP-3660, both ends @ 600mw.
I suggest you look at Ubiquiti products instead.
<http://www.ubnt.com>
I favor devices with external antennas (i.e. Bullet)
<http://www.ubnt.com/bullet>
but the build in antenna variety also works well. If you expect
interference on 2.4, think about 5.7GHz.
>On further consideration?
If you can get a reliable 48Mbit/sec association, while moving
traffic, without any interference, it's possible to extend your
20Mbits/sec service.
>(Can't do powerline; have tried this and find my 200A panel not friendly.)
There are power line networking bridges (i.e. ferrite transformers)
that will take care of that problem. More common problems are
interference from other HomePlug users and interference from motor and
switcher noise.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
In <sNOdnTMF0pgrnL_TnZ2dnUVZ_qGonZ2d@speakeasy.net> News <News@Group.Post> writes:
>> or other separations, there shouldn't be an issue.
>>
>> You might, emphasize might, have to make sure both units
>> are on the same "leg"s, (either a 50/50 or a 33/66 chance
>> depending on the input), but that should be the only complication
>Whatever the problem or odds are, they are terminal.
ah, screw it all.
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/16/2011 6:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:13:58 -0400, News<News@Group.Post> wrote:
>
>> 80 feet across, 30 feet up through wood floors and wood lath wall
>> construction. No metal in either.
>
> Is it just lath and wall board, or lath and *PLASTER*?
Yes, plaster, from the 1920s; "bone dry" at this point.
>> OK, for numbers, I presently get 48Mbps association between the Thinkpad
>> laptop 3x2 antenna and the Actiontec. Pretty reasonable, actually.
>
> Impressive. Is that while moving traffic, or just at idle?
Running a trade station, moving data. No lags or errors.
>> Thinking Engenius EOC-2611P or EAP-3660, both ends @ 600mw.
>
> I suggest you look at Ubiquiti products instead.
> <http://www.ubnt.com>
> I favor devices with external antennas (i.e. Bullet)
> <http://www.ubnt.com/bullet>
> but the build in antenna variety also works well. If you expect
> interference on 2.4, think about 5.7GHz.
>
>> On further consideration?
>
> If you can get a reliable 48Mbit/sec association, while moving
> traffic, without any interference, it's possible to extend your
> 20Mbits/sec service.
>
Thanks.
At this point, my question is "how" to configure the pair of 600mw
devices, one to the Actiontec WAN port, the other to the Sonicwall WAN
port.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/16/2011 9:07 PM, News wrote:
> On 7/16/2011 6:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:13:58 -0400, News<News@Group.Post> wrote:
>>
>>> 80 feet across, 30 feet up through wood floors and wood lath wall
>>> construction. No metal in either.
>>
>> Is it just lath and wall board, or lath and *PLASTER*?
>
> Yes, plaster, from the 1920s; "bone dry" at this point.
>
>>> OK, for numbers, I presently get 48Mbps association between the Thinkpad
>>> laptop 3x2 antenna and the Actiontec. Pretty reasonable, actually.
>>
>> Impressive. Is that while moving traffic, or just at idle?
>
> Running a trade station, moving data. No lags or errors.
>
>>> Thinking Engenius EOC-2611P or EAP-3660, both ends @ 600mw.
>>
>> I suggest you look at Ubiquiti products instead.
>> <http://www.ubnt.com>
>> I favor devices with external antennas (i.e. Bullet)
>> <http://www.ubnt.com/bullet>
>> but the build in antenna variety also works well. If you expect
>> interference on 2.4, think about 5.7GHz.
>>
>>> On further consideration?
>>
>> If you can get a reliable 48Mbit/sec association, while moving
>> traffic, without any interference, it's possible to extend your
>> 20Mbits/sec service.
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
> At this point, my question is "how" to configure the pair of 600mw
> devices, one to the Actiontec WAN port, the other to the Sonicwall WAN
> port.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:07:29 -0400, News <News@Group.Post> wrote:
>At this point, my question is "how" to configure the pair of 600mw
>devices, one to the Actiontec WAN port, the other to the Sonicwall WAN
>port.
Start with with your FiOS Actiontec MI424 router. You only need one
router in this system. The wireless bridge can bridge more than one
MAC address, so forget about the unspecified model Sonicall. All you
need is an ethernet switch at the other end of the like.
"How" depends on the maker and model of the radio. A bridge is
nothing more than a wireless 2 port ethernet switch. Everything
happens on OSI Layer 2. All the complexity of router (layer 3)
configuration goes away because there is no router involved in
bridging. Define a common channel, SSID, encryption method, and
you're done.
> Which UBNT device? AirRouter or AirWire?
Neither. Think bridge, not router.
Since you like high power:
<http://www.ubnt.com/bulletm>
If you don't want to mess with antennas, use:
<http://www.ubnt.com/nanobridge>
Those are kinda pricy, so a cheaper solution is a nanostation:
<http://www.ubnt.com/nanostationm>
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/17/2011 12:00 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:07:29 -0400, News<News@Group.Post> wrote:
>
>> At this point, my question is "how" to configure the pair of 600mw
>> devices, one to the Actiontec WAN port, the other to the Sonicwall WAN
>> port.
>
> Start with with your FiOS Actiontec MI424 router. You only need one
> router in this system. The wireless bridge can bridge more than one
> MAC address, so forget about the unspecified model Sonicall. All you
> need is an ethernet switch at the other end of the like.
>
The SonicWall SOHO is there serving as hardware firewall, but also to
NAT the fixed IP 192.168.116.X network. (The Actiontec router delivers
DHCP on the FiOS network at 192.168.1.X)
> "How" depends on the maker and model of the radio. A bridge is
> nothing more than a wireless 2 port ethernet switch. Everything
> happens on OSI Layer 2. All the complexity of router (layer 3)
> configuration goes away because there is no router involved in
> bridging. Define a common channel, SSID, encryption method, and
> you're done.
>
>> Which UBNT device? AirRouter or AirWire?
>
> Neither. Think bridge, not router.
>
> Since you like high power:
> <http://www.ubnt.com/bulletm>
> If you don't want to mess with antennas, use:
> <http://www.ubnt.com/nanobridge>
> Those are kinda pricy, so a cheaper solution is a nanostation:
> <http://www.ubnt.com/nanostationm>
OK. Thanks. So the Nanostation LOCOM2 g/n units looks good.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/17/2011 12:00 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:07:29 -0400, News<News@Group.Post> wrote:
>
>> At this point, my question is "how" to configure the pair of 600mw
>> devices, one to the Actiontec WAN port, the other to the Sonicwall WAN
>> port.
>
> Start with with your FiOS Actiontec MI424 router. You only need one
> router in this system. The wireless bridge can bridge more than one
> MAC address, so forget about the unspecified model Sonicall. All you
> need is an ethernet switch at the other end of the like.
>
The SonicWall SOHO is there serving as hardware firewall, but also to
NAT the fixed IP 192.168.168.X network. (The Actiontec router delivers
DHCP on the FiOS network at 192.168.1.X)
> "How" depends on the maker and model of the radio. A bridge is
> nothing more than a wireless 2 port ethernet switch. Everything
> happens on OSI Layer 2. All the complexity of router (layer 3)
> configuration goes away because there is no router involved in
> bridging. Define a common channel, SSID, encryption method, and
> you're done.
>
>> Which UBNT device? AirRouter or AirWire?
>
> Neither. Think bridge, not router.
>
> Since you like high power:
> <http://www.ubnt.com/bulletm>
> If you don't want to mess with antennas, use:
> <http://www.ubnt.com/nanobridge>
> Those are kinda pricy, so a cheaper solution is a nanostation:
> <http://www.ubnt.com/nanostationm>
OK. Thanks. So the Nanostation LOCOM2 g/n units looks good.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/17/2011 8:24 AM, News wrote:
> On 7/17/2011 12:00 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:07:29 -0400, News<News@Group.Post> wrote:
>>
>>> At this point, my question is "how" to configure the pair of 600mw
>>> devices, one to the Actiontec WAN port, the other to the Sonicwall WAN
>>> port.
>>
>> Start with with your FiOS Actiontec MI424 router. You only need one
>> router in this system. The wireless bridge can bridge more than one
>> MAC address, so forget about the unspecified model Sonicall. All you
>> need is an ethernet switch at the other end of the like.
>>
>
> The SonicWall SOHO is there serving as hardware firewall, but also to
> NAT the fixed IP 192.168.168.X network. (The Actiontec router delivers
> DHCP on the FiOS network at 192.168.1.X)
>
>
>> "How" depends on the maker and model of the radio. A bridge is
>> nothing more than a wireless 2 port ethernet switch. Everything
>> happens on OSI Layer 2. All the complexity of router (layer 3)
>> configuration goes away because there is no router involved in
>> bridging. Define a common channel, SSID, encryption method, and
>> you're done.
>>
>>> Which UBNT device? AirRouter or AirWire?
>>
>> Neither. Think bridge, not router.
>>
>> Since you like high power:
>> <http://www.ubnt.com/bulletm>
>> If you don't want to mess with antennas, use:
>> <http://www.ubnt.com/nanobridge>
>> Those are kinda pricy, so a cheaper solution is a nanostation:
>> <http://www.ubnt.com/nanostationm>
>
>
> OK. Thanks. So the Nanostation LOCOM2 g/n units looks good.
The pair of Nanostation LOCOM2 units arrived.
I'll physically connect one to the Actiontec MI424 WLAN port (performing
DHCP, gateway IP = 192.168.1.1), the other to the SonicWall SOHO3 WLAN
port (fixed IP = 192.168.168.1, doing NAT for the fixed IPs behind a a
pair of 8-port switches).
Then what? (The documentation on these units is not just sparse, it's
largely non-intuitive.)
Objective is to set up a bridge from the ground-floor FiOS network to my
upstairs what is presently DSL network, where bridge replaces DSL.
So do I establish a WDS-mode SSID at the FiOS end and associate the
upstairs bridge-mode station with that SSID?
Sorry for the basic Qs; haven't used a bridge like this since a 900Mhz
Proxim link.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/28/2011 4:45 PM, News wrote:
>
>
> The pair of Nanostation LOCOM2 units arrived.
>
> I'll physically connect one to the Actiontec MI424 WLAN port (performing
> DHCP, gateway IP = 192.168.1.1), the other to the SonicWall SOHO3 WLAN
> port (fixed IP = 192.168.168.1, doing NAT for the fixed IPs behind a a
> pair of 8-port switches).
>
Can multiple networks be defined on the Actiontec? What is the "WLAN
port" you are describing? The data sheet shows a pretty typical home
router with a built in 4 port switch and it doesn't seem to have the
ability to have multiple LAN side networks.
> Then what? (The documentation on these units is not just sparse, it's
> largely non-intuitive.)
>
> Objective is to set up a bridge from the ground-floor FiOS network to my
> upstairs what is presently DSL network, where bridge replaces DSL.
>
> So do I establish a WDS-mode SSID at the FiOS end and associate the
> upstairs bridge-mode station with that SSID?
One side is set to be an A/P and the other side is set to be a station.
Tell both of them the same SSID and PSK.
>
> Sorry for the basic Qs; haven't used a bridge like this since a 900Mhz
> Proxim link.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/29/2011 10:16 AM, George wrote:
> On 7/28/2011 4:45 PM, News wrote:
>>
>>
>> The pair of Nanostation LOCOM2 units arrived.
>>
>> I'll physically connect one to the Actiontec MI424 WLAN port (performing
>> DHCP, gateway IP = 192.168.1.1), the other to the SonicWall SOHO3 WLAN
>> port (fixed IP = 192.168.168.1, doing NAT for the fixed IPs behind a a
>> pair of 8-port switches).
>>
>
> Can multiple networks be defined on the Actiontec? What is the "WLAN
> port" you are describing? The data sheet shows a pretty typical home
> router with a built in 4 port switch and it doesn't seem to have the
> ability to have multiple LAN side networks.
>
Sorry, typo. WAN port on both Actiontek and SonicWall SOHO3.
>> Then what? (The documentation on these units is not just sparse, it's
>> largely non-intuitive.)
>>
>> Objective is to set up a bridge from the ground-floor FiOS network to my
>> upstairs what is presently DSL network, where bridge replaces DSL.
>>
>> So do I establish a WDS-mode SSID at the FiOS end and associate the
>> upstairs bridge-mode station with that SSID?
>
> One side is set to be an A/P and the other side is set to be a station.
> Tell both of them the same SSID and PSK.
>
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:45:35 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>Sorry for the basic Qs; haven't used a bridge like this since a 900Mhz
>Proxim link.
<http://www.wirelessnetworkproducts.com/download%5Cubiquiti_config.pdf>
Scroll down to "point to point (backhaul)" section.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/29/2011 12:14 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:45:35 -0400, News<News@Group.Name> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for the basic Qs; haven't used a bridge like this since a 900Mhz
>> Proxim link.
>
> <http://www.wirelessnetworkproducts.com/download%5Cubiquiti_config.pdf>
> Scroll down to "point to point (backhaul)" section.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/29/2011 12:46 PM, News wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 12:14 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:45:35 -0400, News<News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for the basic Qs; haven't used a bridge like this since a 900Mhz
>>> Proxim link.
>>
>> <http://www.wirelessnetworkproducts.com/download%5Cubiquiti_config.pdf>
>> Scroll down to "point to point (backhaul)" section.
>
>
> Claro! Thanks, Jeff.
One additional Q:
Should LOCOM2 (as AP) be physically connected to Actiontec WAN or LAN port?
That depends on where you want the Actiontec router to be located. If
you want it located next to the FIOS modem, then the wireless goes to
the LAN port. If you want to locate the Actiontec router at the other
end of the wireless link, it goes to the WAN port.
If you run the wireless over the LAN port, please lose the Sonicwall
SOHO router and replace it with an ethernet switch.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/29/2011 2:14 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:20:07 -0400, News<News@Group.Name> wrote:
>
>> Should LOCOM2 (as AP) be physically connected to Actiontec WAN or LAN port?
>
> <http://www.actiontec.com/products/product.php?pid=41>
>
> That depends on where you want the Actiontec router to be located. If
> you want it located next to the FIOS modem, then the wireless goes to
> the LAN port.
OK, so it will phys connect to a LAN port.
Actiontec presently does DHCP on the 192.168.1.X subnet, which I will
adopt as gateway when the switchover from DSL is assured.
Can I fix the LOCOM2 IP? Or does this matter?
> If you want to locate the Actiontec router at the other
> end of the wireless link, it goes to the WAN port.
>
> If you run the wireless over the LAN port, please lose the Sonicwall
> SOHO router and replace it with an ethernet switch.
>
There are presently (and will be) two ethernet switches cascaded behind
the SOHO2, on a fixed IP = 192.168.168.1, as gateway to a 192.168.168.X
subnet.
To the best of my knowledge the SOHO3 operates only as a wired firewall
and to do NAT for up to 50 (license limit) devices attached to the
switches. Would you consider that to be a router?
I want to retain the firewall function. Any reason I must remove it?
Thanks.
(BTW, I got the LOCOM2s set up and associated across the intended
wireless span with top of scale signal strength, so that part seems to
be a success. Now just have to get traffic to flow.)
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/29/2011 3:25 PM, News wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 2:14 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:20:07 -0400, News<News@Group.Name> wrote:
>>
>>> Should LOCOM2 (as AP) be physically connected to Actiontec WAN or LAN
>>> port?
>>
>> <http://www.actiontec.com/products/product.php?pid=41>
>>
>> That depends on where you want the Actiontec router to be located. If
>> you want it located next to the FIOS modem, then the wireless goes to
>> the LAN port.
>
>
> OK, so it will phys connect to a LAN port.
>
> Actiontec presently does DHCP on the 192.168.1.X subnet, which I will
> adopt as gateway when the switchover from DSL is assured.
>
> Can I fix the LOCOM2 IP? Or does this matter?
>
>
>> If you want to locate the Actiontec router at the other
>> end of the wireless link, it goes to the WAN port.
>>
>> If you run the wireless over the LAN port, please lose the Sonicwall
>> SOHO router and replace it with an ethernet switch.
>>
>
> There are presently (and will be) two ethernet switches cascaded behind
> the SOHO2, on a fixed IP = 192.168.168.1, as gateway to a 192.168.168.X
> subnet.
>
> To the best of my knowledge the SOHO3 operates only as a wired firewall
> and to do NAT for up to 50 (license limit) devices attached to the
> switches. Would you consider that to be a router?
>
> I want to retain the firewall function. Any reason I must remove it?
>
> Thanks.
>
> (BTW, I got the LOCOM2s set up and associated across the intended
> wireless span with top of scale signal strength, so that part seems to
> be a success. Now just have to get traffic to flow.)
Also, just to be clear, the remote wired network devices are fixed IP on
a 192.168.168.X subnet, which must be maintained.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:25:26 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>Actiontec presently does DHCP on the 192.168.1.X subnet, which I will
>adopt as gateway when the switchover from DSL is assured.
Correct.
>Can I fix the LOCOM2 IP? Or does this matter?
Yes you can, yes you should, and yes you should read the PDF that I
pointed you to that explains how to setup fixed IP addresses on the
radios. It will still work if you use whatever random IP address you
find convenient, but you won't be able to configure the radios on your
LAN unless you select IP addresses that are in the range 192.168.1.x.
This is especially true of you leave the IP address at the stock IP
addresses, where both radios are on the same IP address.
>There are presently (and will be) two ethernet switches cascaded behind
>the SOHO2, on a fixed IP = 192.168.168.1, as gateway to a 192.168.168.X
>subnet.
You do not need a 2nd router. You do not need double NAT. Just buy a
cheap switch and be done with it. Wired and wireless bridging is
about MAC addresses, not IP addresses.
>To the best of my knowledge the SOHO3 operates only as a wired firewall
>and to do NAT for up to 50 (license limit) devices attached to the
>switches. Would you consider that to be a router?
Yes.
>I want to retain the firewall function. Any reason I must remove it?
The firewall function in the Actiontec router is all you need. If you
want a better firewall (the SOHO3 is a very good firewall), then
replace the Actiontec with the Sonicwall SOHO3, configure the
Actiontec as a wireless access point, and install an ethernet switch
at the other end of the wireless link.
<http://www.dslreports.com/faq/11233>
>(BTW, I got the LOCOM2s set up and associated across the intended
>wireless span with top of scale signal strength, so that part seems to
>be a success. Now just have to get traffic to flow.)
Cool. I'm really surprised it works that well through 4 walls.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On 7/30/2011 12:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:25:26 -0400, News<News@Group.Name> wrote:
>
>> Actiontec presently does DHCP on the 192.168.1.X subnet, which I will
>> adopt as gateway when the switchover from DSL is assured.
>
> Correct.
>
>> Can I fix the LOCOM2 IP? Or does this matter?
>
> Yes you can, yes you should, and yes you should read the PDF that I
> pointed you to that explains how to setup fixed IP addresses on the
> radios. It will still work if you use whatever random IP address you
> find convenient, but you won't be able to configure the radios on your
> LAN unless you select IP addresses that are in the range 192.168.1.x.
> This is especially true of you leave the IP address at the stock IP
> addresses, where both radios are on the same IP address.
>
Done and associated as separate fixed IPs in 192.168.1.X range.
>> There are presently (and will be) two ethernet switches cascaded behind
>> the SOHO2, on a fixed IP = 192.168.168.1, as gateway to a 192.168.168.X
>> subnet.
>
> You do not need a 2nd router. You do not need double NAT. Just buy a
> cheap switch and be done with it. Wired and wireless bridging is
> about MAC addresses, not IP addresses.
>
OK; does this mean I may retain the fixed 192.168.168.X subnet as is?
>> (BTW, I got the LOCOM2s set up and associated across the intended
>> wireless span with top of scale signal strength, so that part seems to
>> be a success. Now just have to get traffic to flow.)
>
> Cool. I'm really surprised it works that well through 4 walls.
>
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:25:26 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>
>> Actiontec presently does DHCP on the 192.168.1.X subnet, which I will
>> adopt as gateway when the switchover from DSL is assured.
>
> Correct.
>
>> Can I fix the LOCOM2 IP? Or does this matter?
>
> Yes you can, yes you should, and yes you should read the PDF that I
> pointed you to that explains how to setup fixed IP addresses on the
> radios. It will still work if you use whatever random IP address you
> find convenient, but you won't be able to configure the radios on your
> LAN unless you select IP addresses that are in the range 192.168.1.x.
> This is especially true of you leave the IP address at the stock IP
> addresses, where both radios are on the same IP address.
>
>> There are presently (and will be) two ethernet switches cascaded behind
>> the SOHO2, on a fixed IP = 192.168.168.1, as gateway to a 192.168.168.X
>> subnet.
>
> You do not need a 2nd router. You do not need double NAT. Just buy a
> cheap switch and be done with it. Wired and wireless bridging is
> about MAC addresses, not IP addresses.
>
>> To the best of my knowledge the SOHO3 operates only as a wired firewall
>> and to do NAT for up to 50 (license limit) devices attached to the
>> switches. Would you consider that to be a router?
>
> Yes.
>
>> I want to retain the firewall function. Any reason I must remove it?
>
> The firewall function in the Actiontec router is all you need. If you
> want a better firewall (the SOHO3 is a very good firewall), then
> replace the Actiontec with the Sonicwall SOHO3, configure the
> Actiontec as a wireless access point, and install an ethernet switch
> at the other end of the wireless link.
> <http://www.dslreports.com/faq/11233>
>
>> (BTW, I got the LOCOM2s set up and associated across the intended
>> wireless span with top of scale signal strength, so that part seems to
>> be a success. Now just have to get traffic to flow.)
>
> Cool. I'm really surprised it works that well through 4 walls.
>
Woot has a real deal on a 5 port switch today (Sat) only
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 12:42:58 -0400, News <News@Group.Post> wrote:
>> You do not need a 2nd router. You do not need double NAT. Just buy a
>> cheap switch and be done with it. Wired and wireless bridging is
>> about MAC addresses, not IP addresses.
>OK; does this mean I may retain the fixed 192.168.168.X subnet as is?
No. It will be all 192.168.1.xxx with a switch. Unless you have some
reason to establish a 2nd sub-net, methinks it's an un-necessary
complexication. One possible such use would be if you run a coffee
shop or mini-wireless-ISP, and need to keep the customers seperate
from your internal network. Using 2 routers will sorta work for this,
but it's not perfect.
Re: Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:42:26 -0400, LouB <Lou@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Woot has a real deal on a 5 port switch today (Sat) only
Yeah, I notice as 5 friend sent me email asking if it was a good
switch.
<http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=479>
I have 3 of them in stock, so I don't need any. I think I paid about
$25/ea, so $11/ea is certainly a deal. They've worked well for me
with only one failure (probably static damage). However, all my new
installs are getting gigabit switches, especially if they use NAS or
stream video over the LAN.
Replacing DSL with Pt-to-Pt wireless link to FiOS 
Linear Mode
