I may have my subject line all wrong. I'm wondering does anyone knows of a
wireless device that can act like a client on one wireless network
(internet access) and in turn act as a WAP for a different network?
Am I being clear here this would be sort of like a wireless bridge but also
act as a wireless router for it's own netowrk? Example there is a
freenet/open wireless network on the other side of a wall. We can make a
small hole in the wall but we already know that the existing network on the
otherside of that wall will not reach into the building with enough signal.
We also know if we put any sort of device like a USB wireless NIC on the
otherside of that wall the USB nic has no trouble getting a good clear
signal. What would be ideal is put the wireless nic in through the hole and
then via wires connect it to the WAN port of a wireless router and then
have clients join the 'new' network for Internet access. Note permission
exists, this is not some signal stealing scheme. I hope this is clearer
then mud and someone can point me toward possible vendors. Don't need
industrail strength, cheap consumer grade will fill this bill fine for
this. What I'm looking for is a way to connect several computers in a room
that seems to be a faraday cage to the wireless network outside. The room
was built of steal and masonry in the 1920's and wireless just won't leak
through those walls.
(note if this doesn't exist in one package, is there a combination of
devices that could make this work without having to have a computer in the
middle other then to confure things)
Rico wrote:
> I may have my subject line all wrong. I'm wondering does anyone knows of a
> wireless device that can act like a client on one wireless network
> (internet access) and in turn act as a WAP for a different network?
Deliberant LGO2AGN 802.11a/b/g + a/b/g Connectorized Dual Radio has
two antenna ports.
> (note if this doesn't exist in one package, is there a combination of
> devices that could make this work without having to have a computer in the
> middle other then to confure things)
Yep, I've used this setup in several situations. Put one router setup as a
client to connect to the external network. Then run ethernet wire to
another one configured as a router providing local wifi. Works great. I
used Linksys WRT54G units with the dd-wrt 3rd party firmware loaded on them.
By using two different routers you get the advantage of placing them where
it's convenient for THAT purpose. This lets the router providing internal
wifi be located where it gives the best coverage. That leaves the external
router free to be placed as CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to the antenna picking up the
external wifi.
But basically any maker's devices, one that allowed being a client and the
other a router, would suffice. I simply point out linksys' WRT54G (the
early models and the L model) as being capable of running the more flexible
3rd party firmware choices (other vendors have units that can do this also).
It's worth having this option when getting into non-standard setups like
this.
Bill Kearney wrote:
>> Deliberant LGO2AGN 802.11a/b/g + a/b/g Connectorized Dual Radio has
>> two antenna ports.
>
> For that price you could by two other routers; one as a client and the other
> as an access point.
"DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
news:dUpyj.11464$xq2.5811@newssvr21.news.prodigy.n et...
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>>> Deliberant LGO2AGN 802.11a/b/g + a/b/g Connectorized Dual Radio has
>>> two antenna ports.
>>
>> For that price you could by two other routers; one as a client and the
>> other as an access point.
>
> For that price you get reliability.
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lfqdnU9LiJN8KFfanZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> "DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
> news:dUpyj.11464$xq2.5811@newssvr21.news.prodigy.n et...
> > Bill Kearney wrote:
> >>> Deliberant LGO2AGN 802.11a/b/g + a/b/g Connectorized Dual Radio has
> >>> two antenna ports.
> >>
> >> For that price you could by two other routers; one as a client and the
> >> other as an access point.
> >
> > For that price you get reliability.
>
> And single point of failure.
whereas 2 devices is at least 2 single points of failure (probably 4 if you
use boxes with wall wart PSUs).
>
--
Regards
Bill Kearney wrote:
> "DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
> news:dUpyj.11464$xq2.5811@newssvr21.news.prodigy.n et...
>> Bill Kearney wrote:
>>>> Deliberant LGO2AGN 802.11a/b/g + a/b/g Connectorized Dual Radio has
>>>> two antenna ports.
>>> For that price you could by two other routers; one as a client and the
>>> other as an access point.
>> For that price you get reliability.
>
> And single point of failure.
There are two radios and two power supplies in a the box, and I don't
think a steel box is a likely point of failure.
The ONLY reason *I* don't go that route is if I need to replace a radio,
its easier and faster to simply unconnect the power lead and coax line
than to open up the box while sitting up on a tower in the dark in the
rain. Plus I don't risk taking down an entire node of back hauls and
sectored access points.
> its easier and faster to simply unconnect the power lead and coax line
> than to open up the box while sitting up on a tower in the dark in the
> rain.
And going back to the point of the original thread, such a box wouldn't be
terribly useful anyway. Multiple radios on the outside isn't what he's
after. That and, as I suggested, being able to place the radios
independently, and use situationally appropriate antennae (very likely to be
different) would make a lot more sense.
In article <l7qdnSjVruqublTanZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> , "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> (note if this doesn't exist in one package, is there a combination of
>> devices that could make this work without having to have a computer in the
>> middle other then to confure things)
>
>Yep, I've used this setup in several situations. Put one router setup as a
>client to connect to the external network. Then run ethernet wire to
>another one configured as a router providing local wifi. Works great. I
>used Linksys WRT54G units with the dd-wrt 3rd party firmware loaded on them.
>By using two different routers you get the advantage of placing them where
>it's convenient for THAT purpose. This lets the router providing internal
>wifi be located where it gives the best coverage. That leaves the external
>router free to be placed as CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to the antenna picking up the
>external wifi.
>
>But basically any maker's devices, one that allowed being a client and the
>other a router, would suffice. I simply point out linksys' WRT54G (the
>early models and the L model) as being capable of running the more flexible
>3rd party firmware choices (other vendors have units that can do this also).
>It's worth having this option when getting into non-standard setups like
>this.
>
>-Bill Kearney
>
>
Thanks Bill, Just as a note these consumer grade devices are enough
quality, failure isn't really an issue. At least for my requirement if one
box or another fails it is no biggie other then rounding up a replacement
for the failed part within a week or two time span (this would actually
allow going to ebay or some similar source). I noticed from the thread that
we got off into a reliability discussion. In many cases I can see where
this would be critical, in my case if it fails some one says 'darn it
failed, can you get me going in this room again before the end of the
month?' This just isn't mission critical and in truth my user will not be
in 'the room' but occasionally (we stick out of towners in here).
Now to the point, I hadn't considered two DD-WRT boxes, but that is indeed
a clear option. Do you know of a more 'compact' solution. What I was
envisioning, though this appears to not be an option, was stick one of
those USB wireless receivers on the end of a usb cable and have it hooked
into a wireless router via the WAN port or similar connect point. The
reason I thought (wrongly it appears) this might work is way back in the
early days of 802.11b I had a Linksys (before Cisco) B wireless router that
actually accepted a USB connection. Do you know of anyone making a compact
bridge device like this, that in effect converts the USB 2.0 to ethernet on
the other end. I admit I'm no engineer so this may require more electronics
then could fit in a device that small. I've seen bridges that of course are
a wireless 'receiver' with an ethernet output for hooking up say an old
laptop or a desktop to a wireless net, but the bridge I saw was a rather
large physical box, I was hoping someone knew of similar in a package like
one of those USB wireless devices (plus wire of course). Power on either
end is not a problem.
Thanks again though for reminding me of the obvious solution though a bit
'large'. I feel silly not thinking about two DD-WRT devices. Like I said I
was just hoping for something smaller and more portable. But you gotta do
what you gotta do.
In article <D8GdnRhmTIv5VVfanZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@speakeasy.net> , "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> its easier and faster to simply unconnect the power lead and coax line
>> than to open up the box while sitting up on a tower in the dark in the
>> rain.
>
>And going back to the point of the original thread, such a box wouldn't be
>terribly useful anyway. Multiple radios on the outside isn't what he's
>after. That and, as I suggested, being able to place the radios
>independently, and use situationally appropriate antennae (very likely to be
>different) would make a lot more sense.
>
>
Right in my case I don't need weather proof beyond the most basic. Indoor
equipment is more then rugged enough. I'm looking for cheap and compact, I
can sacrifice 'reliable/rugged' since as the engineers say you can only
have so many options. When I say I can sacrfice relaible I mean a failure
of a part now and again is not a deal breaker for me in this application.
As long as I can make this work more often then not. Compact is my most
desired feature with cheap a close second.
Rico wrote:
> Right in my case I don't need weather proof beyond the most basic. Indoor
> equipment is more then rugged enough. I'm looking for cheap and compact, I
> can sacrifice 'reliable/rugged' since as the engineers say you can only
> have so many options. When I say I can sacrfice relaible I mean a failure
> of a part now and again is not a deal breaker for me in this application.
> As long as I can make this work more often then not. Compact is my most
> desired feature with cheap a close second.
Commercial grade in weatherproof boxes is isn't the significant point.
The important thing is that in such a box, you don't have useful
convection cooling and thus the equipment is more heat tolerant.
> Commercial grade in weatherproof boxes is isn't the significant point.
> The important thing is that in such a box, you don't have useful
> convection cooling and thus the equipment is more heat tolerant.
Sadly, without proof you can only hope that's the situation. Thermal
management inside enclosures has to be designed-into the circuit boards. It
has to deal with not only heat, but cold too. I'm guessing more than a few
such enclosures don't handle it right.
Then there's the other downside of the resident firmware lacking desired
features. A true "carrier class" device would be expected to have a more
robust set of features... for carrier-oriented management.
> At least for my requirement if one
> box or another fails it is no biggie other then rounding up a replacement
> for the failed part
Yep, I trolled for a few spare WRT54G units off fleabay and now have a
decent supply of replacements should anything actually fail. Which, to my
pleasant surprise, has not been the case.
> Now to the point, I hadn't considered two DD-WRT boxes, but that is indeed
> a clear option. Do you know of a more 'compact' solution. What I was
> envisioning, though this appears to not be an option, was stick one of
> those USB wireless receivers on the end of a usb cable and have it hooked
> into a wireless router via the WAN port or similar connect point.
I suppose it might be possible with some of the WRT-based units that have
USB ports. They generally use the port for network attached storage. But
since it's just linux there's not much to prevent using it for a wifi
device. Trouble would be getting the driver configured properly. That and
it would not be configurable from the web UI. You'd have to use the command
prompt via ssh or telnet, and then know the right IP routing setup info. A
bit more of a hassle than you might think.
> Thanks again though for reminding me of the obvious solution though a bit
> 'large'. I feel silly not thinking about two DD-WRT devices. Like I said I
> was just hoping for something smaller and more portable. But you gotta do
> what you gotta do.
What's the driving need for it to be small and portable? I'm not arguing
against it, rather just curious.
Bill Kearney wrote:
> Sadly, without proof you can only hope that's the situation. Thermal
> management inside enclosures has to be designed-into the circuit
> boards. It has to deal with not only heat, but cold too. I'm guessing
> more than a few such enclosures don't handle it right.
The proof we have is reliability we experience. While we use sun shields
on our client radios, we have not yet found a failure. Extreme cold may
be an issue for far norther states, but even at zero degrees there is
enough internally generated heat to keep them warm.
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>
>> Sadly, without proof you can only hope that's the situation. Thermal
>> management inside enclosures has to be designed-into the circuit
>> boards. It has to deal with not only heat, but cold too. I'm
>> guessing more than a few such enclosures don't handle it right.
>
>
> The proof we have is reliability we experience. While we use sun shields
> on our client radios, we have not yet found a failure. Extreme cold may
> be an issue for far norther states, but even at zero degrees there is
> enough internally generated heat to keep them warm.
If you check recent threads in the NG, you will find my posts regarding
problems with unheated enclosures in No. MN where we have had more than
a month of nightly temps between -25 F and -5 F; this summer I will be
adding a heater as the radio drifts off channel when the temp is below
0 F.
msg wrote:
> If you check recent threads in the NG, you will find my posts regarding
> problems with unheated enclosures in No. MN where we have had more than
> a month of nightly temps between -25 F and -5 F; this summer I will be
> adding a heater as the radio drifts off channel when the temp is below
> 0 F.
A compelling reason to stay in Texas where I have never seen more
than a half inch of snow in my life...and that was a snow drift under
my truck.
In article <DMKdnSBgi-NUtVbanZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> At least for my requirement if one
>> box or another fails it is no biggie other then rounding up a replacement
>> for the failed part
>
>Yep, I trolled for a few spare WRT54G units off fleabay and now have a
>decent supply of replacements should anything actually fail. Which, to my
>pleasant surprise, has not been the case.
>
>> Now to the point, I hadn't considered two DD-WRT boxes, but that is indeed
>> a clear option. Do you know of a more 'compact' solution. What I was
>> envisioning, though this appears to not be an option, was stick one of
>> those USB wireless receivers on the end of a usb cable and have it hooked
>> into a wireless router via the WAN port or similar connect point.
>
>I suppose it might be possible with some of the WRT-based units that have
>USB ports. They generally use the port for network attached storage. But
>since it's just linux there's not much to prevent using it for a wifi
>device. Trouble would be getting the driver configured properly. That and
>it would not be configurable from the web UI. You'd have to use the command
>prompt via ssh or telnet, and then know the right IP routing setup info. A
>bit more of a hassle than you might think.
>
>> Thanks again though for reminding me of the obvious solution though a bit
>> 'large'. I feel silly not thinking about two DD-WRT devices. Like I said I
>> was just hoping for something smaller and more portable. But you gotta do
>> what you gotta do.
>
>What's the driving need for it to be small and portable? I'm not arguing
>against it, rather just curious.
>
Occasional desire/need to pick everything up, toss it into a bag and move
literally to another old building. They really knew how to build in the
20's and 30's. These interior walls could stop a bullet I'm convinced.
Anyway they sure stop rf, some of the rooms even cell phones fail with a
cell tower literally in sight of a nearby window. Most all of the
networking is wired, but there are a couple of place where wireless
connetivity is extremely desired and for some reason fishing a network
cable is not a desired option (crazy IMO, but I don't get a vote) but
running the rig as I describe is, tell me the difference in practical
terms <grin>.
We have wireless in some hallways etc but a couple of rooms even with doors
open don't seem to offer the right 'reflective' properties to get the
signal to 'fill' the room.
I've about decided wireless isn't suitable for an office environment. I'm a
developer (map data, a little ASP, we need a program to...) for the company
and am not a network type and yet I spend all my time these days with 'why
won't my laptop connect to the network'? Anyway there are a couple of rooms
where people who are visiting for a few days (not customers) are stuck so
they can have some office space. The desire is just to have them drop the
laptop on a desk turn it on, configure to the proper password etc and away
they go. I don't so much need them on my network as to provide them with
Internet access. The Exchange host is in another city so everyone has to
have Internet access.
>>What's the driving need for it to be small and portable? I'm not
>>arguing
>>against it, rather just curious.
>>
>
> Occasional desire/need to pick everything up, toss it into a bag and move
> literally to another old building.
Well, you have to balance between gauging how often you want to move, and
how well the equipment (and usage) will tolerate BEING moved around.
It sounds more like you're faced with a serious construction issue (signal
blockage) and a lack of planning (and budget) to correctly deal with it. It
may well never be cost-effective to bathe that facility with total coverage.
You're probably better off with putting wired ethernet into strategic
locations and then using a simple wifi access point in them. Trying to use
two radios will continue to be a headache as you'll have to deal with
re-aiming the antenna each time (or often depending on user 'accessibility'
to it) and the constant support hassles associated with that.
> I've about decided wireless isn't suitable for an office environment.
Rico wrote:
>
> Occasional desire/need to pick everything up, toss it into a bag and
> move
> literally to another old building. They really knew how to build in
> the 20's and 30's. These interior walls could stop a bullet I'm
> convinced.
> Anyway they sure stop rf, some of the rooms even cell phones fail
> with a
> cell tower literally in sight of a nearby window. Most all of the
> networking is wired, but there are a couple of place where wireless
> connetivity is extremely desired and for some reason fishing a network
> cable is not a desired option (crazy IMO, but I don't get a vote) but
> running the rig as I describe is, tell me the difference in practical
> terms <grin>.
> We have wireless in some hallways etc but a couple of rooms even with
> doors
> open don't seem to offer the right 'reflective' properties to get the
> signal to 'fill' the room.
>
> I've about decided wireless isn't suitable for an office environment.
> I'm a
> developer (map data, a little ASP, we need a program to...) for the
> company
> and am not a network type and yet I spend all my time these days with
> 'why
> won't my laptop connect to the network'? Anyway there are a couple of
> rooms
> where people who are visiting for a few days (not customers) are
> stuck so
> they can have some office space. The desire is just to have them drop
> the
> laptop on a desk turn it on, configure to the proper password etc and
> away
> they go. I don't so much need them on my network as to provide them
> with
> Internet access. The Exchange host is in another city so everyone has
> to
> have Internet access.
>
> fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
You may want to look into a plan B, I ran into several older buildings (both
residential and commercial, that stop RF pretty effectively), in the main
area i have one wap/router, wth the router parts output plugged into a
powerline transceiver, and then wherever I need/want an xtra bang, have a
combo (on a power strip) of the second powerline transceiver plugged in with
another wap/router and the 2nd transceiver plugged into the router ports
(not the wan)... Gives me both wired and wireless in various areas, and when
I need one in a speciific area, I just plug it in...
just an aside, I use the same subnet on most Internet woeks on most subnets,
different starting IP addresses, and unique ssid's (don't care about
roaming, and leave the dhcp servers on)...
as to what to use, I use these http://www.netgear.com/Products/Powe...tAdapters.aspx
Netgear powerline ethernet adapters (under $125 A pair) and several linksys
wrt54g's <-- at walmart for under $50
Bill Kearney wrote:
>> The proof we have is reliability we experience. While we use sun shields
>> on our client radios, we have not yet found a failure.
>
> We, as in you're pimping your company's own rigs here. Thinly disguised
> spam, eh?
Nope, if I was you would see clearly definable links to something. Since
there isn't, I'm not.
wireless network to wireless network?? 
Linear Mode
