Is there a good non-WDS repeater out there?
I tried to add a Dlink DWL-800AP+ to an Ambit 60740EUW wireless cable
router with WEP and it didn't work at all.
Not sure what the problem was, but it worked with a linksys
non-encripted AP.
>Is there a good non-WDS repeater out there?
>I tried to add a Dlink DWL-800AP+ to an Ambit 60740EUW wireless cable
>router with WEP and it didn't work at all.
>Not sure what the problem was, but it worked with a linksys
>non-encripted AP.
>
>Any suggestions?
Stay within a manufacturer's family for routers, APs and repeaters. There are no
standards for repeaters, so as you discovered, mixing manufacturers is a low
percentage play.
OTOH, I was very sucessful in linking three buildings a half mile apart with no
direct line of sight using an offset repeater. All Linksys gear though.
Keep in mind that with a repeater, you are trading range for throughput.
Rick Blaine wrote:
> "dave" <bonanzaman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Is there a good non-WDS repeater out there?
> >I tried to add a Dlink DWL-800AP+ to an Ambit 60740EUW wireless cable
> >router with WEP and it didn't work at all.
> >Not sure what the problem was, but it worked with a linksys
> >non-encripted AP.
> >
> >Any suggestions?
>
> Stay within a manufacturer's family for routers, APs and repeaters. There are no
> standards for repeaters, so as you discovered, mixing manufacturers is a low
> percentage play.
>
> OTOH, I was very sucessful in linking three buildings a half mile apart with no
> direct line of sight using an offset repeater. All Linksys gear though.
>
> Keep in mind that with a repeater, you are trading range for throughput.
Hi Rick,
I'd like to stay in the family, but Ambit is kind of an odd-ball
wireless router.
The trade off for speed is just fine.
I guess I'll just keep buying and testing.
Anybody use the Airlink101 AP311w?
It claims that it's universal.
On 21 Dec 2006 12:54:49 -0800, "dave" <bonanzaman@gmail.com> wrote:
>Is there a good non-WDS repeater out there?
No. I think they all suck.
>I tried to add a Dlink DWL-800AP+ to an Ambit 60740EUW wireless cable
>router with WEP and it didn't work at all.
>Not sure what the problem was, but it worked with a linksys
>non-encripted AP.
>
>Any suggestions?
I just left todays nightmare installation. Local hotel that has a
fairly large "campus". The underground conduit got flooded by the
rain, soaking the CAT5, and taking out the wired part of the network.
So, someone installed a Linksys WRE54G which actually worked quite for
for some (not all) users. The problem was only for users that could
see both the repeater and the connected access point. Users that
could only see the repeater worked just fine with tolerable thruput.
Some creative antenna juggling got most of the users working.
Then came the next problem. The QoS setup in the router had a rule
set for the repeater. The result was that the total traffic for the
repeater was configured for the same as a single user. The result was
terrible thruput through the repeater. I didn't get to fix this
because the dingbat that setup the repeater also changed the AP
password and immediately left town for vacation. Next week, maybe.
Bottom line: I've never seen a store and forward repeater (including
WDS and mesh networks) that work for all clients and under all
conditions. Be prepared to do some tinkering. The only ones I've
been able to make work reliably are with two radios back to back. One
acts as an access point on perhaps channel 1. The other is a client
ethernet bridge on Channel 1 and with a different SSID as the
connected access point. CAT5 cable between them. Users can select
whether they connect to either the main AP or the aformentioned AP.
Ugly, messy, complex, expensive, but it works.
"dave" <bonanzaman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166734489.316009.299770@80g2000cwy.googlegro ups.com...
> Is there a good non-WDS repeater out there?
> I tried to add a Dlink DWL-800AP+ to an Ambit 60740EUW wireless cable
> router with WEP and it didn't work at all.
> Not sure what the problem was, but it worked with a linksys
> non-encripted AP.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks
>
> Dave
As Jeff said, consumer "repeating" is nasty. It may be ok for just tossing
typical internet traffic around, but for WLAN traffic it isn't efficient at
all. I used to do WDS until looking at what was really going on with SNMP
and wanting better pipes to stream WLAN multimedia traffic.
What I'm doing now achieves the same thing as a "repeater", without being
nasty.
Get both a wireless-ethernet bridge and a second AP. Connect the second AP
to the wireless-ethernet bridge (connected to the first AP over the air).
Use the same SSID as the first AP on the second AP, but on a different
channel.
Eric wrote:
> "dave" <bonanzaman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166734489.316009.299770@80g2000cwy.googlegro ups.com...
> > Is there a good non-WDS repeater out there?
> > I tried to add a Dlink DWL-800AP+ to an Ambit 60740EUW wireless cable
> > router with WEP and it didn't work at all.
> > Not sure what the problem was, but it worked with a linksys
> > non-encripted AP.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Dave
>
> As Jeff said, consumer "repeating" is nasty. It may be ok for just tossing
> typical internet traffic around, but for WLAN traffic it isn't efficient at
> all. I used to do WDS until looking at what was really going on with SNMP
> and wanting better pipes to stream WLAN multimedia traffic.
>
> What I'm doing now achieves the same thing as a "repeater", without being
> nasty.
>
> Get both a wireless-ethernet bridge and a second AP. Connect the second AP
> to the wireless-ethernet bridge (connected to the first AP over the air).
> Use the same SSID as the first AP on the second AP, but on a different
> channel.
You suggested using a bridge attached to another access point.
Does the bridge act just like any other pc type client and gets an ip
assigned by the router?
If I add another AP, wouldn't it act independant of the original AP and
treating the bridge just like a router? Does it matter what the SSID is
for the second ap?
Is the only IP the original AP sees is the bridge IP address or does it
see the ips of both the bridge and destination pc/client?
This seems like a pretty bullet proof configuration unlike the use of a
traditional repeater.
Am i missing something?
>You suggested using a bridge attached to another access point.
Yep. It's the only way that's guaranteed to work under all
conditions.
>Does the bridge act just like any other pc type client and gets an ip
>assigned by the router?
A bit of basics first. *ALL* 802.11 wireless is layer 2 bridging.
There is no layer 3 routing involved. The IP addresses of the bridge
and router boxes are used exclusively for configuration and are not
involved in actual operation. Normally, both devices have static IP's
that are pre-assigned during configuration.
>If I add another AP, wouldn't it act independant of the original AP and
>treating the bridge just like a router?
I don't understand the question. Putting bridge and an access point
in series does not create a router.
>Does it matter what the SSID is
>for the second ap?
Sorta. The SSID of the bridge and the AP can be the same and it will
function. However, this creates the situation I previously mentioned,
where the wireless client (i.e. user) has no way to distinguish
between connecting to the main AP or the new AP. I therefore suggest
using two different SSID's.
>Is the only IP the original AP sees is the bridge IP address or does it
>see the ips of both the bridge and destination pc/client?
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.
If there's a router in the same box as the main AP, then it only sees
the client IP addresses. The bridge and the 2nd AP are transparent to
IP's and only care about MAC addresses.
>This seems like a pretty bullet proof configuration unlike the use of a
>traditional repeater.
>Am i missing something?
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>
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> "dave" <bonanzaman@gmail.com> hath wroth:
<snip>
> >Is the only IP the original AP sees is the bridge IP address or does it
> >see the ips of both the bridge and destination pc/client?
>
> 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.
> If there's a router in the same box as the main AP, then it only sees
> the client IP addresses. The bridge and the 2nd AP are transparent to
> IP's and only care about MAC addresses.
This is correct.
> >This seems like a pretty bullet proof configuration unlike the use of a
> >traditional repeater. Am i missing something?
>
> 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:
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.
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.
To summerise: a bridge/gaming adapter doesn't care about the connected
computers MAC addresses. It just passes packets along, like a cable.
>> 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.
Correct. An access point is a bridge. So is a ethernet wireless
client adapter, game adapter, and every single last lousy piece of
hardware that has 802.11 or Wi-Fi inscribed on it. Bridging is a
layer 2 function which works on MAC addresses, not IP addresses. The
IP addresses are not visible on 802.11 packet captures and are
encapsulated along with the data inside the 802.11 packets.
I can supply chapter and verse if you want to debate the point.
Incidentally, I tried to organize the wireless bridge muddle with:
<http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Bridge_Types>
It's not perfect but it's close. The probem is that various
manufactories and have used the term "bridge" to also mean ethernet
client adapter. This is correct, but a bit like calling a pickup
truck an automobile. Yes, a pickup truck is an automobile, but the
description is insufficient if only the term automobile is used.
>> <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:
How is an AP NOT a wireless bridge? 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. If it acts like a bridge, works like a bridge,
functions like a bridge, perhaps it might be considered a bridge?
>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.
>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.
>
>To summerise: a bridge/gaming adapter doesn't care about the connected
>computers MAC addresses. It just passes packets along, like a cable.
Wrong. It should only pass packets with a destination MAC address on
the other side of the bridge. That's called bridging. It does NOT
pass all packets. If it did, it would be polluted by all kinds of
junk LAN traffic. 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.
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) hath wroth:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Correct. An access point is a bridge. So is a ethernet wireless
> client adapter, game adapter, and every single last lousy piece of
> hardware that has 802.11 or Wi-Fi inscribed on it. Bridging is a
> layer 2 function which works on MAC addresses, not IP addresses. The
> IP addresses are not visible on 802.11 packet captures and are
> encapsulated along with the data inside the 802.11 packets.
>
> I can supply chapter and verse if you want to debate the point.
>
> Incidentally, I tried to organize the wireless bridge muddle with:
> <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Bridge_Types>
> It's not perfect but it's close. The probem is that various
> manufactories and have used the term "bridge" to also mean ethernet
> client adapter. This is correct, but a bit like calling a pickup
> truck an automobile. Yes, a pickup truck is an automobile, but the
> description is insufficient if only the term automobile is used.
>
> >> <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:
>
> How is an AP NOT a wireless bridge? 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. If it acts like a bridge, works like a bridge,
> functions like a bridge, perhaps it might be considered a bridge?
>
> >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.
>
> >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.
> >
> >To summerise: a bridge/gaming adapter doesn't care about the connected
> >computers MAC addresses. It just passes packets along, like a cable.
>
> Wrong. It should only pass packets with a destination MAC address on
> the other side of the bridge. That's called bridging. It does NOT
> pass all packets. If it did, it would be polluted by all kinds of
> junk LAN traffic. 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.
>
> >BTW. Merry Christmas.
>
> Bah Humbug.
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Jeff,
Thanks for all the information.
It's making things a little clearer for this clouded mind.
Been to Santa Cruz, it's a little piece of heaven on earth.
Slept on the beach by the lighthouse back in the 70's.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) hath wroth:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Correct. An access point is a bridge. So is a ethernet wireless
> client adapter, game adapter, and every single last lousy piece of
> hardware that has 802.11 or Wi-Fi inscribed on it. Bridging is a
> layer 2 function which works on MAC addresses, not IP addresses. The
> IP addresses are not visible on 802.11 packet captures and are
> encapsulated along with the data inside the 802.11 packets.
>
> I can supply chapter and verse if you want to debate the point.
Please do (try to).
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.
> Incidentally, I tried to organize the wireless bridge muddle with:
> <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Bridge_Types>
> It's not perfect but it's close. The probem is that various
> manufactories and have used the term "bridge" to also mean ethernet
> client adapter. This is correct, but a bit like calling a pickup
> truck an automobile. Yes, a pickup truck is an automobile, but the
> description is insufficient if only the term automobile is used.
That link is just plain confusing. I wish you (and others) would use
802.11 terms.
> >> <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:
>
> 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.
> 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...).
> 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.
> >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.
If only he to would use 802.11 terms. In the Wireless_Ethernet_Bridges
part he uses something called "multi" (MAC addressing?) and by the looks
of it, he is really talking about repeaters and not bridges/gaming
adapters.
> >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.
> >
> >To summerise: a bridge/gaming adapter doesn't care about the connected
> >computers MAC addresses. It just passes packets along, like a cable.
>
> Wrong. It should only pass packets with a destination MAC address on
> the other side of the bridge. That's called bridging.
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.
> 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.
> 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?
>> I can supply chapter and verse if you want to debate the point.
>Please do (try to).
What you're saying is that an access point is not a bridge because an
access point does many other functions. I'll agree with that, but
please note that the bridging function is still running inside the
access point despite these other features. If you remove the
non-802.11 features sometimes found in access points (MAC filters,
DHCP server, performance enhancements), you end up with a very simple
wireless bridge, that bridges 802.3 ethernet packets between two
ports. More simply, you can't take the bridging feature out of an
access point and still be able to call it an access point.
>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.
Sure. Management functions are a good thing. However, what the
access point is doing under all this is bridging.
>> <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Bridge_Types>
>That link is just plain confusing. I wish you (and others) would use
>802.11 terms.
No way. I use commercial terms. If you have an objection to their
use, please ask the marketing departments of the various wireless
manufactories to change. Also, I suspect nobody would understand what
I was explaining if I used the terms in the IEEE documents. My
answers and explanations are not specifically for your sole benefit.
I agree that my link is confusing. I did the best I could to untangle
the misuse of the term bridge and to distinguish the various types of
wireless bridges. If you find an error or omission, you are welcome
to login and make changes (as long as they are not vandalism). I see
a few places where I could have been clearer and one omission.
>> >Here you _are_ regarding a bridge as an AP, which it isn't:
>>
>> 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.
I don't see "distribution system" in any of the IEEE docs. I also
don't see it in any of the commercial offerings. WDS is close, but
obviously not involved here. What exactly is a "distribution system"
and how is it not wireless bridging (point to point or point to
multipoint)? As far as I'm concerned it's *ALL* bridging.
>> 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.
Then what is it? Forget about "distribution system". That's far too
vague to be useful.
>> John Navas didn't test all of the items mentioned.
>If only he to would use 802.11 terms.
Ask him. You might actually get your wish, but I doubt it.
>In the Wireless_Ethernet_Bridges
>part he uses something called "multi" (MAC addressing?) and by the looks
>of it, he is really talking about repeaters and not bridges/gaming
>adapters.
Read the heading above that section. It's just a flag to indicate
that the wireless ethernet bridge device will pass more than one MAC
address. If you have a better way to identify this feature, I'm
listening.
>> >To summerise: a bridge/gaming adapter doesn't care about the connected
>> >computers MAC addresses. It just passes packets along, like a cable.
>>
>> Wrong. It should only pass packets with a destination MAC address on
>> the other side of the bridge. That's called bridging.
>
>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.
"from/to cable" means what? The 802.3 packets have a source and
destination MAC address in the header. The wireless bridge decides if
it should pass those packets. If the 802.3 ethernet packet does NOT
have a destination MAC address across the bridge, the wireless bridge
does nothing. If the destination address is across the bridge, the
wireless bridge encapsulates the 802.3 packets into 802.11 packets,
passes them across to the other end of the bridge, which reverses the
process. This is called bridging. Where in the header do you find
"from/to cable" or whatever you're mumbling about?
>> 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.
Correct. It passes all 802.11 packets. It does NOT pass all 802.3
ethernet packets. Only those 802.3 packets with destination MAC
addresses that are across the bridge are encapsulated into 802.11
packets and transmitted.
However, that's for just a point to point bridge. In a point to
multipoint bridging system (also known as a switch), each wireless
bridge also has a MAC address. 802.11 multipoint bridging uses the
same mechanism as 802.3 bridging. Only the destination 802.11 bridge
with the destination MAC addresses decodes the packet and
de-encapsulates it into an 802.3 packet. The other wireless bridges
hear all the 802.11 packets, but only the destination decodes it.
>> 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?
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. Take your ethernet hub. Plug in two
ethernet connected computers. Connect a wireless client adapter to
the hub. Setup a wireless connection to your access point or wireless
router and eventually to the internet. Verify that both computers can
talk to the internet and to each other. Now, copy a mess of files
between the two computers. The wireless client adapter ethernet port
will see all this traffic. Note that the traffic does NOT cross the
wireless bridge to the access point or wireless router.
> >> <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Bridge_Types>
> >
> >That link is just plain confusing. I wish you (and others) would use
> >802.11 terms.
>
> No way. I use commercial terms. If you have an objection to their
> use, please ask the marketing departments of the various wireless
> manufactories to change. Also, I suspect nobody would understand what
> I was explaining if I used the terms in the IEEE documents. My
> answers and explanations are not specifically for your sole benefit.
>
> I agree that my link is confusing. I did the best I could to untangle
> the misuse of the term bridge and to distinguish the various types of
> wireless bridges. If you find an error or omission, you are welcome
> to login and make changes (as long as they are not vandalism). I see
> a few places where I could have been clearer and one omission.
Suit yourself.
> >> >Here you _are_ regarding a bridge as an AP, which it isn't:
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> I don't see "distribution system" in any of the IEEE docs. I also
> don't see it in any of the commercial offerings. WDS is close, but
> obviously not involved here. What exactly is a "distribution system"
> and how is it not wireless bridging (point to point or point to
> multipoint)? As far as I'm concerned it's *ALL* bridging.
WDS _is_ a (wireless) distribution system. So is a wired network with
802.11 access points.
> >> 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.
>
> Then what is it? Forget about "distribution system". That's far too
> vague to be useful.
No. Just look at the muddle about wireless bridge types and repeaters on
the Wiki.
> >> John Navas didn't test all of the items mentioned.
> >
> > If only he to would use 802.11 terms.
>
> Ask him. You might actually get your wish, but I doubt it.
So do I. And confusion will continue to reign there.
> >In the Wireless_Ethernet_Bridges
> >part he uses something called "multi" (MAC addressing?) and by the looks
> >of it, he is really talking about repeaters and not bridges/gaming
> >adapters.
>
> Read the heading above that section. It's just a flag to indicate
> that the wireless ethernet bridge device will pass more than one MAC
> address. If you have a better way to identify this feature, I'm
> listening.
The F5D7330 (amongst others) is there.
> >> >To summerise: a bridge/gaming adapter doesn't care about the connected
> >> >computers MAC addresses. It just passes packets along, like a cable.
> >>
> >> Wrong. It should only pass packets with a destination MAC address on
> >> the other side of the bridge. That's called bridging.
> >
> >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.
>
> "from/to cable" means what? The 802.3 packets have a source and
> destination MAC address in the header. The wireless bridge decides if
> it should pass those packets. If the 802.3 ethernet packet does NOT
> have a destination MAC address across the bridge, the wireless bridge
> does nothing. If the destination address is across the bridge, the
> wireless bridge encapsulates the 802.3 packets into 802.11 packets,
> passes them across to the other end of the bridge, which reverses the
> process. This is called bridging. Where in the header do you find
> "from/to cable" or whatever you're mumbling about?
The F5D7330 bridge/game adapter is connected by a cable to the
X-box's/computer's ethernet port and "from/to cable" is trafik between
bridge/game adapter and the X-box/computer on cable. The wireless
bridge/gaming adapter does not decide anything, it just passes all
packets.
Why would a wireless adapter, that is supposed to connect to only _one_
RJ45 jack and give say an X-box a wireless connection to an access point
be concerned about MAC addresses?
> >> 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.
>
> Correct. It passes all 802.11 packets. It does NOT pass all 802.3
> ethernet packets. Only those 802.3 packets with destination MAC
> addresses that are across the bridge are encapsulated into 802.11
> packets and transmitted.
Which is all packets that the bridge/game adapter receives.
> However, that's for just a point to point bridge. In a point to
> multipoint bridging system (also known as a switch), each wireless
> bridge also has a MAC address. 802.11 multipoint bridging uses the
> same mechanism as 802.3 bridging. Only the destination 802.11 bridge
> with the destination MAC addresses decodes the packet and
> de-encapsulates it into an 802.3 packet. The other wireless bridges
> hear all the 802.11 packets, but only the destination decodes it.
Now you are talking about WDS (a distribution system) and
repeaters/extenders.
> >> 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?
>
> Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. Take your ethernet hub. Plug in two
> ethernet connected computers. Connect a wireless client adapter to
> the hub. Setup a wireless connection to your access point or wireless
> router and eventually to the internet. Verify that both computers can
> talk to the internet and to each other. Now, copy a mess of files
> between the two computers. The wireless client adapter ethernet port
> will see all this traffic. Note that the traffic does NOT cross the
> wireless bridge to the access point or wireless router.
Have you actually tried this with a bridge/game adapter, like the
F5D7330?
I did and the activity light i the F5D7330 indicated that the
bridge/gaming adapter was also (along with the hub) sending packets.
However, there was no activity in the light on the access point. This
could be/probably is because the light there flashes when the access
point (part of the destribution system) is sending packets down the wire
to the switch in the router.
What is probably happening, is that the access point receives the
wireless packet from the F5D7330, unencrypts (we are using WPA-TKIP) and
strips the 802.11 encapsulations from the packet and after examining the
802.3 packet, drops the packet because the 802.3 MAC address doesn't
match any station known to the access point (the access point doing the
distribution system bit). Therefor, no activity in the light.
> >> >BTW. Merry Christmas.
> >>
> >> Bah Humbug.
> >
> > No X-mas presents this year?
>
> X-Mass: No present.
>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>> Then what is it? Forget about "distribution system". That's far too
>> vague to be useful.
>
>No. Just look at the muddle about wireless bridge types and repeaters on
>the Wiki.
I know it's a muddle. That's why I wrote it. I can't repair what a
dozen companies marketing departments have abused for years.
What exactly is a "distribution system" and how is it not wireless
bridging (point to point or point to multipoint)? As far as I'm
concerned it's *ALL* bridging.
>The F5D7330 bridge/game adapter is connected by a cable to the
>X-box's/computer's ethernet port and "from/to cable" is trafik between
>bridge/game adapter and the X-box/computer on cable. The wireless
>bridge/gaming adapter does not decide anything, it just passes all
>packets.
Amazing. So your Belkin F5D7330 passes *ALL* the traffic it sees on
the ethernet port? None of my client bridges work that way. If that
were true, it would be more like a wireless "hub" (what the RFC's call
a repeater). What goes in one port, comes out the others. The
wireless side of the system would be saturated with useless packets
with no useful destination. The authors of IEEE 802.11 are not
stupid. They made 802.11 a bridging function that's quite a bit
smarter about what gets transmitted. The wireless transmitter only
belches data if there's a destination MAC address in the packet on the
other side of the bridge.
>Why would a wireless adapter, that is supposed to connect to only _one_
>RJ45 jack and give say an X-box a wireless connection to an access point
>be concerned about MAC addresses?
So it know what to send across the bridge. That's how an ethernet and
how a wireless bridge works. I'll make it simple for you. If you
setup your access point and your client bridge, and hide them inside a
closed black box exposing only the ethernet ports, the black box would
have 2 ethernet ports and act EXACTLY like an ethernet bridge (also
known as a 2 port ethernet switch).
>> Correct. It passes all 802.11 packets. It does NOT pass all 802.3
>> ethernet packets. Only those 802.3 packets with destination MAC
>> addresses that are across the bridge are encapsulated into 802.11
>> packets and transmitted.
>
>Which is all packets that the bridge/game adapter receives.
Nope. Not all packets. See definition of ethernet bridge.
>Now you are talking about WDS (a distribution system) and
>repeaters/extenders.
No, you are. WDS has nothing to do with what I'm trying to hammer
into your thick skull.
>> Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. Take your ethernet hub. Plug in two
>> ethernet connected computers. Connect a wireless client adapter to
>> the hub. Setup a wireless connection to your access point or wireless
>> router and eventually to the internet. Verify that both computers can
>> talk to the internet and to each other. Now, copy a mess of files
>> between the two computers. The wireless client adapter ethernet port
>> will see all this traffic. Note that the traffic does NOT cross the
>> wireless bridge to the access point or wireless router.
>
>Have you actually tried this with a bridge/game adapter, like the
>F5D7330?
Of course. Literally hundreds of times. In a past consulting job, I
was very concerned about encapsulation and traffic efficiency. If it
didn't work that way, I would have had a big problem.
My desktop is temporarily connected to my network with a wireless
client bridge (DLink DWL-900AP+ ver B1). I'm setting it up for a
neighbor. I just stuck a 10baseT hub in between my desktop and the
DWL-900AP+ so I can plug in my laptop. I just copied a mess of MP3's
between the two machines. I'm also running continuous IPerf speed
tests to see if QoS works. (It doesn't). There is very little
traffic on the wireless link. It's mostly the SNMP monitor traffic on
the WRT54GS v4 (new router), which shows only a few DNS lookups and
hardly any other traffic. Certainly not the 600MBytes of MP3's I just
copied.
>I did and the activity light i the F5D7330 indicated that the
>bridge/gaming adapter was also (along with the hub) sending packets.
Try the traffic monitor on your router instead. It won't show much
traffic. I think (not sure) that the activity light on the Belkin
F5D7330 bridge will show any packet that hits the ethernet port.
That's going to happen with the hub you're using. If you replace it
with an ethernet switch, you'll see much less flashing lights because
none of the local traffic has a destination across the wireless
bridge.
>However, there was no activity in the light on the access point. This
>could be/probably is because the light there flashes when the access
>point (part of the destribution system) is sending packets down the wire
>to the switch in the router.
Yes, that's probably correct. Does the access point have an IP
traffic counter? Better yet, does it do SNMP which will certainly
have traffic counters (in and out).
>What is probably happening, is that the access point receives the
>wireless packet from the F5D7330, unencrypts (we are using WPA-TKIP) and
>strips the 802.11 encapsulations from the packet and after examining the
>802.3 packet, drops the packet because the 802.3 MAC address doesn't
>match any station known to the access point (the access point doing the
>distribution system bit). Therefor, no activity in the light.
Nope. See my explanation. The important point is that the wireless
bridge (i.e. transmitter/receiver) does not pass anything unless it
has a destination MAC address on the other end of the wireless link.
>> >> >BTW. Merry Christmas.
>> >>
>> >> Bah Humbug.
>> >
>> > No X-mas presents this year?
>>
>> X-Mass: No present.
>
>Bad Santa.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) hath wroth:
>
> >Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> >> Then what is it? Forget about "distribution system". That's far too
> >> vague to be useful.
> >
> >No. Just look at the muddle about wireless bridge types and repeaters on
> >the Wiki.
>
> I know it's a muddle. That's why I wrote it. I can't repair what a
> dozen companies marketing departments have abused for years.
>
> What exactly is a "distribution system" and how is it not wireless
> bridging (point to point or point to multipoint)? As far as I'm
> concerned it's *ALL* bridging.
The DS (and WDS) in 802.11 is the set of services that connects access
points together, that keeps track of which station is associated with
which access point and for delivering frames appropriately.
> >The F5D7330 bridge/game adapter is connected by a cable to the
> >X-box's/computer's ethernet port and "from/to cable" is trafik between
> >bridge/game adapter and the X-box/computer on cable. The wireless
> >bridge/gaming adapter does not decide anything, it just passes all
> >packets.
>
> Amazing. So your Belkin F5D7330 passes *ALL* the traffic it sees on
> the ethernet port? None of my client bridges work that way. If that
> were true, it would be more like a wireless "hub" (what the RFC's call
> a repeater). What goes in one port, comes out the others. The
> wireless side of the system would be saturated with useless packets
> with no useful destination. The authors of IEEE 802.11 are not
> stupid. They made 802.11 a bridging function that's quite a bit
> smarter about what gets transmitted. The wireless transmitter only
> belches data if there's a destination MAC address in the packet on the
> other side of the bridge.
Why is this amazing? A PCI or PCMCIA wirelse adapter does the same; pass
all traffic. A bridge/gaming adapter (like the F5D7330) is just a
wireless adapter that connects to an ethernet port.
(Just a thought. I wonder if it were possible to simulate something like
this with Windows internet connection sharing on a PC? On a PC with both
an ethernet- and wireless adapter)
In this case the traffic on the hub (half duplex, 3 ports in use) is
transmitting packets at less than 3 Mbps to the F5D7330. The F5D7330
(and the TEW-510APB access point) is 802.11g and capable of 5 to 10
times this rate.
However, this is something one should certainly be aware of as fare as
performance is concerned when considering using a bridge/gaming adapter
like the F5D7330 to connect LANs.
> >Why would a wireless adapter, that is supposed to connect to only _one_
> >RJ45 jack and give say an X-box a wireless connection to an access point
> >be concerned about MAC addresses?
>
> So it know what to send across the bridge. That's how an ethernet and
> how a wireless bridge works. I'll make it simple for you. If you
> setup your access point and your client bridge, and hide them inside a
> closed black box exposing only the ethernet ports, the black box would
> have 2 ethernet ports and act EXACTLY like an ethernet bridge (also
> known as a 2 port ethernet switch).
A bridge/gaming adapter doesn't have to know what to send, because it
resends every packet it receives on the cable on to the associated
access point. Just like a PCI/PCMCIA card does.
> >> Correct. It passes all 802.11 packets. It does NOT pass all 802.3
> >> ethernet packets. Only those 802.3 packets with destination MAC
> >> addresses that are across the bridge are encapsulated into 802.11
> >> packets and transmitted.
> >
> >Which is all packets that the bridge/game adapter receives.
>
> Nope. Not all packets. See definition of ethernet bridge.
: Some bridges re-transmit every packet on the opposite port whether or
: not the packet is heading to a station located on the opposite
: network.
There is also a link to "Wireless LAN Distribution Systems" and farther
down the page there is a section about "Bridges vs. Access Points".
> >Now you are talking about WDS (a distribution system) and
> >repeaters/extenders.
>
> No, you are. WDS has nothing to do with what I'm trying to hammer
> into your thick skull.
Yes, because WDS and DS are all about MAC addresses.
> >> Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. Take your ethernet hub. Plug in two
> >> ethernet connected computers. Connect a wireless client adapter to
> >> the hub. Setup a wireless connection to your access point or wireless
> >> router and eventually to the internet. Verify that both computers can
> >> talk to the internet and to each other. Now, copy a mess of files
> >> between the two computers. The wireless client adapter ethernet port
> >> will see all this traffic. Note that the traffic does NOT cross the
> >> wireless bridge to the access point or wireless router.
> >
> >Have you actually tried this with a bridge/game adapter, like the
> >F5D7330?
>
> Of course. Literally hundreds of times. In a past consulting job, I
> was very concerned about encapsulation and traffic efficiency. If it
> didn't work that way, I would have had a big problem.
>
> My desktop is temporarily connected to my network with a wireless
> client bridge (DLink DWL-900AP+ ver B1). I'm setting it up for a
> neighbor. I just stuck a 10baseT hub in between my desktop and the
> DWL-900AP+ so I can plug in my laptop. I just copied a mess of MP3's
> between the two machines. I'm also running continuous IPerf speed
> tests to see if QoS works. (It doesn't). There is very little
> traffic on the wireless link. It's mostly the SNMP monitor traffic on
> the WRT54GS v4 (new router), which shows only a few DNS lookups and
> hardly any other traffic. Certainly not the 600MBytes of MP3's I just
> copied.
The DLink DWL-900AP+ ver B1 is a repeater! WDS and all that (keeps track
of MAC addresses).
> >I did and the activity light i the F5D7330 indicated that the
> >bridge/gaming adapter was also (along with the hub) sending packets.
>
> Try the traffic monitor on your router instead. It won't show much
> traffic. I think (not sure) that the activity light on the Belkin
> F5D7330 bridge will show any packet that hits the ethernet port.
> That's going to happen with the hub you're using. If you replace it
> with an ethernet switch, you'll see much less flashing lights because
> none of the local traffic has a destination across the wireless
> bridge.
The traffic never reaches the router. The AP drops all frames, because
they are (MAC) addressed (802.3) to the other computer connected to the
hub.
> >However, there was no activity in the light on the access point. This
> >could be/probably is because the light there flashes when the access
> >point (part of the destribution system) is sending packets down the wire
> >to the switch in the router.
>
> Yes, that's probably correct. Does the access point have an IP
> traffic counter? Better yet, does it do SNMP which will certainly
> have traffic counters (in and out).
It may have some sort of SNMP capability. I'll check up on that.
> >What is probably happening, is that the access point receives the
> >wireless packet from the F5D7330, unencrypts (we are using WPA-TKIP) and
> >strips the 802.11 encapsulations from the packet and after examining the
> >802.3 packet, drops the packet because the 802.3 MAC address doesn't
> >match any station known to the access point (the access point doing the
> >distribution system bit). Therefor, no activity in the light.
>
> Nope. See my explanation. The important point is that the wireless
> bridge (i.e. transmitter/receiver) does not pass anything unless it
> has a destination MAC address on the other end of the wireless link.
Which is precisely what the F5D7330 has; the MAC address of the AP to
which it is associated. The only MAC address it knows about on the
wireless link.
I know this has been beaten to death, but one more question.
The AMBIT wireless router only has 4 IP's available due to the way time
warner configures the box.
I'm running out of IP space due to print server and a few pc's being
used.
If I use a wireless bridge with just an AP attached to it, then the
Ambit wireless router will assign the pc client which is listening to
the AP an ip.
If I have two pc clients listening to the AP, then the Ambit wireless
router will assign two ips.
If I replace the AP with another wireless router then I should be
allowed to use multiple pc clients which are now talking to the
wireless router which is attached to the bridge.
The new wireless router will get an ip assigned by the Ambit wireless
router and only one ip will be used at the Ambit wireless router.
I should be able to attach as many clients to the second wireless
router as ip's allowed and the clients will use the ip's assigned by
the new router.
>>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.
>>To summerise: a bridge/gaming adapter doesn't care about the connected
>>computers MAC addresses. It just passes packets along, like a cable.
>
>Wrong. It should only pass packets with a destination MAC address on
>the other side of the bridge. That's called bridging. It does NOT
>pass all packets. If it did, it would be polluted by all kinds of
>junk LAN traffic. 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.
Strictly speaking, a bridge _filters_ packets based on MAC addresses and
ports (network topology). Low end bridges are generally limited in the
number of MAC addresses they can handle at a given time, although they
can in theory recycle remembered MAC addresses.
--
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 Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:40 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hqwoxi.mjiooo1bdw1joN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>> John Navas didn't test all of the items mentioned.
>
>If only he to would use 802.11 terms.
I use terms that I think are most meaningful to the intended audience.
>In the Wireless_Ethernet_Bridges
>part he uses something called "multi" (MAC addressing?) and by the looks
>of it, he is really talking about repeaters and not bridges/gaming
>adapters.
Not true. Read more carefully, especially the first two items in
"Wireless Bridge Types" and the Note under "Wireless Ethernet Bridges".
--
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>
>> Amazing. So your Belkin F5D7330 passes *ALL* the traffic it sees on
>> the ethernet port? None of my client bridges work that way. If that
>> were true, it would be more like a wireless "hub" (what the RFC's call
>> a repeater). What goes in one port, comes out the others. The
>> wireless side of the system would be saturated with useless packets
>> with no useful destination. The authors of IEEE 802.11 are not
>> stupid. They made 802.11 a bridging function that's quite a bit
>> smarter about what gets transmitted. The wireless transmitter only
>> belches data if there's a destination MAC address in the packet on the
>> other side of the bridge.
Mindlessly passing all traffic (instead of true bridging) would be a
horrible abomination!
>Why is this amazing? A PCI or PCMCIA wirelse adapter does the same; pass
>all traffic.
Those are adapters, not bridges, and that's what they are supposed to
do. A network bridge is an entirely different animal.
>A bridge/gaming adapter (like the F5D7330) is just a
>wireless adapter that connects to an ethernet port.
Only if it's a client adapter, not a network bridge. But see
<http://cache-www.belkin.com/support/dl/F5D7330_Manual.PDF>:
802.11g Wireless
ETHERNET BRIDGE
[emphasis added]
The term "bridge" is used nearly 100 times in that document.
>(Just a thought. I wonder if it were possible to simulate something like
>this with Windows internet connection sharing on a PC? On a PC with both
>an ethernet- and wireless adapter)
Windows ICS is routing, not bridging. Network Bridging is a separate
Windows feature.
>In this case the traffic on the hub (half duplex, 3 ports in use) is
>transmitting packets at less than 3 Mbps to the F5D7330. The F5D7330
>(and the TEW-510APB access point) is 802.11g and capable of 5 to 10
>times this rate.
Irrelevant. It may be sharing that wireless bandwidth with many other
devices.
>A bridge/gaming adapter doesn't have to know what to send, because it
>resends every packet it receives on the cable on to the associated
>access point. Just like a PCI/PCMCIA card does.
You think? Or do you have something (anything) to back that up?
--
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 21 Dec 2006 16:29:54 -0800, "dave" <bonanzaman@gmail.com> wrote in
<1166747394.446746.23530@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.c om>:
>Anybody use the Airlink101 AP311w?
>It claims that it's universal.
There is no such thing in a literal sense. At most it's more
"universal" than some others.
--
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>
>> 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.
>> 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.
>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.
>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". ;)
>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!
--
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 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>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.
>> 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.
>> 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..." :)
--
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 26 Dec 2006 16:07:44 -0800, "dave" <bonanzaman@gmail.com> wrote in
<1167178064.378133.178270@79g2000cws.googlegroups. com>:
>I know this has been beaten to death, but one more question.
>The AMBIT wireless router only has 4 IP's available due to the way time
>warner configures the box.
>I'm running out of IP space due to print server and a few pc's being
>used.
>
>If I use a wireless bridge with just an AP attached to it, then the
>Ambit wireless router will assign the pc client which is listening to
>the AP an ip.
>If I have two pc clients listening to the AP, then the Ambit wireless
>router will assign two ips.
>
>If I replace the AP with another wireless router then I should be
>allowed to use multiple pc clients which are now talking to the
>wireless router which is attached to the bridge.
>The new wireless router will get an ip assigned by the Ambit wireless
>router and only one ip will be used at the Ambit wireless router.
>I should be able to attach as many clients to the second wireless
>router as ip's allowed and the clients will use the ip's assigned by
>the new router.
>
>Am I correct in my assumptions.
Yes. The caveat in the last (router) case is that you would probably be
running "double NAT", which can be problematic.
--
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>
>
> I don't see "distribution system" in any of the IEEE docs. I also
> don't see it in any of the commercial offerings. WDS is close, but
> obviously not involved here. What exactly is a "distribution system"
> and how is it not wireless bridging (point to point or point to
> multipoint)? As far as I'm concerned it's *ALL* bridging.
Probaly becuase the Distribution system is assumed to be a wired
network - certainly thats how Cisco use the term the DS connects the
BSS's to form an ESS.
Though Cisco do some nice looking kit (1500's) that uses wifi to
provide a meshed 's DS
> 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.
: 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.
> 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?
> >> 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.
> >> 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!
> >> 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.
> >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.
> >> 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.
> >> 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.
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:34:37 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hqyiuh.whjp076e7lpqN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
<snip>
> >A bridge/gaming adapter doesn't have to know what to send, because it
> >resends every packet it receives on the cable on to the associated
> >access point. Just like a PCI/PCMCIA card does.
>
> You think? Or do you have something (anything) to back that up?
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:53:02 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hrc2oy.1as2wgu6hjb55N%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:34:37 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
>> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hqyiuh.whjp076e7lpqN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>
><snip>
>
>> >A bridge/gaming adapter doesn't have to know what to send, because it
>> >resends every packet it receives on the cable on to the associated
>> >access point. Just like a PCI/PCMCIA card does.
>>
>> You think? Or do you have something (anything) to back that up?
>
>It's in the part you snipped.
Not that I could find. Care to clue me in?
--
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 22:37:33 +0000 (UTC), dold@05.usenet.us.com wrote in
<enemrd$9gj$2@blue.rahul.net>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes. The caveat in the last (router) case is that you would probably be
>> running "double NAT", which can be problematic.
>
>Double-NAT shouldn't affect the new PCs connections to the internet.
It's the usability of those connections that can be problematic.
>Connecting in to them from the internet for gaming or services would be
>complicated, maybe not possible.
Likewise outbound, because some services depend on making inbound
connection(s).
--
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>
Wireless repeater 
Linear Mode
