1:54 a.m.
Is it possible to have two access points on a network? I'm trying to use a
D-Link G700AP as a substitute for a WIFI card. Maybe it can't be done and I'm
wasting my time.
Topology is: Wireless broadband comes into my house through radio; radio has a
LAN port which connects to my WAN nic; my LAN nic is connected to a D-Link
G700AP - various PC's throughout my house connect via WIFI to this AP, and
all works well.
For reasons not worth going into in great detail, I'm trying to replace one
connection from a remote PC, which is using a Microsoft wireless USB device
that is useless in a Linux environment; I have this second D-Link G700AP, and
I was hoping it could be used in place of the Microsoft device.
I've set the SSID on the secondary AP to the same value as the one on my
primary access point.
I've assigned it a unique address in the same subnet as the first AP.
I've set my primary AP address as the gateway for the secondary one.
From my machine connected to the secondary AP by cat5 cable, I can
ping that
AP, so the connection there is fine. But, I can't ping the primary
AP.
Channels are the same, encryption is turned off on both. Am I engaged in a
fallacy of composition, or can this be done?
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
2:01 a.m.
On Sun January 29 2006 2:54 am, Claude Jones wrote:
Topology is: Wireless broadband comes into my house through radio;
radio
has a LAN port which connects to my WAN nic; my LAN nic is connected to a
D-Link G700AP - various PC's throughout my house connect via WIFI to this
AP, and all works well.
Additional detail: the box that my broadband is connected to is an FC4 box.
It's acting as router and doing DHCP for the LAN. The machines on the LAN are
all Windows boxes, though slowly being changed over to Linux. That's why I
need to dump the Microsoft USB WIFI nic.
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
10:55 a.m.
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 02:01, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sun January 29 2006 2:54 am, Claude Jones wrote:
> Topology is: Wireless broadband comes into my house through radio; radio
> has a LAN port which connects to my WAN nic; my LAN nic is connected to a
> D-Link G700AP - various PC's throughout my house connect via WIFI to this
> AP, and all works well.
Additional detail: the box that my broadband is connected to is an FC4 box.
It's acting as router and doing DHCP for the LAN. The machines on the LAN are
all Windows boxes, though slowly being changed over to Linux. That's why I
need to dump the Microsoft USB WIFI nic.
The home combo router/ap/switch boxes are so cheap these
days that it is probably not worth the effort to use
anything else. In fact if you need a second access
point the cheapest way to do it may be to get a
pair of routers, connect by ethernet on the switch
side, and disable the WAN side of the 2nd unit.
If you shop for closeouts/rebates you might find
them for around $20.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
11:14 a.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
The home combo router/ap/switch boxes are so cheap these
days that it is probably not worth the effort to use
anything else. In fact if you need a second access
point the cheapest way to do it may be to get a
pair of routers, connect by ethernet on the switch
side, and disable the WAN side of the 2nd unit.
If you shop for closeouts/rebates you might find
them for around $20.
If you get one that has the bridge mode, you don't have to
disable the WAN side, and you get one extra port out of the
deal. The problem the OP has is that most will not act as
a wireless bridge, with the wireless connection being a
NIC and not an AP. You end up having to spend a bit more
for one that will do that, or buying a wireless bridge.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
11:39 a.m.
On Sun January 29 2006 12:14 pm, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
If you get one that has the bridge mode, you don't have to
disable the WAN side, and you get one extra port out of the
deal. The problem the OP has is that most will not act as
a wireless bridge, with the wireless connection being a
NIC and not an AP. You end up having to spend a bit more
for one that will do that, or buying a wireless bridge.
Can I get a consensus from you guys that this would work?
http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=292
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
11:57 a.m.
Claude Jones wrote:
On Sun January 29 2006 12:14 pm, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> If you get one that has the bridge mode, you don't have to
> disable the WAN side, and you get one extra port out of the
> deal. The problem the OP has is that most will not act as
> a wireless bridge, with the wireless connection being a
> NIC and not an AP. You end up having to spend a bit more
> for one that will do that, or buying a wireless bridge.
Can I get a consensus from you guys that this would work?
http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=292
Bridge mode on the 2100 works between a pair of 2100 s
If you just need a bridge how about the wet54gs from Linksys
John
12:03 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 11:14, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>
> The home combo router/ap/switch boxes are so cheap these
> days that it is probably not worth the effort to use
> anything else. In fact if you need a second access
> point the cheapest way to do it may be to get a
> pair of routers, connect by ethernet on the switch
> side, and disable the WAN side of the 2nd unit.
> If you shop for closeouts/rebates you might find
> them for around $20.
>
If you get one that has the bridge mode, you don't have to
disable the WAN side, and you get one extra port out of the
deal. The problem the OP has is that most will not act as
a wireless bridge, with the wireless connection being a
NIC and not an AP. You end up having to spend a bit more
for one that will do that, or buying a wireless bridge.
When you run a pair in wireless bridge mode, do they
still work as access points for additional devices?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
12:25 p.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 11:14, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>> The home combo router/ap/switch boxes are so cheap these
>> days that it is probably not worth the effort to use
>> anything else. In fact if you need a second access
>> point the cheapest way to do it may be to get a
>> pair of routers, connect by ethernet on the switch
>> side, and disable the WAN side of the 2nd unit.
>> If you shop for closeouts/rebates you might find
>> them for around $20.
>>
> If you get one that has the bridge mode, you don't have to
> disable the WAN side, and you get one extra port out of the
> deal. The problem the OP has is that most will not act as
> a wireless bridge, with the wireless connection being a
> NIC and not an AP. You end up having to spend a bit more
> for one that will do that, or buying a wireless bridge.
When you run a pair in wireless bridge mode, do they
still work as access points for additional devices?
When they act as a bridge they don't allow connection via clients
John
8:36 a.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Additional detail: the box that my broadband is connected to is
an FC4
> box. It's acting as router and doing DHCP for the LAN. The machines on
> the LAN are all Windows boxes, though slowly being changed over to Linux.
> That's why I need to dump the Microsoft USB WIFI nic.
The home combo router/ap/switch boxes are so cheap these
days that it is probably not worth the effort to use
anything else. In fact if you need a second access
point the cheapest way to do it may be to get a
pair of routers, connect by ethernet on the switch
side, and disable the WAN side of the 2nd unit.
If you shop for closeouts/rebates you might find
them for around $20.
I'm not sure what you mean by a home combo router/ap/switch box.
Could you give an example (or two) please.
I've found this thread very confusing.
Would it not be easier for the OP to use an ordinary WiFi card
in his MS machine?
What is the point of having a second AP?
Nb I'm no expert on WiFi, as may be obvious.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
8:47 a.m.
On Mon January 30 2006 9:36 am, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I've found this thread very confusing.
Probably, because you didn't follow the whole thread ;-)
Would it not be easier for the OP to use an ordinary WiFi card
in his MS machine?
What is the point of having a second AP?
Nb I'm no expert on WiFi, as may be obvious.
As the OP, the issue I defined at the outset was that I had to dump a
Microsoft model USB NIC; I had available, an Access Point - hence, the
subject line "can an access point connect through an access point?" There was
no point to having a second AP - I was merely inquiring as to whether I could
use it.
Actually, though a bit confusing, the thread has served to clarify a number of
lingering questions for me regarding the architecture of the various devices,
so, even though the answer to my original question is "probably not", the
discussion has been useful.
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
8:59 a.m.
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Additional detail: the box that my broadband is connected to is an FC4
>> box. It's acting as router and doing DHCP for the LAN. The machines on
>> the LAN are all Windows boxes, though slowly being changed over to Linux.
>> That's why I need to dump the Microsoft USB WIFI nic.
> The home combo router/ap/switch boxes are so cheap these
> days that it is probably not worth the effort to use
> anything else. In fact if you need a second access
> point the cheapest way to do it may be to get a
> pair of routers, connect by ethernet on the switch
> side, and disable the WAN side of the 2nd unit.
> If you shop for closeouts/rebates you might find
> them for around $20.
I'm not sure what you mean by a home combo router/ap/switch box.
Could you give an example (or two) please.
WRT54G/WRT54GS/WRT54GL or a BEFW11S4.
Typically much of the WAP's being sold have all 3 functions
built into them. You know you have a switch if you have at least
4 Ethernet ports in a row (I've not seen them with less), with
router functionality you add a Internet Ethernet port (or DSL
or cable modem for the all in on devices), the AP is obvious
as it has 1 or more antenna.
There will be exceptions, of course.
What is the point of having a second AP?
To bridge a second Ethernet to the main Ethernet. An example
is; in your living room you have a Tivo, a PS3 and another
networked device. Instead of having 3 devices with wireless
adapters you could have the 3 devices hard wired (Ethernet)
to a wireless bridge (the 2 WAP setup as a wireless bridge).
The Wireless bridge would then have a wireless connection to
the WAP which would then have a connection to local servers
(if any) and the Internet.
I've found this thread very confusing.
Nb I'm no expert on WiFi, as may be obvious.
Welcome to the wonderful world of network, where everything
becomes a blur, especially the technology.
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry(a)linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
4:03 a.m.
On Sunday 29 Jan 2006 07:54, Claude Jones wrote:
Topology is: Wireless broadband comes into my house through radio;
radio has a LAN port which connects to my WAN nic; my LAN nic is
connected to a D-Link G700AP - various PC's throughout my house
connect via WIFI to this AP, and all works well.
<snip>
I've set the SSID on the secondary AP to the same value as the
one on
my primary access point.
I've assigned it a unique address in the same subnet as the first AP.
I've set my primary AP address as the gateway for the secondary one.
>From my machine connected to the secondary AP by cat5 cable, I can
> ping that
AP, so the connection there is fine. But, I can't ping the primary
AP. Channels are the same, encryption is turned off on both. Am I
engaged in a fallacy of composition, or can this be done?
I recently extended my lan by adding a router/AP, and my setup sounds
very similar to yours. The point at which there may be a difference,
is that I used a cat5 connection to the router, using one of the lan
points. The router then acts as a switch, rather than a router. I can
use either cabled or wireless access from the router, and access the
original router (also cabled + wireless) from any box or laptop.
It was the point of not using the external connection on the second AP
that was the clincher for getting it to work for me. I'm told that
there are other, possibly better, methods involving bridging, but this
is simple, and works. (BTW, both my routers are D-Link) HTH
Anne
4:18 a.m.
The AP at the Microsoft PC needs to be on 2 networks: the pc wired
side is say 192.168.2 and the WAN AP is 192.168.1 as well as the
default route for the pc.
--
WC -Sx- Jones | http://ccsh.us/ | Open Source Consulting
8:27 a.m.
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 02:54 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
Is it possible to have two access points on a network? I'm trying
to use a
D-Link G700AP as a substitute for a WIFI card. Maybe it can't be done and I'm
wasting my time.
Topology is: Wireless broadband comes into my house through radio; radio has a
LAN port which connects to my WAN nic; my LAN nic is connected to a D-Link
G700AP - various PC's throughout my house connect via WIFI to this AP, and
all works well.
For reasons not worth going into in great detail, I'm trying to replace one
connection from a remote PC, which is using a Microsoft wireless USB device
that is useless in a Linux environment; I have this second D-Link G700AP, and
I was hoping it could be used in place of the Microsoft device.
I've set the SSID on the secondary AP to the same value as the one on my
primary access point.
I've assigned it a unique address in the same subnet as the first AP.
I've set my primary AP address as the gateway for the secondary one.
>From my machine connected to the secondary AP by cat5 cable, I can ping that
AP, so the connection there is fine. But, I can't ping the primary AP.
Channels are the same, encryption is turned off on both. Am I engaged in a
fallacy of composition, or can this be done?
----
an AP would have to have a wired connection to the LAN.
If the second AP has a 'bridging mode' which would allow it to bridge
via wireless to the first AP, that is what you apparently need.
Craig
8:48 a.m.
On Sun January 29 2006 9:27 am, Craig White wrote:
If the second AP has a 'bridging mode' which would allow it
to bridge
via wireless to the first AP, that is what you apparently need.
Yes - I'm working on this right now. Just updated the firmware. As far as I
can tell, there is no bridging mode - still looking... I found some refs to
"slave" or "client" mode.
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
9:25 a.m.
bridging is a consequence of going from wan to lan. there is an
implied hop and a ip address difference.
--
WC -Sx- Jones | http://ccsh.us/ | Open Source Consulting
9:46 a.m.
On Sun January 29 2006 10:25 am, Chasecreek Systemhouse earlier:
The AP at the Microsoft PC needs to be on 2 networks: the pc wired
side is say 192.168.2 and the WAN AP is 192.168.1 as well as the
default route for the pc.
and then, a bit later
bridging is a consequence of going from wan to lan. there is an
implied hop and a ip address difference.
Still trying to figure out your first reply. How can the remote PC be on two
networks? It's not physically connected. It's only connection is through the
cat5 cable connecting it to my secondary access point. Ah, but you say that
the AP has to be on two networks; but, how is that possible? It has one
configuration screen where you can configure an IP address; the button for
that screen is labeled "LAN". If there's a second IP address for the
wireless side of the device, it's not configurable...
There's a conceptual gap in my understanding still (I'm plowing through many
google hits to try to lessen the gap). I'd thought of AP's as slight
variations of wired hubs. Plug them in, give them an IP address that
corresponds to the network topology, configure security, and then, the device
was merely acting as a two-way pipe between computers - there's obviously
more to it...
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
12:51 p.m.
On Sunday 29 Jan 2006 15:46, Claude Jones wrote:
There's a conceptual gap in my understanding still (I'm plowing
through many google hits to try to lessen the gap). I'd thought of
AP's as slight variations of wired hubs. Plug them in, give them an
IP address that corresponds to the network topology, configure
security, and then, the device was merely acting as a two-way pipe
between computers - there's obviously more to it...
After trying to follow this thread, I'm thoroughly confused, so I'm not
surprised you are too. Let me ask you one simple question -
Do you want the computers that access the second AP to be on the same
network as the ones accessing the first AP?
If the answer is that you want them all to act as though they were all
addressing one single router, then the advice I gave you stands. It's
easy and efficient.
If you actually want them to be on separate networks for some reason,
then you have to go down the bridging route (no pun intended).
Anne
5:53 p.m.
On Sun January 29 2006 1:51 pm, Anne Wilson wrote:
After trying to follow this thread, I'm thoroughly confused, so
I'm not
surprised you are too. Let me ask you one simple question -
Do you want the computers that access the second AP to be on the same
network as the ones accessing the first AP?
If the answer is that you want them all to act as though they were all
addressing one single router, then the advice I gave you stands. It's
easy and efficient.
If you actually want them to be on separate networks for some reason,
then you have to go down the bridging route (no pun intended).
I'm afraid
there's still a lack of clarity, here. The router is my FC4 box.
The external NIC of my FC4 box is connected to my internet connection. The
internal NIC is connected to my D-Link AP. Off in other parts of the house
are several machines, connecting to that AP via their wireless NIC devices.
Now, one of those distant machines is an old Win98 box, which is using a USB
wireless NIC made by Microsoft, to connect to the AP hanging off the inside
NIC of my Fedora box.
That Microsoft USB wireless NIC is what we're trying to replace. I was trying
to hook up/configure another D-Link AP to act as a wireless NIC from that
Win98 computer, and I'm pretty sure now that it won't work, though I'm still
not completely clear what you're doing with your two D-Link routers - BUT,
neither of my D-Link devices are routers, they are just AP's - My router is
the Fedora computer. Machines throughout the house communicate with the AP on
my Fedora Box, and Fedora is configured to provide DHCP to those machines,
and to route traffic from them through the Fedora box to its external NIC
which is connected to the internet...
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
6:16 p.m.
Claude Jones wrote:
I'm afraid there's still a lack of clarity, here. The router
is my FC4 box.
The external NIC of my FC4 box is connected to my internet connection. The
internal NIC is connected to my D-Link AP. Off in other parts of the house
are several machines, connecting to that AP via their wireless NIC devices.
Now, one of those distant machines is an old Win98 box, which is using a USB
wireless NIC made by Microsoft, to connect to the AP hanging off the inside
NIC of my Fedora box.
That Microsoft USB wireless NIC is what we're trying to replace. I was trying
to hook up/configure another D-Link AP to act as a wireless NIC from that
Win98 computer, and I'm pretty sure now that it won't work, though I'm still
not completely clear what you're doing with your two D-Link routers - BUT,
neither of my D-Link devices are routers, they are just AP's - My router is
the Fedora computer. Machines throughout the house communicate with the AP on
my Fedora Box, and Fedora is configured to provide DHCP to those machines,
and to route traffic from them through the Fedora box to its external NIC
which is connected to the internet...
ASCII art!
External Bridge -> Other Wireless ->
+----+ +-------+ / +-----+
(I'net) ---+ PC +--------+ Dlink + -( -> Wireless -> )--+ W95 +
+----+ +-------+ \ +-----+
Internal AP ->
<- Router ->
Sorry I can't help you with the D-Links, I'm not familiar with
them. It did sound like the Point-Multipoint bridging may be of
interest with the second D-Link setup as a point-point bridge
(not pictured).
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry(a)linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
6:21 p.m.
Claude Jones wrote:
Now, one of those distant machines is an old Win98 box, which is using a USB
wireless NIC made by Microsoft, to connect to the AP hanging off the inside
NIC of my Fedora box.
That Microsoft USB wireless NIC is what we're trying to replace. I was trying
to hook up/configure another D-Link AP to act as a wireless NIC from that
Win98 computer, and I'm pretty sure now that it won't work, though I'm still
not completely clear what you're doing with your two D-Link routers - BUT,
neither of my D-Link devices are routers, they are just AP's - My router is
the Fedora computer. Machines throughout the house communicate with the AP on
my Fedora Box, and Fedora is configured to provide DHCP to those machines,
and to route traffic from them through the Fedora box to its external NIC
which is connected to the internet...
Dumb question - witch Microsoft USB wireless NIC do you have? Are
you sure it will not work with Linux? Just because it has
Microsoft's name on it doesn't mean it will not work. Chances are
that they didn't build it. Besides, chances are it has one of the
standard chip sets, so there is probably a driver for it. For
example, the MN-520 PCMCIA card works fine. The first time I used
it, I had to add it to the list, but now is detected automaticly.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
6:32 p.m.
On Sun January 29 2006 7:21 pm, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Dumb question - witch Microsoft USB wireless NIC do you have? Are
you sure it will not work with Linux? Just because it has
Microsoft's name on it doesn't mean it will not work. Chances are
that they didn't build it. Besides, chances are it has one of the
standard chip sets, so there is probably a driver for it. For
example, the MN-520 PCMCIA card works fine. The first time I used
it, I had to add it to the list, but now is detected automaticly.
Tried listing the device with lspci -v
Doesn't show up - is it worth pursuing?
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
6:45 p.m.
Claude Jones wrote:
On Sun January 29 2006 7:21 pm, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>Dumb question - witch Microsoft USB wireless NIC do you have? Are
>you sure it will not work with Linux? Just because it has
>Microsoft's name on it doesn't mean it will not work. Chances are
>that they didn't build it. Besides, chances are it has one of the
>standard chip sets, so there is probably a driver for it. For
>example, the MN-520 PCMCIA card works fine. The first time I used
>it, I had to add it to the list, but now is detected automaticly.
Tried listing the device with lspci -v
Doesn't show up - is it worth pursuing?
A USB device will not show up with
lspci. That command only
lists PCI cards, and things like cardbus cards that interface
the same way as PCI cards. For USB devices, lsusb or usbview
tend to work better. Or you can look at /proc/bus/usb/devices.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
4:37 a.m.
On Sunday 29 Jan 2006 23:53, Claude Jones wrote:
- BUT, neither of my D-Link
devices are routers, they are just AP's - My router is the Fedora
computer. Machines throughout the house communicate with the AP on my
Fedora Box, and Fedora is configured to provide DHCP to those
machines, and to route traffic from them through the Fedora box to
its external NIC which is connected to the internet...
So that's the real difference. My D-Links are both routers + AP. The
first router is my Internet gateway. The second one extends the lan.
Follow up Mikkel's advice. He's very knowledgeable on hardware.
Anne
7:36 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 10:46 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sun January 29 2006 10:25 am, Chasecreek Systemhouse earlier:
> The AP at the Microsoft PC needs to be on 2 networks: the pc wired
> side is say 192.168.2 and the WAN AP is 192.168.1 as well as the
> default route for the pc.
and then, a bit later
> bridging is a consequence of going from wan to lan. there is an
> implied hop and a ip address difference.
>
Still trying to figure out your first reply. How can the remote PC be on two
networks? It's not physically connected. It's only connection is through the
cat5 cable connecting it to my secondary access point. Ah, but you say that
the AP has to be on two networks; but, how is that possible? It has one
configuration screen where you can configure an IP address; the button for
that screen is labeled "LAN". If there's a second IP address for the
wireless side of the device, it's not configurable...
LAN is the wireless side of an AP. It is on one network. The WAN side
is the second network.
There should also be a configuration screen for the WAN side. If it
were not configurable then it would not be usable in many (most)
networks.
There's a conceptual gap in my understanding still (I'm
plowing through many
google hits to try to lessen the gap). I'd thought of AP's as slight
variations of wired hubs. Plug them in, give them an IP address that
corresponds to the network topology, configure security, and then, the device
was merely acting as a two-way pipe between computers - there's obviously
more to it...
An AP is not the same as a hub/switch. It is actually a router.
In order for the WAN port to be on the same network as the LAN side it
must be able to function in a bridge mode instead of routing.
You did not say which type of AP you have. Some have both wired and
wireless LAN ports. Others are wireless only. Both types route between
the WAN and the LAN sides.
Functionality and configuration methods may differ depending upon which
brand / model / type you have.
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
8:14 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 19:36, Jeff Vian wrote:
>
An AP is not the same as a hub/switch. It is actually a router.
That's kind of confusing. An AP is really more like a switch but
connecting the LAN to wireless devices. However it is often
integrated into a router which also provides WAN/LAN routing.
In order for the WAN port to be on the same network as the LAN side
it
must be able to function in a bridge mode instead of routing.
In the router models, the AP normally bridges with the LAN
while the WAN is routed.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
4:29 a.m.
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 20:14 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 19:36, Jeff Vian wrote:
> >
> An AP is not the same as a hub/switch. It is actually a router.
That's kind of confusing. An AP is really more like a switch but
connecting the LAN to wireless devices. However it is often
integrated into a router which also provides WAN/LAN routing.
> In order for the WAN port to be on the same network as the LAN side it
> must be able to function in a bridge mode instead of routing.
In the router models, the AP normally bridges with the LAN
while the WAN is routed.
On all the different models I have used (D-link, LinkSys, Netgear, among
others), the LAN (wired and wireless) side is a switch, *not bridged*.
Lets be sure the proper terminology is used here.
Bridging gives two or more physical ports (usually limited to two) the
same IP address, and makes it transparent to other machines unless
something is sent explicitly to that address. The physical network
segment on both sides is 'bridged' and it becomes one contiguous
network. Anything addressed to another IP address than the local one is
simply passed through - totally transparent.
Routing keeps both sides distinct separate networks and only passes
packets through if they are destined for something on the other side of
the router.
A switch or hub is simply a connection point on a single network. No
bridging or routing is involved.
HTH
Jeff
7:42 a.m.
On Mon January 30 2006 5:29 am, Jeff Vian wrote:
On all the different models I have used (D-link, LinkSys, Netgear,
among
others), the LAN (wired and wireless) side is a switch, *not bridged*.
Lets be sure the proper terminology is used here.
Bridging gives two or more physical ports (usually limited to two) the
same IP address, and makes it transparent to other machines unless
something is sent explicitly to that address. The physical network
segment on both sides is 'bridged' and it becomes one contiguous
network. Anything addressed to another IP address than the local one is
simply passed through - totally transparent.
Thanks for this explanation - it clears up a question I've had for some time
Routing keeps both sides distinct separate networks and only passes
packets through if they are destined for something on the other side of
the router.
A switch or hub is simply a connection point on a single network. No
bridging or routing is involved.
Here's where my knowledge tells me different.
I thought a switch did do some
simple routing. Doesn't a switch "remember" destinations that are on the
local subnet, and build up tables, only routing signal through that are not
destined for the local destination?
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
8:21 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 07:42, Claude Jones wrote:
>
> A switch or hub is simply a connection point on a single network. No
> bridging or routing is involved.
Here's where my knowledge tells me different. I thought a switch did do some
simple routing. Doesn't a switch "remember" destinations that are on the
local subnet, and build up tables, only routing signal through that are not
destined for the local destination?
The distinction is fuzzy because there are some expensive devices
called 'layer 3 switches' that understand IP addresses and can
do some routing and filtering based on them. However what is
normally called a switch works at the network layer 2, using
only ethernet MAC addresses. They learn the hardware addresses
of the connected devices as packets are sent from them and once
a destination is known they will only forward packets to that
destination out the correct port. However, they flood broadcast,
multicast, and unknown MAC destinations to all ports so the
filtering is transparent. They don't know anything about
IP addresses or subnets, though - this is all using the
hardware address built into every ethernet device.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
8:30 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 08:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 07:42, Claude Jones wrote:
> >
> > A switch or hub is simply a connection point on a single network. No
> > bridging or routing is involved.
> Here's where my knowledge tells me different. I thought a switch did do some
> simple routing. Doesn't a switch "remember" destinations that are on
the
> local subnet, and build up tables, only routing signal through that are not
> destined for the local destination?
The distinction is fuzzy because there are some expensive devices
called 'layer 3 switches' that understand IP addresses and can
do some routing and filtering based on them. However what is
normally called a switch works at the network layer 2, using
only ethernet MAC addresses. They learn the hardware addresses
of the connected devices as packets are sent from them and once
a destination is known they will only forward packets to that
destination out the correct port. However, they flood broadcast,
multicast, and unknown MAC destinations to all ports so the
filtering is transparent. They don't know anything about
IP addresses or subnets, though - this is all using the
hardware address built into every ethernet device.
There are also certain types of hardware switches which can service more
than one kind of network topology. They tend to share a common, very
high-speed backplane and then use cards to handle one topology or
another. These types of switches do something called translational
bridging. You can *almost* think of this as routing at layer 2 because
you get some of the benefits, including rebuilding packets based on
topology, but you are still truly in the world of switching.
Cheers,
Chris
--
======================
"Never murder a man when he's
busy committing suicide."
-- Woodrow Wilson
9:20 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 08:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
The distinction is fuzzy because there are some expensive devices
called 'layer 3 switches' that understand IP addresses and can
do some routing and filtering based on them. However what is
normally called a switch works at the network layer 2, using
only ethernet MAC addresses. They learn the hardware addresses
of the connected devices as packets are sent from them and once
a destination is known they will only forward packets to that
destination out the correct port.
Wouldn't they also have to be co-relating IPs to MAC addresses? Surely
they couldn't just work by the MAC, alone?
For instance if my PC at 192.168.1.1 wants to do something with
192.168.1.2, all that goes out on the wire is the IP addresses, hoping
that something else figures out how to connect the two together, or
hoping that they're already directly connected together.
From the manual (tiny bit of paper) that came with my simple switch, I
understood that it listened in on the traffic, worked out what IPs
belong to what MACs, and switched accordingly after a few initial
moments of discovering how the network was set up. If an IP or a MAC
changed for a device (just one, and not necessarily both), it'd need to
rethink things before it worked again.
I can't say what switch I have, it's a black box, in a dark spot in the
shelf. I can't see anything to identify it, just the blinking LEDs on
the front.
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
10 a.m.
Tim wrote:
Wouldn't they also have to be co-relating IPs to MAC addresses? Surely
they couldn't just work by the MAC, alone?
For instance if my PC at 192.168.1.1 wants to do something with
192.168.1.2, all that goes out on the wire is the IP addresses, hoping
that something else figures out how to connect the two together, or
hoping that they're already directly connected together.
>From the manual (tiny bit of paper) that came with my simple switch, I
understood that it listened in on the traffic, worked out what IPs
belong to what MACs, and switched accordingly after a few initial
moments of discovering how the network was set up. If an IP or a MAC
changed for a device (just one, and not necessarily both), it'd need to
rethink things before it worked again.
I can't say what switch I have, it's a black box, in a dark spot in the
shelf. I can't see anything to identify it, just the blinking LEDs on
the front.
If I understand things correctly, for the local network, your
computer does the IP to MAC mapping. (Run arp to see it.) The
packet has the MAC address as part of it. For destinations that
need to use a gateway, it has the gateway MAC address. The other
thing to consider is that not all traffic has an IP address. This
is because TCP/IP is not the only network traffic possible on the
LAN. Other protocols use different identification.
What switches learn is what MAC address is on what port. This can
cause problems if you change connections, depending on how fast the
switch "learns" the new port. When you get beyond home-grade
equipment, you may be able to tell the switch not to automaticly
"learn" the new port. This prevents someone from "cloning" a MAC
address and hijacking traffic.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
7:37 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 10:00 -0600, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Tim wrote:
>
> Wouldn't they also have to be co-relating IPs to MAC addresses? Surely
> they couldn't just work by the MAC, alone?
>
> For instance if my PC at 192.168.1.1 wants to do something with
> 192.168.1.2, all that goes out on the wire is the IP addresses, hoping
> that something else figures out how to connect the two together, or
> hoping that they're already directly connected together.
>
>>From the manual (tiny bit of paper) that came with my simple switch, I
> understood that it listened in on the traffic, worked out what IPs
> belong to what MACs, and switched accordingly after a few initial
> moments of discovering how the network was set up. If an IP or a MAC
> changed for a device (just one, and not necessarily both), it'd need to
> rethink things before it worked again.
>
> I can't say what switch I have, it's a black box, in a dark spot in the
> shelf. I can't see anything to identify it, just the blinking LEDs on
> the front.
>
If I understand things correctly, for the local network, your
computer does the IP to MAC mapping. (Run arp to see it.) The
packet has the MAC address as part of it. For destinations that
need to use a gateway, it has the gateway MAC address. The other
thing to consider is that not all traffic has an IP address. This
is because TCP/IP is not the only network traffic possible on the
LAN. Other protocols use different identification.
What switches learn is what MAC address is on what port. This can
cause problems if you change connections, depending on how fast the
switch "learns" the new port. When you get beyond home-grade
equipment, you may be able to tell the switch not to automaticly
"learn" the new port. This prevents someone from "cloning" a MAC
address and hijacking traffic.
A PC (or other device) sends packets to an IP address. The switch maps
the IP to MAC to keep track of what is attached to each port and where
to send traffic. A TCP packet does not contain MAC addressing (although
some protocols may).
ARP is a way for the local PC to see what is avialable, but if you check
the ARP table on your PC it usually only remembers the MAC address for a
very short time, thus the effect you describe above.
Also, remember, MAC addressing is only valid on the local LAN. If it
has to go through a router that cannot work. Those protocols that do
use MAC addressing are local LAN protocols only.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
8:04 p.m.
Jeff Vian wrote:
A PC (or other device) sends packets to an IP address. The switch
maps
the IP to MAC to keep track of what is attached to each port and where
to send traffic. A TCP packet does not contain MAC addressing (although
some protocols may).
This is partially incorrect, A PC does send to an IP address but the IP
address to MAC translation is done in the PC's TCP/IP stack. The IP
packet contains the MAC address which the PC must have before it can
send the TCP/IP packet anywhere. A layer 2 switch doesn't care about
an IP address (other than it's own for management). It's the ARP table
that has the translations for MAC to IP.
ARP is a way for the local PC to see what is avialable, but if you
check
the ARP table on your PC it usually only remembers the MAC address for a
very short time, thus the effect you describe above.
See what's available is a bit ambigous but you are correct that the
arp entry last a _VERY_ short period of time.
Also, remember, MAC addressing is only valid on the local LAN. If
it
has to go through a router that cannot work. Those protocols that do
use MAC addressing are local LAN protocols only.
This is correct, a MAC address never traverses a router.
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry(a)linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
9:08 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 19:37, Jeff Vian wrote:
>
A PC (or other device) sends packets to an IP address.
If it sends them over ethernet, it sends it inside an ethernet
frame containing MAC addresses.
The switch maps
the IP to MAC to keep track of what is attached to each port and where
to send traffic.
A switch doesn't need to know anything about TCP, although
managed ones have an interface for the management connection.
A TCP packet does not contain MAC addressing (although
some protocols may).
On a broadcast medium like ethernet, the packet must have
a destination MAC address. A point-to-point medium would
be different.
ARP is a way for the local PC to see what is avialable, but if you
check
the ARP table on your PC it usually only remembers the MAC address for a
very short time, thus the effect you describe above.
Arp is how the MAC address on the ethernet frame is managed and
matched to the destination IP. Switches just observe the MAC
when forwarding.
Also, remember, MAC addressing is only valid on the local LAN. If
it
has to go through a router that cannot work. Those protocols that do
use MAC addressing are local LAN protocols only.
But it needs to send to the router first with a MAC frame that
the switch will deliver to the right place.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
5:46 p.m.
Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 08:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> The distinction is fuzzy because there are some expensive devices
> called 'layer 3 switches' that understand IP addresses and can
> do some routing and filtering based on them. However what is
> normally called a switch works at the network layer 2, using
> only ethernet MAC addresses. They learn the hardware addresses
> of the connected devices as packets are sent from them and once
> a destination is known they will only forward packets to that
> destination out the correct port.
Wouldn't they also have to be co-relating IPs to MAC addresses? Surely
they couldn't just work by the MAC, alone?
For instance if my PC at 192.168.1.1 wants to do something with
192.168.1.2, all that goes out on the wire is the IP addresses, hoping
that something else figures out how to connect the two together, or
hoping that they're already directly connected together.
Layer 2 switches don't care if the packet is NetBIOS, DECNet, Banyon
Vines, IP or IPX as long the packet is Ethernet. Every done at layer
2 is done with MAC addresses. IP is not involved.
The IP to MAC translations are done at the Layer 3 devices
(routers, PC's TCP/IP stack, etc.).
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry(a)linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
7:28 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 08:42 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon January 30 2006 5:29 am, Jeff Vian wrote:
> On all the different models I have used (D-link, LinkSys, Netgear, among
> others), the LAN (wired and wireless) side is a switch, *not bridged*.
> Lets be sure the proper terminology is used here.
>
> Bridging gives two or more physical ports (usually limited to two) the
> same IP address, and makes it transparent to other machines unless
> something is sent explicitly to that address. The physical network
> segment on both sides is 'bridged' and it becomes one contiguous
> network. Anything addressed to another IP address than the local one is
> simply passed through - totally transparent.
>
Thanks for this explanation - it clears up a question I've had for some time
> Routing keeps both sides distinct separate networks and only passes
> packets through if they are destined for something on the other side of
> the router.
>
> A switch or hub is simply a connection point on a single network. No
> bridging or routing is involved.
Here's where my knowledge tells me different. I thought a switch did do some
simple routing. Doesn't a switch "remember" destinations that are on the
local subnet, and build up tables, only routing signal through that are not
destined for the local destination?
A switch is more intelligent than a hub. A hub just passes everything
it receives on one port to all other ports.
A switch learns what is attached to it, and only sends out on a port
those packets that are addressed to the attached device. As such it
reduces network traffic to all attached devices by not sending
unnecessary packets on any single port, but it does not do routing.
All a switch knows is the specific IP and MAC address of the attached
device -- Nothing else.
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
11:21 p.m.
New subject: Screen problem
Hi all,
I have FC4 on my computer. Recently I encount a
problem: the window size of one of my programs is
larger than the monitor screen. I wonder anyone here
can help me out.
Thanks,
Li
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
5:55 a.m.
New subject: Screen problem
Hi all,
I have FC4 on my computer. Recently I encount a
problem: the window size of one of my programs is
larger than the monitor screen. I wonder anyone here
can help me out.
Thanks,
Li
What you do depends on the program. Some like browsers (in general) can
have thee opening size changed by just making the program size smaller
manually and the program will remember its opening size.
Some like xfig have a parameter of the execution string that control what
size it has when it opens.
Still others use the -geometry option (look at : man X to see how that
works) to decide how big it will be when it opens.
What program are you talking about?
--
Aaron Konstam
Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
Trinity University
San Antonio, Texas
210-999-7484
5:54 p.m.
New subject: Screen problem
Hi Aaron,
I think I change defautl setting for window size (such
window behavior)by accident. Is there any I can
restore the defaut one first?
Thanks,
Li
--- Aaron Konstam <akonstam(a)trinity.edu> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have FC4 on my computer. Recently I encount a
> problem: the window size of one of my programs is
> larger than the monitor screen. I wonder anyone
here
> can help me out.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Li
What you do depends on the program. Some like
browsers (in general) can
have thee opening size changed by just making the
program size smaller
manually and the program will remember its opening
size.
Some like xfig have a parameter of the execution
string that control what
size it has when it opens.
Still others use the -geometry option (look at : man
X to see how that
works) to decide how big it will be when it opens.
What program are you talking about?
--
Aaron Konstam
Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
Trinity University
San Antonio, Texas
210-999-7484
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
5:57 a.m.
New subject: Screen problem
chen li wrote:
Hi all,
I have FC4 on my computer. Recently I encount a
problem: the window size of one of my programs is
larger than the monitor screen. I wonder anyone here
can help me out.
Thanks,
Li
Some programs do not work well with low screen resolutions. I had
trouble myself back when I had a laptop which could only do 800x600 as
its best resolution. (rhdb on toshiba laptop, non-tft LCD)
There is some option that you can move the mouse off the visible screen
and get to buttons or whatever you need with low resolution systems.
There was some discussions earlier about this sort of problem. I believe
the option is referred to as panning.
Basically, your displayed resolution is low resolution. Wht is displayed
is expanded to proportions that higher resolution programs can handle.
Jim
--
Where do you want Bill Gates to go today?
-- From a Slashdot.org post
10:45 a.m.
New subject: Screen problem
Jim Cornette wrote:
Some programs do not work well with low screen resolutions. I had
trouble myself back when I had a laptop which could only do 800x600 as
its best resolution. (rhdb on toshiba laptop, non-tft LCD)
There is some option that you can move the mouse off the visible screen
and get to buttons or whatever you need with low resolution systems.
There was some discussions earlier about this sort of problem. I believe
the option is referred to as panning.
Basically, your displayed resolution is low resolution. Wht is displayed
is expanded to proportions that higher resolution programs can handle.
Jim
With XFree86, you set the desktop. With Xorg, you set Virtual to
what you want the desktop to be.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
2:36 p.m.
New subject: Screen problem
On 1/30/06, chen li <chen_li3(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Recently I encount a
problem: the window size of one of my programs is
larger than the monitor screen. I wonder anyone here
can help me out.
If you are using kde, take a look at this page
http://wiki.kde.org/tiki-index.php?page=Keyboard+Shortcuts
Alt + Left Mouse Button: Move window freely around
Alt + Right Mouse Button: Resize the window
Pressing Alt - F3 will pop up a menu that allows you to resize your
current window (among other things). You can use your arrow keys to
make the change.
(untested!)
Kyle
9:45 a.m.
New subject: Screen problem
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:36:49PM -0800, Kyle Hamar wrote:
On 1/30/06, chen li <chen_li3(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Recently I encount a
> problem: the window size of one of my programs is
> larger than the monitor screen. I wonder anyone here
> can help me out.
If you are using kde, take a look at this page
http://wiki.kde.org/tiki-index.php?page=Keyboard+Shortcuts
Alt + Left Mouse Button: Move window freely around
Alt + Right Mouse Button: Resize the window
Pressing Alt - F3 will pop up a menu that allows you to resize your
current window (among other things). You can use your arrow keys to
make the change.
(untested!)
Alt-F3 does nothing for me under Gnome.
--
=======================================================================
Death is nature's way of saying `Howdy'.
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
telephone: (210)-999-7484
9:47 a.m.
New subject: Screen problem
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:36:49PM -0800, Kyle Hamar wrote:
> On 1/30/06, chen li <chen_li3(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Recently I encount a
> > problem: the window size of one of my programs is
> > larger than the monitor screen. I wonder anyone here
> > can help me out.
>
> If you are using kde, take a look at this page
> http://wiki.kde.org/tiki-index.php?page=Keyboard+Shortcuts
>
> Alt + Left Mouse Button: Move window freely around
> Alt + Right Mouse Button: Resize the window
> Pressing Alt - F3 will pop up a menu that allows you to resize your
> current window (among other things). You can use your arrow keys to
> make the change.
> (untested!)
Alt-F3 does nothing for me under Gnome.
--
It is Alt-F1, not F3.
10:27 a.m.
New subject: Screen problem
Kyle Hamar:
>> Pressing Alt - F3 will pop up a menu that allows you to
resize your
>> current window (among other things). You can use your arrow keys to
>> make the change.
>> (untested!)
<akonstam(a)trinity.edu>:
> Alt-F3 does nothing for me under Gnome.
Hongwei Li:
It is Alt-F1, not F3.
On mine (FC4), Alt + F1 opens the desktop's main applications menu.
Alt + F8 is listed as the hotkey for resizing a window (just left-click
on the leftmost icon in a window title bar for a list).
You can also push windows around by pressing a qualifier key and then
dragging them around by the mouse, anywhere in the window. i.e. You
don't need to get the mouse to the titlebar, you can drag the window by
the middle, until you can get an edge of the window onto the screen to
do what you want to with. Mine's set to do that by holding down the ALT
key, and clicking and dragging with the left mouse button.
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
7:51 p.m.
New subject: Screen problem
Thank all for helping me out. Alt + Left (or right )
Mouse Button is what I want.
Li
--- akonstam(a)trinity.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:36:49PM -0800, Kyle Hamar
wrote:
> On 1/30/06, chen li <chen_li3(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Recently I encount a
> > problem: the window size of one of my programs
is
> > larger than the monitor screen. I wonder anyone
here
> > can help me out.
>
> If you are using kde, take a look at this page
>
http://wiki.kde.org/tiki-index.php?page=Keyboard+Shortcuts
>
> Alt + Left Mouse Button: Move window freely around
> Alt + Right Mouse Button: Resize the window
> Pressing Alt - F3 will pop up a menu that allows
you to resize your
> current window (among other things). You can use
your arrow keys to
> make the change.
> (untested!)
Alt-F3 does nothing for me under Gnome.
--
=======================================================================
Death is nature's way of saying `Howdy'.
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
telephone: (210)-999-7484
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
3:34 p.m.
New subject: Screen problem
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 21:21 -0800, chen li wrote:
Hi all,
I have FC4 on my computer. Recently I encount a
problem: the window size of one of my programs is
larger than the monitor screen. I wonder anyone here
can help me out.
It is possible that the display resolution is set lower than the monitor
uses.
Are you using kde or gnome?
If gnome, do you see both tool bars on the screen (one at the top and
one at the bottom)?
What happens if you move the mouse beyond the edge of the screen? Does
the desktop scroll?
Have you tried using ctrl-alt-plus or ctrl-alt-minus to change screen
resolution?
With FC4 and xorg I have had a similar experience when first setting up
my LCD monitor. Also when xorg or nvidia did an update that broke my
configuration until I found and set an nvidia specific option in the
xorg.conf file.
The native resolution of my monitor is 1600x1200 and it is really
strange to only see 1/4 of the entire desktop on the monitor when it is
set to 800x600 resolution.
Thanks,
Li
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
7:55 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 04:29, Jeff Vian wrote:
> > >
> > An AP is not the same as a hub/switch. It is actually a router.
>
> That's kind of confusing. An AP is really more like a switch but
> connecting the LAN to wireless devices. However it is often
> integrated into a router which also provides WAN/LAN routing.
>
> > In order for the WAN port to be on the same network as the LAN side it
> > must be able to function in a bridge mode instead of routing.
>
> In the router models, the AP normally bridges with the LAN
> while the WAN is routed.
>
On all the different models I have used (D-link, LinkSys, Netgear, among
others), the LAN (wired and wireless) side is a switch, *not bridged*.
Lets be sure the proper terminology is used here.
Bridging gives two or more physical ports (usually limited to two) the
same IP address, and makes it transparent to other machines unless
something is sent explicitly to that address. The physical network
segment on both sides is 'bridged' and it becomes one contiguous
network. Anything addressed to another IP address than the local one is
simply passed through - totally transparent.
Routing keeps both sides distinct separate networks and only passes
packets through if they are destined for something on the other side of
the router.
A switch or hub is simply a connection point on a single network. No
bridging or routing is involved.
I don't think there is any real difference in a bridge and
any two ports of a switch. Both are transparent repeaters
and allowed to filter by MAC addresses. There might be a
special case in Linux software bridging where the interface
can have a working address associated but in hardware if
a bridge or switch has an address it is just for management.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
10:03 a.m.
On Sun January 29 2006 9:27 am, Craig White wrote:
If the second AP has a 'bridging mode' which would allow it
to bridge
via wireless to the first AP, that is what you apparently need.
http://tinyurl.com/9eohr
The second graphic on this page perfectly portrays my topology except that
there's only a single machine connected to the secondary AP. According to
this page, "it probably won't work" - but a little further down, a post
states that "some AP's can be configured to act as a repeater or wireless
bridge, but it's fairly rare."
It that's true, there doesn't seem to be any way of configuring this D-Link to
be a wireless bridge or repeater, unless I'm missing something in the
translation...
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
10:14 a.m.
Claude Jones wrote:
On Sun January 29 2006 9:27 am, Craig White wrote:
> If the second AP has a 'bridging mode' which would allow it to bridge
> via wireless to the first AP, that is what you apparently need.
http://tinyurl.com/9eohr
The second graphic on this page perfectly portrays my topology except that
there's only a single machine connected to the secondary AP. According to
this page, "it probably won't work" - but a little further down, a post
states that "some AP's can be configured to act as a repeater or wireless
bridge, but it's fairly rare."
It that's true, there doesn't seem to be any way of configuring this D-Link to
be a wireless bridge or repeater, unless I'm missing something in the
translation...
Most store bought AP don't support this setup. You can purchase
a Wireless bridge to connect network B through the AP to everything
else. The WRT54 family with OpenWRT, HyperWRT or the other 3rd
party software can do this. You would keep one D-Link as an AP
and get a WRT54GL (if you're buying new), setup the OpenWRT software
as a client and connect to the D-Link. See this:
http://wiki.openwrt.org/ClientModeHowto
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry(a)linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
10:28 a.m.
On Sun January 29 2006 11:14 am, Neil Cherry wrote:
Most store bought AP don't support this setup. You can purchase
a Wireless bridge to connect network B through the AP to everything
else. The WRT54 family with OpenWRT, HyperWRT or the other 3rd
party software can do this. You would keep one D-Link as an AP
and get a WRT54GL (if you're buying new), setup the OpenWRT software
as a client and connect to the D-Link. See this:
http://wiki.openwrt.org/ClientModeHowto
Thanks. That does look like exactly what I''m trying to do. I actually have a
WRT54G here. But, it's configured to just be plugged in and work, in the
event that my FC4 box goes down, or if I need to perform hardware/software
upgrades on the box. With an FC5 install looming in a couple of months, I
don't think I want to reassign this router to this immediate need. I guess I
need to just bite the bullet and get a wireless NIC for that other machine
that will work with Linux as well as Windows... Unless someone else has a
better idea.
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
10:40 a.m.
Claude Jones wrote:
On Sun January 29 2006 11:14 am, Neil Cherry wrote:
> Most store bought AP don't support this setup. You can purchase
> a Wireless bridge to connect network B through the AP to everything
> else. The WRT54 family with OpenWRT, HyperWRT or the other 3rd
> party software can do this. You would keep one D-Link as an AP
> and get a WRT54GL (if you're buying new), setup the OpenWRT software
> as a client and connect to the D-Link. See this:
>
> http://wiki.openwrt.org/ClientModeHowto
Thanks. That does look like exactly what I''m trying to do. I actually have a
WRT54G here. But, it's configured to just be plugged in and work, in the
event that my FC4 box goes down, or if I need to perform hardware/software
upgrades on the box. With an FC5 install looming in a couple of months, I
don't think I want to reassign this router to this immediate need. I guess I
need to just bite the bullet and get a wireless NIC for that other machine
that will work with Linux as well as Windows... Unless someone else has a
better idea.
If you can get a wireless bridge that would do the same thing. I've
got an old WET11 (802.11B) for just that. Of course the B device
drops my network from G to B.
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry(a)linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
11:30 a.m.
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 11:28 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sun January 29 2006 11:14 am, Neil Cherry wrote:
> Most store bought AP don't support this setup. You can purchase
> a Wireless bridge to connect network B through the AP to everything
> else. The WRT54 family with OpenWRT, HyperWRT or the other 3rd
> party software can do this. You would keep one D-Link as an AP
> and get a WRT54GL (if you're buying new), setup the OpenWRT software
> as a client and connect to the D-Link. See this:
>
> http://wiki.openwrt.org/ClientModeHowto
Thanks. That does look like exactly what I''m trying to do. I actually have a
WRT54G here. But, it's configured to just be plugged in and work, in the
event that my FC4 box goes down, or if I need to perform hardware/software
upgrades on the box. With an FC5 install looming in a couple of months, I
don't think I want to reassign this router to this immediate need. I guess I
need to just bite the bullet and get a wireless NIC for that other machine
that will work with Linux as well as Windows... Unless someone else has a
better idea.
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
I understand that the latest version of the Linksys WRT54s no longer use
Linux internally ***unless*** you get the special 'L' version...I doubt
that your local big box store will stock that one. This may make
reflashing to use OpenWRT problematic. Caveat emptor.
K
1:49 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 12:30 -0500, Karen Spearel wrote:
--
Travis Fraser <travis(a)snowpatch.net>
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 11:28 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
> On Sun January 29 2006 11:14 am, Neil Cherry wrote:
> > Most store bought AP don't support this setup. You can purchase
> > a Wireless bridge to connect network B through the AP to everything
> > else. The WRT54 family with OpenWRT, HyperWRT or the other 3rd
> > party software can do this. You would keep one D-Link as an AP
> > and get a WRT54GL (if you're buying new), setup the OpenWRT software
> > as a client and connect to the D-Link. See this:
> >
> > http://wiki.openwrt.org/ClientModeHowto
> Thanks. That does look like exactly what I''m
trying to do. I actually have a
> WRT54G here. But, it's configured to just be plugged in and work, in the
> event that my FC4 box goes down, or if I need to perform hardware/software
> upgrades on the box. With an FC5 install looming in a couple of months, I
> don't think I want to reassign this router to this immediate need. I guess I
> need to just bite the bullet and get a wireless NIC for that other machine
> that will work with Linux as well as Windows... Unless someone else has a
> better idea.
> --
> Claude Jones
> Bluemont, VA, USA
I understand that the latest version of the Linksys WRT54s no
longer use
Linux internally ***unless*** you get the special 'L' version...I doubt
that your local big box store will stock that one. This may make
reflashing to use OpenWRT problematic. Caveat emptor.
The WRT54GS will work with open firmware according to the openwrt site.
2:12 p.m.
Travis Fraser wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 12:30 -0500, Karen Spearel wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 11:28 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
>> On Sun January 29 2006 11:14 am, Neil Cherry wrote:
>>> Most store bought AP don't support this setup. You can purchase
>>> a Wireless bridge to connect network B through the AP to everything
>>> else. The WRT54 family with OpenWRT, HyperWRT or the other 3rd
>>> party software can do this. You would keep one D-Link as an AP
>>> and get a WRT54GL (if you're buying new), setup the OpenWRT software
>>> as a client and connect to the D-Link. See this:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openwrt.org/ClientModeHowto
>> Thanks. That does look like exactly what I''m trying to do. I actually
have a
>> WRT54G here. But, it's configured to just be plugged in and work, in the
>> event that my FC4 box goes down, or if I need to perform hardware/software
>> upgrades on the box. With an FC5 install looming in a couple of months, I
>> don't think I want to reassign this router to this immediate need. I guess I
>> need to just bite the bullet and get a wireless NIC for that other machine
>> that will work with Linux as well as Windows... Unless someone else has a
>> better idea.
>> --
>> Claude Jones
>> Bluemont, VA, USA
>>
> I understand that the latest version of the Linksys WRT54s no longer use
> Linux internally ***unless*** you get the special 'L' version...I doubt
> that your local big box store will stock that one. This may make
> reflashing to use OpenWRT problematic. Caveat emptor.
>
The WRT54GS will work with open firmware according to the openwrt site.
Not if it's the version 5. V5 has half the memory and half the
ram. Linux won't fit. V1-V4 will and the WRT54GL is equiv. to a V4.
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry(a)linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
2:27 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 15:12 -0500, Neil Cherry wrote:
Travis Fraser wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 12:30 -0500, Karen Spearel wrote:
>> On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 11:28 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
>>> On Sun January 29 2006 11:14 am, Neil Cherry wrote:
>>>> Most store bought AP don't support this setup. You can purchase
>>>> a Wireless bridge to connect network B through the AP to everything
>>>> else. The WRT54 family with OpenWRT, HyperWRT or the other 3rd
>>>> party software can do this. You would keep one D-Link as an AP
>>>> and get a WRT54GL (if you're buying new), setup the OpenWRT
software
>>>> as a client and connect to the D-Link. See this:
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.openwrt.org/ClientModeHowto
>>> Thanks. That does look like exactly what I''m trying to do. I
actually have a
>>> WRT54G here. But, it's configured to just be plugged in and work, in the
>>> event that my FC4 box goes down, or if I need to perform hardware/software
>>> upgrades on the box. With an FC5 install looming in a couple of months, I
>>> don't think I want to reassign this router to this immediate need. I
guess I
>>> need to just bite the bullet and get a wireless NIC for that other machine
>>> that will work with Linux as well as Windows... Unless someone else has a
>>> better idea.
>>> --
>>> Claude Jones
>>> Bluemont, VA, USA
>>>
>> I understand that the latest version of the Linksys WRT54s no longer use
>> Linux internally ***unless*** you get the special 'L' version...I doubt
>> that your local big box store will stock that one. This may make
>> reflashing to use OpenWRT problematic. Caveat emptor.
>>
> The WRT54GS will work with open firmware according to the openwrt site.
Not if it's the version 5. V5 has half the memory and half the
ram. Linux won't fit. V1-V4 will and the WRT54GL is equiv. to a V4.
That is for the "G" model. I was referencing the "GS" model
http://wrt-wiki.bsr-clan.de/index.php?title=DD-WRT_Docu_%28EN%
29#Supported_Devices
--
Travis Fraser <travis(a)snowpatch.net>
1:12 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 11:03 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sun January 29 2006 9:27 am, Craig White wrote:
> If the second AP has a 'bridging mode' which would allow it to bridge
> via wireless to the first AP, that is what you apparently need.
http://tinyurl.com/9eohr
The second graphic on this page perfectly portrays my topology except that
there's only a single machine connected to the secondary AP. According to
this page, "it probably won't work" - but a little further down, a post
states that "some AP's can be configured to act as a repeater or wireless
bridge, but it's fairly rare."
It that's true, there doesn't seem to be any way of configuring this D-Link to
be a wireless bridge or repeater, unless I'm missing something in the
translation...
-----
make sure that you've installed the latest firmware updates on the
D-Link AP - perhaps they've added features since the device left the
factory.
I am presuming that it is the D-Link that you wish to put into a
'bridging' mode - that is, wirelessly connect to another AP.
There is hardware to do that - but that doesn't mean that your device is
capable of it or not capable of it. I simply don't know.
I believe that their DWL-G710 Wireless Range Extender can do what you
want...
http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=1&pid=357
Craig
5:59 p.m.
On Sun January 29 2006 2:12 pm, Craig White wrote:
make sure that you've installed the latest firmware updates on
the
D-Link AP - perhaps they've added features since the device left the
factory.
Yup, did that this morning
I am presuming that it is the D-Link that you wish to put into a
'bridging' mode - that is, wirelessly connect to another AP.
That is correct - there are two D-Link DWL700AP devices - one is the existing
Access point for my LAN; the second, I would like to use as a bridge from one
of my computers, back to the original Access Point - far as I can tell, from
all the info in the manual, and from the support pages on D-Links site, my
particular model Access Point can't be put into "bridge" mode
There is hardware to do that - but that doesn't mean that your
device is
capable of it or not capable of it. I simply don't know.
I believe that their DWL-G710 Wireless Range Extender can do what you
want...
I've found an ActionTek device that seems to fill the bill - it's
designed as
a wireless bridge to connect to wireless Access Points, according to their
spec sheets and promos - got one ordered
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
8 a.m.
New subject: can an access point connect through an access point? [Solved]
On Sun January 29 2006 6:59 pm, Claude Jones wrote:
far as I can tell, from
all the info in the manual, and from the support pages on D-Links site, my
particular model Access Point can't be put into "bridge" mode
> There is hardware to do that - but that doesn't mean that your device is
> capable of it or not capable of it. I simply don't know.
>
> I believe that their DWL-G710 Wireless Range Extender can do what you
> want...
I've found an ActionTek device that seems to fill the bill - it's designed
as a wireless bridge to connect to wireless Access Points, according to
their spec sheets and promos - got one ordered
The ActionTek HWE05490-01 turned out to be the perfect answer.
http://tinyurl.com/a63d7
They call it a wireless adapter, but, it's a wireless bridge. It's own IP
becomes transparent once configured, and doesn't have to be part of the same
subnet as the network it's installed to. That part threw me at first. You
configure it by plugging it in to your LAN port, giving your LAN NIC a fixed
IP on the same subnet as the factory configured IP of the device (it comes
set to 192.168.0.240), and then using a browser to enter the configuration
windows. There you can give it the parameters of your wireless LAN (SSID and
security settings - you don't have to give it an IP on the same subnet as
your LAN), click "apply" and then "connect"; once done with
configuration, I
just set my NIC to get it's address through DHCP, and I was connected. This
solution is nice because it requires no drivers and tinkering with Linux -
once configured, the device acts like a wireless hub and is itself invisible
to your computer. Once configured, it just comes up working in Windows, as
well. Ironically, I was working on an old Win98/Linux dual-boot. I couldn't
remember the details of configuring network connections with Win98 at first,
and found it easier to configure from Linux ---
Thanks for all the suggestions.......
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
6647
days inactive
6655
days old
60 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
akonstam＠trinity.edu -
Anne Wilson -
Chasecreek Systemhouse -
chen li -
Christopher A. Williams -
Claude Jones -
Craig White -
Hongwei Li -
Jeff Vian -
Jim Cornette -
John Mason Jr -
Karen Spearel -
Kyle Hamar -
Les Mikesell -
Mikkel -
Neil Cherry -
Tim -
Timothy Murphy -
Travis Fraser