Wireless repeater

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:53:01 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hrc1cz.ygwsjdw5frwaN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:40 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
>> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hqwoxi.mjiooo1bdw1joN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >Access points can perform the wireless-to-wired bridging function.
>> >However, access points perform a number of other functions in the
>> >distribution system together with the backbone system, like keeping
>> >track of stations and buffering packets to help stations save power.
>>
>> Nope. The only keeping track of stations is MAC bridging, and
>> "buffering packets to help stations save power" isn't part of the access
>> point definition. If you disagree, post an authoritative citation to
>> back up your claims.
>
>What part of: "access points perform a number of other functions in the
>distribution system" do you not understand?

All of it. A wireless access point is simply a network bridge.

>> >> How is an AP NOT a wireless bridge?
>> >
>> >Say when two stations, associated with the same access point send
>> >packets to each other. The access point is part of the distribution
>> >system.
>>
>> No, it's bridging.
>
>No, the access point is part of the distribution system.

No such thing. (I suggest you come with a supporting citation _before_
making such a claim.)

>> >> It does bridging. It connects to networks on either side of the bridge
>> >> at layer 2 (MAC layer). Packets only cross the bridge if the destination
>> >> MAC address is on the other side of the bridge.
>> >
>> >Correct (only cross the bridge if...).
>>
>> In other words, it's a network bridge.
>
>How can the destination MAC address be on "the other side of the
>bridge"? --when both stations are associated by wireless with the same
>access point!

Because the wireless access point is a network bridge. You seem to
think it mindlessly repeats like a hub. It doesn't. Given station A
wired to the wireless access point, and stations B and C connected
wirelessly, traffic from B to A is _not_ repeated wirelessly to C.
That's because a network bridge, in this case the wireless access point,
filters traffic not addressed through a given port.

>> >> If it acts like a bridge, works like a bridge, functions like a bridge,
>> >> perhaps it might be considered a bridge?
>> >
>> >Not it's an access point.
>>
>> A wireless access point _is_ a network bridge.
>
>A wireless access point is not a network bridge.

You're wrong.

>> >Hej! The only packets the bridge/gaming adapter passes are packets
>> >passed from/to cable. As soon as the packets hit the cable it's 802.3
>> >(or 802.5) and not 802.11. A bridge/gaming adapter is not an access
>> >point.
>>
>> Indeed -- it's a wireless Ethernet (client) bridge.
>
>The F5D7330 is a bridge/gaming adapter.

According to the manufacturer, it's a "Wireless Ethernet Bridge." As I
wrote.

>> >> It does NOT pass all packets. If it did, it would be polluted by all
>> >> kinds of junk LAN traffic.
>> >
>> >It passes all 802.11 packets addressed to the bridge/gaming adapters
>> >MAC. No junk there.
>>
>> That's a network bridge.
>
>The point here is, that the bridge/gaming adapter does pass all the
>packets. Despite what Jeff Liebermann thinks.

I must have missed that. What real proof do you have?

>> >> For example, take the aformentioned setup and copy some big files between
>> >> the two connected computers. The hub should insure that all the packets
>> >> appear at the ethernet port of the F5D7330. Does the log file and monitor
>> >> in the F5D7330 or TEW-510APB show that it has repeated all the taffic
>> >> between the two computers? Probably not. The F3D7330 bridge should just
>> >> sit there doing nothing as none of the traffic has a destination address
>> >> across the bridge.
>> >
>> >Those are 802.3 (or 802.5) packets. Where should the wireless "bridge"
>> >come in?
>>
>> Filtering packets not addressed to a MAC at the other end.
>>
>> "A bridge by any other name..." :)
>
>And the point here is still, that the bridge/gaming adapter does send on
>all packets wirelessly to the access point.

Again, what real proof do you have for that?

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> A wireless access point is simply a network bridge.

> >> No, it's bridging.

> >> In other words, it's a network bridge.

> Because the wireless access point is a network bridge.

> >> >> If it acts like a bridge, works like a bridge, functions like a bridge,
> >> >> perhaps it might be considered a bridge?

> >> A wireless access point _is_ a network bridge.

> >> Indeed -- it's a wireless Ethernet (client) bridge.

> >> That's a network bridge.

> >> "A bridge by any other name..." :)

No wonder there are no entries under the subjects: "Wireless Access
Points" and "Repeaters". You're under the delusion that everything is
bridges.

<http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Ethernet_Bridges>

So, what's your point in having the other two subject headers there?

When that dawns on you, it will be interesting to see what, if anything
ever crops up under the subject "Repeaters".

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:16:05 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hrdq1i.17qo9j811847q4N%hlexa@hotmail.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> A wireless access point is simply a network bridge.
>
>> >> No, it's bridging.
>
>> >> In other words, it's a network bridge.
>
>> Because the wireless access point is a network bridge.
>
>> >> >> If it acts like a bridge, works like a bridge, functions like a bridge,
>> >> >> perhaps it might be considered a bridge?
>
>> >> A wireless access point _is_ a network bridge.
>
>> >> Indeed -- it's a wireless Ethernet (client) bridge.
>
>> >> That's a network bridge.
>
>> >> "A bridge by any other name..." :)
>
>No wonder there are no entries under the subjects: "Wireless Access
>Points" and "Repeaters". You're under the delusion that everything is
>bridges.
>
><http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Ethernet_Bridges>
>
>So, what's your point in having the other two subject headers there?
>
>When that dawns on you, it will be interesting to see what, if anything
>ever crops up under the subject "Repeaters".

Insults are a sure sign of a bankrupt position, and a sure way to end
any sort of meaningful discussion. You are of course welcome to think
whatever you want, no matter how silly. I'm not going to waste any more
time on this.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:53:01 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hrc0b3.p8zv05ebx0deN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 23:22:46 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
>> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hqvfyp.11dfoyb1xbjb86N%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>> >> None of the above. The main AP doesn't see any IP's as it's a bridge,
>> >> not a router. It sees only MAC addresses.
>> >
>> >Here you seem to regard an AP a bridge, which it isn't. However, amongst
>> >other functions, an AP bridges.
>>
>> A wireless access point _is_ a network bridge. That it also has a
>> wireless radio is no more relevant than the wired ports in wired network
>> bridges.
>
>That's wrong. An access point is not a bridge. An access points has a
>"bridging engine" - but that does not make it "a bridge".
>
>> >> Yeah, a few details. They should be on widely spaced channels. ch 1
>> >> and ch 11 will work. Also make some effort to isolate the antennas
>> >> from each other. Even if they are on different channels, there's
>> >> enough crud at the fringes of the spectra to spray garbage all over
>> >> the 2.4GHz band. You might need an ethernet crossover cable depending
>> >> on your selection of hardware. Some wireless bridge radios only pass
>> >> one MAC address. See list at:
>> >> <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Ethernet_Bridges>
>> >
>> >This is strange.
>> >
>> >Here you _are_ regarding a bridge as an AP, which it isn't:
>>
>> Again, a wireless access point _is_ a network bridge.
>
>Wrong, again.
>
>> >The F5D7330 (802.11b/g) is one bridge/gaming adapter mentioned on this
>> >link and I happen to be using one at the moment as an adapter
>>
>> You are actually using it as a wireless Ethernet (client) bridge.
>
>Here, I am using the F5D7330 as a bridge/gaming adapter, the same way it
>is used with an Xbox or PSP. Not as a bridge.
>
>> >so I wanted to check up on whether it could handle more that one computer
>> >- designated as "multi" (MAC addresses?) on the above link. There's no
>> >mention of it being able to do so from the information on the link.
>> >
>> >I connected the cable from the F5D7330 to a hubs uplink port and from
>> >two other ports in the hub I ran cables to two computers.
>> >
>> >The F5D7330 is associated with a TEW-510APB AP (802.11a/b/g) on the ISM
>> >(2.4 GHz) band. This TEW-510APB is again connected to a (NAT) router
>> >which in turn is connected to an ADSL modem connected to the internet.
>> >
>> >Of course both computers got ip-addresses from the routers DHCP server
>> >and surfed the web.
>>
>> In other words, the F5D7330 _is_ "multi". ;)
>
>No, as I wrote and you should have taken note of - if you could read -
>the computers got ip-addresses from the DHCP in the router.
>
>There is no such thing as "multi". That term is non sence.
>
>> >To summerise: a bridge/gaming adapter doesn't care about the connected
>> >computers MAC addresses. It just passes packets along, like a cable.
>>
>> Nope. A bridge like the F5D7330 does care about MAC addresses because
>> that's how it knows whether to filter traffic or not. Failing to
>> properly filter traffic would be a bridge abomination!
>
>And you obviously don't know anything about the F5D7330.
>
>Message-ID: <9ukgp2hj9aib69a3uq3po4sjbn7d6mlrbj@4ax.com>
>
>John Navas wrote:
>
>: On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 17:43:44 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
>: <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
>: <24auo2d2e14b55ah8cq8dr8ctkn7mggpop@4ax.com>:
>:
>: >hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) hath wroth:
>:
>: >>The F5D7330 (802.11b/g) is one bridge/gaming adapter mentioned on
>: >>this link and I happen to be using one at the moment as an adapter
>: >>so I wanted to check up on whether it could handle more that one
>: >>computer - designated as "multi" (MAC addresses?) on the above link.
>: >>There's no mention of it being able to do so from the information on
>: >>the link.
>: >
>: >John Navas didn't test all of the items mentioned.
>:
>: Correct. I based my assessment on information I deemed to be
>: reliable.
>
>You base your mis-information on own assumptions, as your admission here
>confirms.

Insults are a sure sign of a bankrupt position, and a sure way to end
any sort of meaningful discussion. You are of course welcome to think
whatever you want, no matter how silly. I'm not going to waste any more
time on this.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>