Searching \ for '[EE]: Wireless acess point ( I think!)' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=wireless+acess+point
Search entire site for: 'Wireless acess point ( I think!)'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]: Wireless acess point ( I think!)'
2007\07\17@030939 by Luis.Moreira

picon face
Hi All,
I have a wireless network setup in the house at the moment, and it also
works fine in the garage, but what I would like to have in the garage is
a router that connects to my network in the house via a wireless link
and then I can connect several PCs and such to it. I already have a 5
port wired switch, is it a wireless access point that I need to connect
to the switch or is it called something else?
To summarise I need to have the same function as a wireless card that
you fit to a normal PC to access the internet, but I need the ability to
connect several devices to it using my switch.
Best regards
               Luis  



2007\07\17@035015 by Shawn Tan

flavicon
face
On Tuesday 17 July 2007 08:09:26 Luis Moreira wrote:
> I have a wireless network setup in the house at the moment, and it also
> works fine in the garage, but what I would like to have in the garage is
> a router that connects to my network in the house via a wireless link

If you wish to connect two wireless networks, you need a router with WDS
capability. This essentially connects the two wireless routers together. Each
router could then be connected to multiple wired/wireless devices.

network A --- [WDS router] ---- [WDS router] --- network B

> and then I can connect several PCs and such to it. I already have a 5
> port wired switch, is it a wireless access point that I need to connect
> to the switch or is it called something else?

An access point basically bridges a wireless and wired network. It's more a
bridging device than anything else.

wireless --- [access point] --- wired

if you merely wish to extend the range of your existing home network, there is
also the possibility of installing a repeater.

cheers.

--
with metta,
Shawn Tan

Aeste Works (M) Sdn Bhd - Engineering Elegance
http://www.aeste.net

2007\07\17@055846 by Luis.Moreira

picon face
Hi Shawn,
I need the first case I think. I searched for WDS router and I got a lot
of good info.
Thanks.
       Best regards
                       Luis

Luis Moreira
spam_OUTluis.moreiraTakeThisOuTspamjet.uk
tel. 01235464615
JET PSU Department
UKAEA Culham Division
J20/1/55, Culham Science Centre
Abingdon
Oxfordshire
OX14 3DB


{Original Message removed}

2007\07\17@110636 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> Hi All,
> I have a wireless network setup in the house at the moment, and it also
> works fine in the garage, but what I would like to have in the garage is
> a router that connects to my network in the house via a wireless link
> and then I can connect several PCs and such to it. I already have a 5
> port wired switch, is it a wireless access point that I need to connect
> to the switch or is it called something else?
> To summarise I need to have the same function as a wireless card that
> you fit to a normal PC to access the internet, but I need the ability to
> connect several devices to it using my switch.
> Best regards
>                Luis
>
>

The Linksys WAP54G will work in "client mode" and connect a local LAN to
an existing wireless network. That's how I connect my downstairs HP
printer/scanner to the network. My wife and I each have a laptop on the
coffee table and the printer/scanner in the corner of the room. The
printer/scanner has its own WAP in client mode. Upstairs is where the DSL
comes in, the routers, servers, and other WAPs are located. It MAY only
work with other Linksys WAPs, but I don't know for sure.

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2007\07\17@133637 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jul 17, 2007, at 1:50 AM, Shawn Tan wrote:

> On Tuesday 17 July 2007 08:09:26 Luis Moreira wrote:
>> I have a wireless network setup in the house at the moment, and it  
>> also
>> works fine in the garage, but what I would like to have in the  
>> garage is
>> a router that connects to my network in the house via a wireless link
>
> If you wish to connect two wireless networks, you need a router  
> with WDS
> capability. This essentially connects the two wireless routers  
> together. Each
> router could then be connected to multiple wired/wireless devices.
>
> network A --- [WDS router] ---- [WDS router] --- network B

WDS will not support advanced encryption however.  Just something to  
think about.

WDS only supports WEP.

If you're already using WPA or similar, you might want to look into  
using a router/access point that will do "client mode" as it's called...

--
Nate Duehr
.....nateKILLspamspam@spam@natetech.com



2007\07\17@151455 by Dario Greggio

face picon face

> network A --- [WDS router] ---- [WDS router] --- network B

Please note, if I'm not wrong, that speed from A to B will be one half
than available without "bridge".

--
Ciao, Dario

2007\07\17@154812 by Tobias Gogolin

picon face
Actually some refer to what you need as a wireless bridge, but essentially
its a combination of an AP and a client.
I recommend that you look for a router that can run open source firmware
(Linux basically), those can then usually do all the mentioned tricks
That includes WDS if you want to have a local rebroadcast of the wireless
signal
or simple client mode which will support the fancy security protocols
The WRT54G page on wikipedia is a good hub from where to start your
investigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G


On 7/17/07, Dario Greggio <adpm.tospamKILLspaminwind.it> wrote:
>
>
> > network A --- [WDS router] ---- [WDS router] --- network B
>
> Please note, if I'm not wrong, that speed from A to B will be one half
> than available without "bridge".
>
> --
> Ciao, Dario
> -

2007\07\17@194416 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On 7/18/07, Dario Greggio <.....adpm.toKILLspamspam.....inwind.it> wrote:
>
> > network A --- [WDS router] ---- [WDS router] --- network B
>
> Please note, if I'm not wrong, that speed from A to B will be one half
> than available without "bridge".
>
> --
> Ciao, Dario
> --
I think that only applies to wireless devices in network A or network
B. Each router has to duplex between the WDS link and any wireless
clients it is serving.

John La Rooy

2007\07\17@203335 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jul 17, 2007, at 5:44 PM, John La Rooy wrote:

> On 7/18/07, Dario Greggio <EraseMEadpm.tospam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTinwind.it> wrote:
>>
>>> network A --- [WDS router] ---- [WDS router] --- network B
>>
>> Please note, if I'm not wrong, that speed from A to B will be one  
>> half
>> than available without "bridge".
>>
>> --
>> Ciao, Dario
>> --
> I think that only applies to wireless devices in network A or network
> B. Each router has to duplex between the WDS link and any wireless
> clients it is serving.

Half-duplex doesn't directly relate to speed unless both ends are  
attempting to send full data rate both directions all the time.

1/2 speed is technically, inaccurate.  Half-duplex is accurate.

Whether or not that leads to a major change in speed, is completely  
data-rate and direction dependent.

Since most folks are doing TCP sessions and they have ACK/NAK going  
on, there's always a speed hit on a half-duplex network while the far  
end ACK/NAK's, but the far end is rarely sending full data-rate back  
toward the requesting host.

--
Nate Duehr
natespamspam_OUTnatetech.com



2007\07\17@204047 by David VanHorn

picon face
Have a look at DD-WRT.  My office links in to the house that way.

2007\07\17@211118 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jul 17, 2007, at 6:40 PM, David VanHorn wrote:

> Have a look at DD-WRT.  My office links in to the house that way.

I use it here as well.   DD-WRT is officially "good stuff".  It'll do  
all of the previous and much more.

(It's QoS features keep my computers from eating up all the bandwidth  
for Vonage calls.  Works great.)

--
Nate Duehr
@spam@nateKILLspamspamnatetech.com



2007\07\18@002452 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On 7/18/07, Nate Duehr <KILLspamnateKILLspamspamnatetech.com> wrote:

>
> Half-duplex doesn't directly relate to speed unless both ends are
> attempting to send full data rate both directions all the time.
>
> 1/2 speed is technically, inaccurate.  Half-duplex is accurate.
>
> Whether or not that leads to a major change in speed, is completely
> data-rate and direction dependent.
>
That is so when a client is talking to an access point. But if a
client on network A is talking to the access point on network B, the
access point in the middle has to repeat all the packets in both
directions. When it is doing that the bandwidth is halved since WDS
requires all the AP's to be on the same channel.

John La Rooy

2007\07\18@011009 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
John La Rooy wrote:

> On 7/18/07, Nate Duehr <RemoveMEnateTakeThisOuTspamnatetech.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Half-duplex doesn't directly relate to speed unless both ends are
>>attempting to send full data rate both directions all the time.
>>
>>1/2 speed is technically, inaccurate.  Half-duplex is accurate.
>>
>>Whether or not that leads to a major change in speed, is completely
>>data-rate and direction dependent.
>>
>
> That is so when a client is talking to an access point. But if a
> client on network A is talking to the access point on network B, the
> access point in the middle has to repeat all the packets in both
> directions. When it is doing that the bandwidth is halved since WDS
> requires all the AP's to be on the same channel.

This one was my point too.
I saw it reported in the Specs for some Access Points: I guess that,
unless they would be using more than one RF channel (which seems
unlikely), their "on the air-bandwidth" would be one half than it could
be, without forwarding.

--
Ciao, Dario

2007\07\18@015227 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jul 17, 2007, at 10:24 PM, John La Rooy wrote:

> On 7/18/07, Nate Duehr <spamBeGonenatespamBeGonespamnatetech.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Half-duplex doesn't directly relate to speed unless both ends are
>> attempting to send full data rate both directions all the time.
>>
>> 1/2 speed is technically, inaccurate.  Half-duplex is accurate.
>>
>> Whether or not that leads to a major change in speed, is completely
>> data-rate and direction dependent.
>>
> That is so when a client is talking to an access point. But if a
> client on network A is talking to the access point on network B, the
> access point in the middle has to repeat all the packets in both
> directions. When it is doing that the bandwidth is halved since WDS
> requires all the AP's to be on the same channel.

Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but all I saw in the ASCII diagram  
was a host, two AP's connected to each other, and a host on the far  
end.  I must have missed something, I assumed the two hosts were just  
talking to each other.

What's this about a host talking to the opposite-side's AP?  Why  
would it do that?  For what purpose?

(I must have missed a major detail there in the text.  Unfortunately  
I already deleted that portion of the thread.  Oops.  LOL!)

--
Nate Duehr
TakeThisOuTnateEraseMEspamspam_OUTnatetech.com



2007\07\18@095553 by Neil Cherry

picon face
John La Rooy wrote:
> On 7/18/07, Nate Duehr <RemoveMEnatespamTakeThisOuTnatetech.com> wrote:
>
>> Half-duplex doesn't directly relate to speed unless both ends are
>> attempting to send full data rate both directions all the time.
>>
>> 1/2 speed is technically, inaccurate.  Half-duplex is accurate.
>>
>> Whether or not that leads to a major change in speed, is completely
>> data-rate and direction dependent.
>>
> That is so when a client is talking to an access point. But if a
> client on network A is talking to the access point on network B, the
> access point in the middle has to repeat all the packets in both
> directions. When it is doing that the bandwidth is halved since WDS
> requires all the AP's to be on the same channel.

First, all A/B/G wireless networks are half duplex (if I'm wrong
please correct). I think the N 'standard' (is it a standard *yet*?)
supports full duplex (2 radios). And as for 'half speed', most IP
conversations (what is the correct term?) send the larger packets
in one direction and the smaller windowed ACKs in the other so
you don't have half speed unless your sending the same size packets
in both directions. I can't think of any protocols where that
happens but my mind is full at the moment with my studies and
work related performance testing.

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       ncherryEraseMEspam.....linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2007\07\18@180011 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On 7/18/07, Neil Cherry <EraseMEncherryspamcomcast.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

We are discussing WDS here. Perhaps this explains it better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Distribution_System

from the article
"WDS may also be referred to as repeater mode because it appears to
bridge and accept wireless clients at the same time (unlike
traditional bridging). It should be noted, however, that throughput in
this method is inversely proportional to the number of "hops", as all
traffic uses the same channel. For example, client traffic going
through one relay station before it reaches the main access point will
see at most half the maximum throughput that a directly connected
client would experience."

Using 2 access points to connect two networks together the number of
hops is 2, so the maximum throughput is 1/2 of what it would be for a
single hop.

Regards,
John La Rooy

2007\07\18@183433 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
John La Rooy wrote:

> We are discussing WDS here. Perhaps this explains it better
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Distribution_System
>
> from the article
> "WDS may also be referred to as repeater mode because it appears to
> bridge and accept wireless clients at the same time (unlike
> traditional bridging). It should be noted, however, that throughput in
> this method is inversely proportional to the number of "hops", as all
> traffic uses the same channel. For example, client traffic going
> through one relay station before it reaches the main access point will
> see at most half the maximum throughput that a directly connected
> client would experience."
>
> Using 2 access points to connect two networks together the number of
> hops is 2, so the maximum throughput is 1/2 of what it would be for a
> single hop.

AHHH... I see what you're getting at.  Yep, makes sense... IF the client
PC is on wireless.  That's two hops.

If the host PC is plugged into the AP/router at one end via Ethernet,
then the wireless hop count would decrement by one, and in a two
AP/router scenario, there would be no degradation of speed.

They should have been more careful to state "inversely proportional to
the number of WIRELESS hops" in that wikipedia description.

You can put an AP into "client mode" and put hosts on the Ethernet
port... which I believe is what the original poster was talking about
doing, not wireless from the hosts to the routers/AP's.

Nate WY0X

2007\07\19@022613 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Nate Duehr wrote:

> [...]
>>Using 2 access points to connect two networks together the number of
>>hops is 2, so the maximum throughput is 1/2 of what it would be for a
>>single hop.
>
>
> AHHH... I see what you're getting at.  Yep, makes sense... IF the client
> PC is on wireless.  That's two hops.

My point too :)
Thanks John for clearing it out with reference !

--
Ciao, Dario

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...