First, the disclaimers. Although I am relatively computer savvy, I am
not a networking expert (that will be obvious if you read the rest of
this post). Also, I have read several postings that appear to be
trying to get a similar setup working to what I am describing... those
posts are enlightening, but I am going at this more from a greenfield
approach rather than trying to fix something that I already have.
Quickly, what I want is a wired network for my desktop machines with a
wireless access point hanging off of that. I have had way too many
problems with wireless routers as the center of the network in the
past: some were stable, but would not pass my work VPN; some were
unstable and required constant recycling; some worked ok, but only
within a short radius. Because of this, I have decided that the center
of my network will be wired.
That said, I still need occasional wireless access. My thoughts were
to have a wireless access point hang off the wired router. The AP
needs to be placed well away from the router to have it placed
appropriately to provide reasonable coverage.
I would like all machines that connect via the wireless AP to have
access to the machines that are connected via the wired network (appear
as one single network) and vice versa to facilitate file and printer
sharing etc.
Once the network is reliable, I plan to introduce a NAS and start
trying out video streaming, VOIP and other network heavy applications
that demand reliable connections.
Some particulars if they are needed:
- I have a mix of different OSs on my network currently: WinXP, Mac
OSX, Linux and Win Mobile 5.0. Plan to introduce XBox 360 to the mix
soon.
- My budget is not huge, but if something would bring about a
corresponding increase in reliability (capacity, speed, etc) to the
price increase, I would tend to lean that way.
- I use DSL (BellSouth) to connect the network to the internet.
I have several questions that I hope someone can help me with:
- First, does this setup makes sense or should I be trying to handle
this in another way (just don't suggest using a wireless router as the
center of the network... I want the reliability that wired ethernet
brings)
- Does anyone have an example of a working setup like this that I can
emulate? I have no problem being told what to do if it removes
headaches ;-)
- Does anyone have opinions on hardware selection?
1. Wired and wireless together/cabling. Yes, I recommend what you
suggest, I'm doing it the same way right now; 4 computers connected
with ethernet cabling and routers, plus two computers with wireless,
one is my laptop I bring from home. You plug a wireless router
somewhere into your network, it will have one ethernet cable going to
it. I use a LinkSys WRT45G
2. File Sharing: I think you need to set up a server (if you don't
already) and set up a folder for cross platform access (Mac) Windows
servers have options for that. The cableing/wireless is invisible to
that process. One way to do it, is to set up your file sharing on a
server, and test it with a Mac connected thru ethernet cable. Once it
works with ethernet, then try it on the same Mac with wireless. Should
work the same/be the same. The ethernet cables are invisible, The
wireless "cables" should be too.
3. Printer sharing-How would you set up printer sharing if you're on a
wired network? You should do the same thing when using wireless.
BCage wrote:
> First, the disclaimers. Although I am relatively computer savvy, I am
> not a networking expert (that will be obvious if you read the rest of
> this post). Also, I have read several postings that appear to be
> trying to get a similar setup working to what I am describing... those
> posts are enlightening, but I am going at this more from a greenfield
> approach rather than trying to fix something that I already have.
>
> Quickly, what I want is a wired network for my desktop machines with a
> wireless access point hanging off of that. I have had way too many
> problems with wireless routers as the center of the network in the
> past: some were stable, but would not pass my work VPN; some were
> unstable and required constant recycling; some worked ok, but only
> within a short radius. Because of this, I have decided that the center
> of my network will be wired.
>
> That said, I still need occasional wireless access. My thoughts were
> to have a wireless access point hang off the wired router. The AP
> needs to be placed well away from the router to have it placed
> appropriately to provide reasonable coverage.
>
> I would like all machines that connect via the wireless AP to have
> access to the machines that are connected via the wired network (appear
> as one single network) and vice versa to facilitate file and printer
> sharing etc.
>
> Once the network is reliable, I plan to introduce a NAS and start
> trying out video streaming, VOIP and other network heavy applications
> that demand reliable connections.
>
> Some particulars if they are needed:
> - I have a mix of different OSs on my network currently: WinXP, Mac
> OSX, Linux and Win Mobile 5.0. Plan to introduce XBox 360 to the mix
> soon.
> - My budget is not huge, but if something would bring about a
> corresponding increase in reliability (capacity, speed, etc) to the
> price increase, I would tend to lean that way.
> - I use DSL (BellSouth) to connect the network to the internet.
>
> I have several questions that I hope someone can help me with:
> - First, does this setup makes sense or should I be trying to handle
> this in another way (just don't suggest using a wireless router as the
> center of the network... I want the reliability that wired ethernet
> brings)
> - Does anyone have an example of a working setup like this that I can
> emulate? I have no problem being told what to do if it removes
> headaches ;-)
> - Does anyone have opinions on hardware selection?
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me.
>
> Bill
Thanks for the reply. You did answer some of my questions.
Some more specific questions are how do you deal with the multiple DHCP
servers? I played around with a couple of wireless routers that I had
and I could use one as a switch and the second as a wireless
router/access point hanging off the first. When I did this, I ran into
problems with machines from each of the two networks being able to see
the machines on the other. This impacted file and print sharing. I
thought this was related to the firewall configurations, but I was not
able to figure it out. I feel sure this was user error or lack of
knowledge, but it made me think that the problem was that first router
was assigning IP addresses from a different segment than the second
and, due to the hardware configuration, there was a firewall between
the two. The second router in essence thinks the first router is in
the wild; so to speak, so it is restricting access.
What I think I want is for the wireless router to employ a pass through
DHCP call to the first router so that it is in effect, one network.
Again, I am not well versed in this so it is a trial and error.
Am I making this too complicated in my mind?
The question on hardware really was more about what someone might
suggest given the goal of reliability. Just looking through the online
descriptions of routers, I have seen some of the routers described as
having QoS functionality... should I be looking for things like this?
Most of the advanced functionality seems to be targeted one step above
home office but the prices didn't seem to be too high (looking at wired
routers). In my job, I work at many companies and connect either
through their wired network or their wireless networks... they never
have the problems that I experience with my home network.
As I mentioned before, I am not as concerned about the wireless
connections. If that connection fails on occasion, that is not a big
concern (annoying, yes), but with this configuration, I am trying to
isolate the wireless so that when it flakes out, it doesn't impact the
primary, wired connections (like when I had a wireless router as the
center of the network).
I guess I am really asking how companies solve this. All my efforts to
date with home/office equipment has been less than encouraging... is
this a training effort on my part or a matter of spending a little more
money and getting better results.
Thanks for any input.
Bill
bill wrote:
> I think you're asking rour questions:
>
> 1. Wired and wireless together/cabling. Yes, I recommend what you
> suggest, I'm doing it the same way right now; 4 computers connected
> with ethernet cabling and routers, plus two computers with wireless,
> one is my laptop I bring from home. You plug a wireless router
> somewhere into your network, it will have one ethernet cable going to
> it. I use a LinkSys WRT45G
>
> 2. File Sharing: I think you need to set up a server (if you don't
> already) and set up a folder for cross platform access (Mac) Windows
> servers have options for that. The cableing/wireless is invisible to
> that process. One way to do it, is to set up your file sharing on a
> server, and test it with a Mac connected thru ethernet cable. Once it
> works with ethernet, then try it on the same Mac with wireless. Should
> work the same/be the same. The ethernet cables are invisible, The
> wireless "cables" should be too.
>
> 3. Printer sharing-How would you set up printer sharing if you're on a
> wired network? You should do the same thing when using wireless.
>
> 4. Which wireless router? You can visit
> http://www.consumersearch.com/www/co...s/reviews.html
> for a review from PC Magazine, PC World and CNet.
>
> Or do you have more specific questions?
>
> Bill (2)
>
> BCage wrote:
> > First, the disclaimers. Although I am relatively computer savvy, I am
> > not a networking expert (that will be obvious if you read the rest of
> > this post). Also, I have read several postings that appear to be
> > trying to get a similar setup working to what I am describing... those
> > posts are enlightening, but I am going at this more from a greenfield
> > approach rather than trying to fix something that I already have.
> >
> > Quickly, what I want is a wired network for my desktop machines with a
> > wireless access point hanging off of that. I have had way too many
> > problems with wireless routers as the center of the network in the
> > past: some were stable, but would not pass my work VPN; some were
> > unstable and required constant recycling; some worked ok, but only
> > within a short radius. Because of this, I have decided that the center
> > of my network will be wired.
> >
> > That said, I still need occasional wireless access. My thoughts were
> > to have a wireless access point hang off the wired router. The AP
> > needs to be placed well away from the router to have it placed
> > appropriately to provide reasonable coverage.
> >
> > I would like all machines that connect via the wireless AP to have
> > access to the machines that are connected via the wired network (appear
> > as one single network) and vice versa to facilitate file and printer
> > sharing etc.
> >
> > Once the network is reliable, I plan to introduce a NAS and start
> > trying out video streaming, VOIP and other network heavy applications
> > that demand reliable connections.
> >
> > Some particulars if they are needed:
> > - I have a mix of different OSs on my network currently: WinXP, Mac
> > OSX, Linux and Win Mobile 5.0. Plan to introduce XBox 360 to the mix
> > soon.
> > - My budget is not huge, but if something would bring about a
> > corresponding increase in reliability (capacity, speed, etc) to the
> > price increase, I would tend to lean that way.
> > - I use DSL (BellSouth) to connect the network to the internet.
> >
> > I have several questions that I hope someone can help me with:
> > - First, does this setup makes sense or should I be trying to handle
> > this in another way (just don't suggest using a wireless router as the
> > center of the network... I want the reliability that wired ethernet
> > brings)
> > - Does anyone have an example of a working setup like this that I can
> > emulate? I have no problem being told what to do if it removes
> > headaches ;-)
> > - Does anyone have opinions on hardware selection?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me.
> >
> > Bill
BCage wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. You did answer some of my questions.
>
> Some more specific questions are how do you deal with the multiple
> DHCP servers? I played around with a couple of wireless routers that
> I had and I could use one as a switch and the second as a wireless
> router/access point hanging off the first. When I did this, I ran
> into problems with machines from each of the two networks being able
> to see the machines on the other. This impacted file and print
> sharing. I thought this was related to the firewall configurations,
> but I was not able to figure it out. I feel sure this was user error
> or lack of knowledge, but it made me think that the problem was that
> first router was assigning IP addresses from a different segment than
> the second and, due to the hardware configuration, there was a
> firewall between the two. The second router in essence thinks the
> first router is in the wild; so to speak, so it is restricting access.
>
Had that problem when I was using multiple wap/routers.. Ended up with the
second having dhcp turned off, and plugging it into a lan port... When I
assigned the second starting ip address, i left the first three octets alone
(so it was on the same segment) and just changed the last number..
> What I think I want is for the wireless router to employ a pass through
> DHCP call to the first router so that it is in effect, one network.
> Again, I am not well versed in this so it is a trial and error.
>
> Am I making this too complicated in my mind?
Yes, sort of.
You're on the right track regarding having one DHCP server if you're going
to have just one subnet. If you're using WPA security on the WiFi then it's
not unreasonable to use just one subnet. But if you're going to leave the
wifi unprotected it's a good idea NOT to have it on the same subnet. It's
OK to do this (assuming you want to share the wifi or something) but it's
not without adding configuration work.
When you tack on wifi to a wired network the 'simplest' way to do it is as
an access point. That way it's just a connection, not a routing point. It
merely passes the DHCP packets onto the wired network. It's common to also
disable all server 'features' on the wifi router and let it operate just as
an access point. Then plug a wired connection from the existing network
into one of the LAN ports on the wifi router. This to avoid any features
that might depend on using the WAN port on the wifi router. This works
pretty well.
> The question on hardware really was more about what someone might
> suggest given the goal of reliability. Just looking through the online
> descriptions of routers, I have seen some of the routers described as
> having QoS functionality... should I be looking for things like this?
QoS is great, if you've got all devices involved supporting it. That
includes the uplink gear at your ISP. It's a way for higher priority
traffic to get passed through faster in the event of other activity. This
is important for stuff like voice over IP. But it's not going to be
terribly useful if your ISP isn't also supporting it. Sometimes the router
hardware will be better in order to support the features (more CPU speed,
ram, etc).
Bill Kearney wrote:
>> What I think I want is for the wireless router to employ a pass through
>> DHCP call to the first router so that it is in effect, one network.
>> Again, I am not well versed in this so it is a trial and error.
>>
>> Am I making this too complicated in my mind?
>
> Yes, sort of.
>
> You're on the right track regarding having one DHCP server if you're going
> to have just one subnet. If you're using WPA security on the WiFi then it's
> not unreasonable to use just one subnet. But if you're going to leave the
> wifi unprotected it's a good idea NOT to have it on the same subnet. It's
> OK to do this (assuming you want to share the wifi or something) but it's
> not without adding configuration work.
>
> When you tack on wifi to a wired network the 'simplest' way to do it is as
> an access point. That way it's just a connection, not a routing point. It
> merely passes the DHCP packets onto the wired network. It's common to also
> disable all server 'features' on the wifi router and let it operate just as
> an access point. Then plug a wired connection from the existing network
> into one of the LAN ports on the wifi router. This to avoid any features
> that might depend on using the WAN port on the wifi router. This works
> pretty well.
>
>> The question on hardware really was more about what someone might
>> suggest given the goal of reliability. Just looking through the online
>> descriptions of routers, I have seen some of the routers described as
>> having QoS functionality... should I be looking for things like this?
>
> QoS is great, if you've got all devices involved supporting it. That
> includes the uplink gear at your ISP. It's a way for higher priority
> traffic to get passed through faster in the event of other activity. This
> is important for stuff like voice over IP. But it's not going to be
> terribly useful if your ISP isn't also supporting it. Sometimes the router
> hardware will be better in order to support the features (more CPU speed,
> ram, etc).
>
> -Bill Kearney
>
This is an interesting topic as I have a similar situation.
I have a 4 pc HPNA network that I've had for years. I needed this
because in my high rise apt, there is no way to run cables, however we
have phone outlets all over. Never a problem and the interconnection and
WWW speed is full tilt.
I now got a laptop and wanted to attach it to the "wired" lan, and
accomplished this with a USRobotics wireless router in addition to
installing a USB wireless dongle on the closest PC, not the gateway as
it has the router connected. The gateway PC, so to speak, is simply
there to connect to the ISP/VOIP/Wireless router and is there to always
maintain an internet connection.
My laptop can wirelessly connect to the PC with the dongle but can't
always get into the LAN. I sometimes use VNC for that and it works
pretty well.
Is there a simpler way to achieve this project so that My HPNA LAN
remains as is and the laptop connects wirelessly into that lan to share
files, printing and such. I know I can go wireless completely, but at
the moment I have other projects to work on.
Ahhhh... now it is starting to make sense. Thanks for the detailed
replies. I am assuming that I can use one of my existing wireless
routers and shut down everything so that I turn it into an access
point. I will definitely keep WPA on the wireless, but your reply does
make me think I might want to have a second subnet. Since the implied
benefit there is that the two are kept at arms length, although, where
I live there is little threat introduced by my wifi spillover.
My guess is that if I set up a separate subnet this would prevent
wireless connected users from using services (printers etc) on the
other subnet; which is part of what I was hoping to have available.
Would this impact the internet sharing capability?
Bill
Bill Kearney wrote:
> > What I think I want is for the wireless router to employ a pass through
> > DHCP call to the first router so that it is in effect, one network.
> > Again, I am not well versed in this so it is a trial and error.
> >
> > Am I making this too complicated in my mind?
>
> Yes, sort of.
>
> You're on the right track regarding having one DHCP server if you're going
> to have just one subnet. If you're using WPA security on the WiFi then it's
> not unreasonable to use just one subnet. But if you're going to leave the
> wifi unprotected it's a good idea NOT to have it on the same subnet. It's
> OK to do this (assuming you want to share the wifi or something) but it's
> not without adding configuration work.
>
> When you tack on wifi to a wired network the 'simplest' way to do it is as
> an access point. That way it's just a connection, not a routing point. It
> merely passes the DHCP packets onto the wired network. It's common to also
> disable all server 'features' on the wifi router and let it operate just as
> an access point. Then plug a wired connection from the existing network
> into one of the LAN ports on the wifi router. This to avoid any features
> that might depend on using the WAN port on the wifi router. This works
> pretty well.
>
> > The question on hardware really was more about what someone might
> > suggest given the goal of reliability. Just looking through the online
> > descriptions of routers, I have seen some of the routers described as
> > having QoS functionality... should I be looking for things like this?
>
> QoS is great, if you've got all devices involved supporting it. That
> includes the uplink gear at your ISP. It's a way for higher priority
> traffic to get passed through faster in the event of other activity. This
> is important for stuff like voice over IP. But it's not going to be
> terribly useful if your ISP isn't also supporting it. Sometimes the router
> hardware will be better in order to support the features (more CPU speed,
> ram, etc).
>
> -Bill Kearney
Just a follow up if anyone is reading this thread.... changing a
wireless router to an access point was a piece of cake... turns out all
you have to do is make the connection using the LAN ports on both the
router and the wireless router. Turn off the DHCP server and set it up
to get its own address via DHCP. The only weird thing that I ran into
was that the wired router didn't seem to pay attention to the IP issue
for the routers. It issued one ok, but nothing showed up on the DHCP
table. At first I though this was odd, but ok, but then it appeared
that the DHCP server issued the same IP again to one of my computers...
not good. I flipped the method to be static IP and put one in and all
is well; at least on the DLink. The Linksys complained that I could
not assign an IP from the same segment on both the WAN and LAN side...
funny, that was ok when the DHCP server was dishing it out. Played
around with the assign range to force an IP in the low range for that
router and then bumped up the start number for the next IPs to be
issued. No the best solution in the world, but it is working for now.
Thanks for all of your help.
Bill
BCage wrote:
> Ahhhh... now it is starting to make sense. Thanks for the detailed
> replies. I am assuming that I can use one of my existing wireless
> routers and shut down everything so that I turn it into an access
> point. I will definitely keep WPA on the wireless, but your reply does
> make me think I might want to have a second subnet. Since the implied
> benefit there is that the two are kept at arms length, although, where
> I live there is little threat introduced by my wifi spillover.
>
> My guess is that if I set up a separate subnet this would prevent
> wireless connected users from using services (printers etc) on the
> other subnet; which is part of what I was hoping to have available.
> Would this impact the internet sharing capability?
>
> Bill
>
> Bill Kearney wrote:
> > > What I think I want is for the wireless router to employ a pass through
> > > DHCP call to the first router so that it is in effect, one network.
> > > Again, I am not well versed in this so it is a trial and error.
> > >
> > > Am I making this too complicated in my mind?
> >
> > Yes, sort of.
> >
> > You're on the right track regarding having one DHCP server if you're going
> > to have just one subnet. If you're using WPA security on the WiFi then it's
> > not unreasonable to use just one subnet. But if you're going to leave the
> > wifi unprotected it's a good idea NOT to have it on the same subnet. It's
> > OK to do this (assuming you want to share the wifi or something) but it's
> > not without adding configuration work.
> >
> > When you tack on wifi to a wired network the 'simplest' way to do it is as
> > an access point. That way it's just a connection, not a routing point. It
> > merely passes the DHCP packets onto the wired network. It's common to also
> > disable all server 'features' on the wifi router and let it operate just as
> > an access point. Then plug a wired connection from the existing network
> > into one of the LAN ports on the wifi router. This to avoid any features
> > that might depend on using the WAN port on the wifi router. This works
> > pretty well.
> >
> > > The question on hardware really was more about what someone might
> > > suggest given the goal of reliability. Just looking through the online
> > > descriptions of routers, I have seen some of the routers described as
> > > having QoS functionality... should I be looking for things like this?
> >
> > QoS is great, if you've got all devices involved supporting it. That
> > includes the uplink gear at your ISP. It's a way for higher priority
> > traffic to get passed through faster in the event of other activity. This
> > is important for stuff like voice over IP. But it's not going to be
> > terribly useful if your ISP isn't also supporting it. Sometimes the router
> > hardware will be better in order to support the features (more CPU speed,
> > ram, etc).
> >
> > -Bill Kearney
Wired and Wireless greenfield setup 
Linear Mode
