I have a short question. I am using router pentagram cerberus:
WAN: ADSL RJ-11
LAN: 4X ethernet RJ-45
Wireless Access point
I changed ISP and now I have internet connection via ethernet. I am
wondering if i am able to use my router. I am wondering if it is
possible to connect ISP ethernet to LAN RJ-45, and set up router AP as
simple reapeter. I want to have wireless connection, i don't need to
connect more PC's.
Please help me if it possible, or i should bay new router with
ethernet WAN port.
Jacek Ptaszyński <jptaszynski@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a3c88a04-4649-4b76-b6c7-2c527dad5940@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.co
m:
> Hello,
>
> I have a short question. I am using router pentagram cerberus:
> WAN: ADSL RJ-11
> LAN: 4X ethernet RJ-45
> Wireless Access point
>
> I changed ISP and now I have internet connection via ethernet. I
> am wondering if i am able to use my router. I am wondering if it
> is possible to connect ISP ethernet to LAN RJ-45, and set up
> router AP as simple reapeter. I want to have wireless connection,
> i don't need to connect more PC's.
> Please help me if it possible, or i should bay new router with
> ethernet WAN port.
In case you do, you *must* disable your routers DHCP server.
Otherwise your setup will screw up the ISPs whole network.
Your wireless router, connected to the internet by a LAN ethernet
port, will function as an AP - not a repeater - but you *must*
disable the DHCP server!
The other LAN ethernet ports will function as a switch. So you will
also be able to connect your PC by cable, and if your account comes
with more than one public ip-address, you will be able connect up to
3 PCs by cable, and as many as the wireless can handle, to the
internet, up the number of public ip-addresses provided for you by
the ISP.
> In article <Xns9B0CB4471290Ehlexahotmailcom@130.133.1.4>,
> Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In case you do, you *must* disable your routers DHCP server.
> > Otherwise your setup will screw up the ISPs whole network.
>
> ?
You've never used a router as an access point, I gather.
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:48:44 +0200, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) sayd the following:
>Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns9B0CB4471290Ehlexahotmailcom@130.133.1.4>,
>> Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In case you do, you *must* disable your routers DHCP server.
>> > Otherwise your setup will screw up the ISPs whole network.
>>
>> ?
>
>You've never used a router as an access point, I gather.
REPEATER as in the same thing radio stations and EMS do by sending
signals higher to mountains as weak signals and then the signal is
retransmitted at higher wattage?
Those are likely cheap, less than $100, but never heard of a repeater
for a router unless you need a signal for more than say 500-1,000 feet
or more.
>Those are likely cheap, less than $100, but never heard of a repeater
>for a router unless you need a signal for more than say 500-1,000 feet
>or more.
They work quite well, as long as you understand you are trading bandwidth for
range. Unlike repeaters which retrans on a different frequency, wifi repeaters
use the same frequency. So, if you wifi net is 25% saturated, you will be 50%
saturated with a repeater.
>Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns9B0CB4471290Ehlexahotmailcom@130.133.1.4>,
>> Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In case you do, you *must* disable your routers DHCP server.
>> > Otherwise your setup will screw up the ISPs whole network.
>>
>> ?
>
>You've never used a router as an access point, I gather.
I can't believe there's an ISP on the planet that would allow that to
happen. (Referring to the "disable your DHCP server or you'll screw up
the ISPs whole network" comment.)
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:32:06 -0600, Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
sayd the following:
>
>Robert Blass <blame@messenger.xcx> wrote:
>
>>Those are likely cheap, less than $100, but never heard of a repeater
>>for a router unless you need a signal for more than say 500-1,000 feet
>>or more.
>
>They work quite well, as long as you understand you are trading bandwidth for
>range. Unlike repeaters which retrans on a different frequency, wifi repeaters
>use the same frequency. So, if you wifi net is 25% saturated, you will be 50%
>saturated with a repeater.
>>They work quite well, as long as you understand you are trading bandwidth for
>>range. Unlike repeaters which retrans on a different frequency, wifi repeaters
>>use the same frequency. So, if you wifi net is 25% saturated, you will be 50%
>>saturated with a repeater.
>
>That sounds like fail city.
Why? As I said, they work very well as long as you know how they work and what
your network utilization is. I used one in a rural campus environment (actually
a ranch), where it wasn't possible to do a direct line of sight between two
buildings about 2000' apart.
There was a third building that both buildings could see, roughly in the middle
(think triangle). We put a repeater there and everything worked fine.
Jacek Ptaszynski wrote:
> I changed ISP and now I have internet connection via ethernet. I am
> wondering if i am able to use my router. I am wondering if it is
> possible to connect ISP ethernet to LAN RJ-45, and set up router AP as
> simple reapeter. I want to have wireless connection, i don't need to
> connect more PC's.
> Please help me if it possible, or i should bay new router with
> ethernet WAN port.
As I understand it, you have a new DSL internet connection and
want to connect a computer to it via wireless.
Very simply done. A standard Linksys WRT54G for under $60
available almost anywhere will work. The built in discovery
process will make it very easy. Simply connect the DSL modem's
ethernet jack to the Linksys' WAN jack. The wireless connection will
be functionally identical to the four LAN ports.
Axel's response about turning off the DHCP server is incorrect.
Granted if you were to connect one of the four DHCP'ed LAN ports of
a hub or switch directly to the DSL modem, it will create some
problems for you (it would not create a problem on the DSL network
as the DSLAM ports are on a switch to protect their network from such
problems).
Notice he said "you must disable your routers DHCP server". That means
he's talking about a router, which be definition would have a WAN port
connected to the ISP's network and at least one LAN port, which can most
certainly be driven by a DHCP server.
He did bring up the point about an ISP selling you multiple IP addresses
as a profit avenue, but that was over ten years ago, before consumers
discovered they could use a router to connect multiple computers to
their DSL (or cable modem) service.
Robert Blass added brought up repeaters. Generally speaking, we can
define that four ways.
1) A two way radio system repeater receives a signal on one frequency
and transmits it back out on a different frequency in real time.
2) A consumer grade wireless device that receives a chunk of data and
stores it, then turns off the receiver and turns on the transmitter and
transmits it on the same frequency. Store and forward repeaters cut your
overall speed in half.
3) A commercial grade wireless device that uses both a transmitter and
separate receiver for full duplex operation without halving your
connection speed.
4) A generalized non-specific description that technically uninformed
people use to describe transmitting, connecting, sending, etc. any sort
of signal.
Robert Neville described a consumer grade store-and-forward wireless
repeater that operate on e single frequency. Commercial grade wireless
repeaters use two frequencies.
On ma, 01 sep 2008 23:43:27 GMT, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote
in alt.internet.wireless:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:48:44 +0200, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>
>>Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <Xns9B0CB4471290Ehlexahotmailcom@130.133.1.4>,
>>> Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In case you do, you *must* disable your routers DHCP server.
>>> > Otherwise your setup will screw up the ISPs whole network.
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> You've never used a router as an access point, I gather.
>
> I can't believe there's an ISP on the planet that would allow that to
> happen. (Referring to the "disable your DHCP server or you'll screw up
> the ISPs whole network" comment.)
No, the ISP will cut the connection. And that's why:"disable your DHCP
server or you'll screw up the ISPs whole network"
On ti, 02 sep 2008 03:48:38 GMT, DTC <DTC_no_spam@example.com> wrote in
alt.internet.wireless:
<snip>
> Axel's response about turning off the DHCP server is incorrect.
> Granted if you were to connect one of the four DHCP'ed LAN ports of
> a hub or switch directly to the DSL modem, it will create some
> problems for you (it would not create a problem on the DSL network
> as the DSLAM ports are on a switch to protect their network from such
> problems).
We know nothing about the ISP's network, except that it (now!) connect
via ethernet.
A wireless router, that functions as an AP does not need a DHCP server.
So turn off the router's DHCP server!
<snip>
> Notice he said "you must disable your routers DHCP server". That means
> he's talking about a router, which be definition would have a WAN port
> connected to the ISP's network and at least one LAN port, which can
> most certainly be driven by a DHCP server.
His present wireless router has a RJ11 WAN port - you obviously didn't
read the post. The OP wants to use it as an AP. The repeater bit is
probably a misunderstanding.
<snip>
> 4) A generalized non-specific description that technically uninformed
> people use to describe transmitting, connecting, sending, etc. any
> sort of signal.
On 2 Sep 2008 13:51:51 GMT, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On ma, 01 sep 2008 23:43:27 GMT, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote
>in alt.internet.wireless:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:48:44 +0200, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
>> Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>>
>>>Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <Xns9B0CB4471290Ehlexahotmailcom@130.133.1.4>,
>>>> Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In case you do, you *must* disable your routers DHCP server.
>>>> > Otherwise your setup will screw up the ISPs whole network.
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> You've never used a router as an access point, I gather.
>>
>> I can't believe there's an ISP on the planet that would allow that to
>> happen. (Referring to the "disable your DHCP server or you'll screw up
>> the ISPs whole network" comment.)
>
>No, the ISP will cut the connection. And that's why:"disable your DHCP
>server or you'll screw up the ISPs whole network"
Let me put it a different way. I can't believe there's an ISP on the
planet that cares whether you turn off your DHCP server or not.
(Now just watch, someone, somewhere, will report that there's a small
mom-and-pop ISP somewhere in the backwoods that hasn't figured out how
to protect itself against rogue DHCP servers.)
On ti, 02 sep 2008 14:27:45 GMT, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote in
alt.internet.wireless:
<snip>
> Let me put it a different way. I can't believe there's an ISP on the
> planet that cares whether you turn off your DHCP server or not.
Repeat after me: an AP does not need a DHCP server.
Thank you!
> (Now just watch, someone, somewhere, will report that there's a small
> mom-and-pop ISP somewhere in the backwoods that hasn't figured out how
> to protect itself against rogue DHCP servers.)
On ti, 02 sep 2008 03:25:59 GMT, Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> wrote
in alt.internet.wireless:
<snip>
> As I said, they work very well as long as you know how they work
> and what your network utilization is. I used one in a rural campus
> environment (actually a ranch), where it wasn't possible to do a
> direct line of sight between two buildings about 2000' apart.
>
> There was a third building that both buildings could see, roughly in
> the middle (think triangle). We put a repeater there and everything
> worked fine.
Axel Hammerschmidt wrote:
>
>> (Now just watch, someone, somewhere, will report that there's a small
>> mom-and-pop ISP somewhere in the backwoods that hasn't figured out
>> how to protect itself against rogue DHCP servers.)
>
> You were wrong, again.
Why? Do you know of any non mom or pop isp's that are vulnerable?
On 2 Sep 2008 14:36:04 GMT, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On ti, 02 sep 2008 14:27:45 GMT, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote in
>alt.internet.wireless:
>
><snip>
>
>> Let me put it a different way. I can't believe there's an ISP on the
>> planet that cares whether you turn off your DHCP server or not.
>
>Repeat after me: an AP does not need a DHCP server.
Nice drift, but I was responding to your claim that failing to disable
a DHCP server in this scenario would screw up the ISP's network.
You've failed to support your claim.
Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote in
news:2rfrb4ltgpms1o652119pprm9rd0kqitev@4ax.com:
> On 2 Sep 2008 14:36:04 GMT, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On ti, 02 sep 2008 14:27:45 GMT, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>>wrote in alt.internet.wireless:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Let me put it a different way. I can't believe there's an ISP on
>>> the planet that cares whether you turn off your DHCP server or
>>> not.
>>
>> Repeat after me: an AP does not need a DHCP server.
>
> Nice drift, but I was responding to your claim that failing to
> disable a DHCP server in this scenario would screw up the ISP's
> network. You've failed to support your claim.
You know nothing about ISPs in Poland. Giving your kind of advice -
connecting a NAT gateway to the ISP's network by a LAN port without
disabling the DHCP server - is downright irresponsible.
Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote in
news:2rfrb4ltgpms1o652119pprm9rd0kqitev@4ax.com:
> On 2 Sep 2008 14:36:04 GMT, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On ti, 02 sep 2008 14:27:45 GMT, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>>wrote in alt.internet.wireless:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Let me put it a different way. I can't believe there's an ISP on
>>> the planet that cares whether you turn off your DHCP server or
>>> not.
>>
>> Repeat after me: an AP does not need a DHCP server.
>
> Nice drift, but I was responding to your claim that failing to
> disable a DHCP server in this scenario would screw up the ISP's
> network. You've failed to support your claim.
You know nothing about ISPs in Poland. Giving your kind of advice -
connecting a NAT gateway to the ISP's network by a LAN port without
disabling the DHCP server - is downright irresponsible.
On 3 Sep 2008 15:43:18 GMT, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote in
>news:2rfrb4ltgpms1o652119pprm9rd0kqitev@4ax.com :
>
>> On 2 Sep 2008 14:36:04 GMT, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On ti, 02 sep 2008 14:27:45 GMT, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>>>wrote in alt.internet.wireless:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Let me put it a different way. I can't believe there's an ISP on
>>>> the planet that cares whether you turn off your DHCP server or
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> Repeat after me: an AP does not need a DHCP server.
>>
>> Nice drift, but I was responding to your claim that failing to
>> disable a DHCP server in this scenario would screw up the ISP's
>> network. You've failed to support your claim.
>
>You know nothing about ISPs in Poland. Giving your kind of advice -
>connecting a NAT gateway to the ISP's network by a LAN port without
>disabling the DHCP server - is downright irresponsible.
You're right, I know nothing about ISPs in Poland, but if what you're
saying is true, the "downright irresponsible" part belongs solely with
the ISP for not knowing how to architect and manage their network, not
with the customer.
For the record, I never advocated connecting any kind of device to an
ISP without disabling its WAN-facing DHCP server. I only said doing so
wouldn't, or SHOULDN'T, cause any issues for the ISP. Your statement
that I somehow gave advice to the contrary is false.
> Axel Hammerschmidt wrote:
> > His present wireless router has a RJ11 WAN port - you obviously didn't
> > read the post.
>
> I assumed he was referring to the telco DSL side, which would have an
> RJ-11, the DSL modem's WAN side would not have an RJ-45 jack.
Some people doen't have telcos.
My line is connected to the ISP's router's (ZyXEL P2602R) RJ-11 WAN
port. There's no modem - or the "modem" is built in. The router speaks
PPPoA.
This particular router doesn't have wireless, and has only one RJ-45 LAN
port. I have an external switch on the LAN side. But models do exist
with both wireless and 4 port RJ-45 switches on the LAN side. When the
DHCP server is switched off, these will function the same way as a 4
port switch and an AP.
My landline phone is connected to the router, which speaks VoIP.
>In article <Xns9B0EB449B6AEBhlexahotmailcom@130.133.1.4>,
> Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You know nothing about ISPs in Poland.
>
>For which I am constantly thankful.
Hopefully, you are intermittently thankful as I don't think I could
handle the continuous duty cycle of being constantly thanked.
The largest ISP in Poland is Netia, which has been buying smaller
ISP's since its founding in 1998. Netia currently has about 300,000
broadband customers. They deliver access via just about any form of
connectivity you can imagine, including metro ethernet, WiMax and
fiber. Netia also supplies voice (POTS) service to about 500,000
customers.
<http://www.netia.pl/en/>
There's also Polish Telcom (Telekomunikacja Polska - TP) at tp.pl,
which was government once owned and operated. About a year ago, they
were directly responsible for 7.4% of the worlds spam mail, mostly due
to uncontrolled bot nets on their systems. tp.pl was bought by France
Telecom, who cleaned house.
<http://www.tp.pl>
<http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/04/dirtydozapr07.html>
I think it's a fair assumption that both of these large ISP's have a
clue on how to setup their networks.
>My line is connected to the ISP's router's (ZyXEL P2602R) RJ-11 WAN
>port. There's no modem - or the "modem" is built in. The router speaks
>PPPoA.
The Zyxel P2602R has a built in ADSL/ADSL2/ADSL2+ modem.
<http://www.zyxel.com/web/product_family_detail.php?PC1indexflag=20040520161 246&CategoryGroupNo=63947C25-BF1B-48ED-A038-AC0D196F4622&display=6255>
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:0o8ub4lkcpq4e92f9k5lu862l2kba75k62@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 22:01:07 +0200, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>
>> My line is connected to the ISP's router's (ZyXEL P2602R) RJ-11 WAN
>> port. There's no modem - or the "modem" is built in. The router
>> speaks PPPoA.
>
> The Zyxel P2602R has a built in ADSL/ADSL2/ADSL2+ modem.
What does the modem do?
--
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.
Axel Hammerschmidt wrote:
>>> My line is connected to the ISP's router's (ZyXEL P2602R) RJ-11 WAN
>>> port. There's no modem - or the "modem" is built in. The router
>>> speaks PPPoA.
>> The Zyxel P2602R has a built in ADSL/ADSL2/ADSL2+ modem.
>
> What does the modem do?
Modem - short for Modulator/Demodulator. Used to convert a digital
data signal into an analog audio signal, and to covert audio back
to digital.
DSL - Digital Subscriber Line. Telephone company (the telco) name for
high speed data communications that uses an analog audio signal. The
audio signal was far above human hearing, in the 25 KHz to
1100 KHz range.
DSL modem - Connects to the telephone line with an RJ-11 jack and the
output of the modem was an 8-pin ethernet jack, often erroneously
called an RJ-45 jack because of its modular form factor. Before home
networking was popular, the modem was set as a bridge and the telco
assigned an IP address to the computer connected to the modem.
These IP addresses were generated by the telco's router that
connected to a switch, and then to the DSLAM modem. The switch
isolated the subscribers - for that reason, if a subscriber
connected a DHCP server to their DSL modem, it would not pass
traffic to other subscribers; therefore it *would not screw up the
ISPs whole network*.
DTC <DTC_no_spam@example.com> wrote in
news:%3Svk.18960$LG4.13966@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:
<snip: bla bla bla>
> The switch isolated the subscribers - for that reason, if a
> subscriber connected a DHCP server to their DSL modem, it would
> not pass traffic to other subscribers; therefore it *would not
> screw up the ISPs whole network*.
You really should re-read what the OP wrote:
"I changed ISP and now I have internet connection via ethernet."
This ISP or "internet connection" could be anything including a
shared flat, a dorm etc with a simpel gateway/router using a DHCP
server.
On 4 Sep 2008 15:17:16 GMT, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>DTC <DTC_no_spam@example.com> wrote in
>news:%3Svk.18960$LG4.13966@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com :
>
><snip: bla bla bla>
>
>> The switch isolated the subscribers - for that reason, if a
>> subscriber connected a DHCP server to their DSL modem, it would
>> not pass traffic to other subscribers; therefore it *would not
>> screw up the ISPs whole network*.
>
>You really should re-read what the OP wrote:
>
>"I changed ISP and now I have internet connection via ethernet."
>
>This ISP or "internet connection" could be anything including a
>shared flat, a dorm etc with a simpel gateway/router using a DHCP
>server.
In the post that started this thread, the OP wrote:
>I am using router pentagram cerberus:
>WAN: ADSL RJ-11
>LAN: 4X ethernet RJ-45
>Wireless Access point
The WAN line indicates that he is using DSL, and his DSL modem is
connected to the ISP via standard RJ-11 telco jack. It's only the LAN
side of his DSL modem that has Ethernet. The OP was asking if he can
attach a repeater or access point to the LAN side of his DSL modem,
and that's when the part about DHCP screwing up the ISP's network
(incorrectly) came up.
Wireless repeater 
Linear Mode
