Using a wireless access point?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <WauXd.1726$yp.108@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote:

> Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying to
> configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work. Tell
> me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."
>
> My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
> Robotics 8054 wireless router. The wireless is necessary for a roaming
> laptop. I have tried to connect my TiVo, via WiFi, but all of the USB
> adapters quit after about 20 minutes or so. Now, I have a wired adapter
> connected to a network cable that I string from the living room, where the
> TiVo is, to the computer room, but this can't be a permanent solution,
> 'cause it's really ugly, and dear wife doesn't like it (neither do I). So,
> if there's a way to configure the Netgear, I would like to try, but I
> haven't had any luck so far. If I don't get it working within few days,
> it's going back to Best Buy. The Netgear is a WGR614v5.
>
> Thanks in advance.

Are you communicating in "G" mode or "B" mode. 802.11b transmission
coverage is much poorer than 802.11g

Thats why a Linksys USB200M and a Linksys WET54G work so good. You can
configure the router for "G" mode only.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <ZKuXd.26047$Sn6.25318@lakeread03>,
Lenroc <lenroc@NOSPAMFORYOU.hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:36:22 +0000, Mark Rathgeber wrote:
>
> > Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying to
> > configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work. Tell
> > me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."
> >
> > My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
> > Robotics 8054 wireless router.
>
> First step is to get the TiVo playing nicely with just the Netgear router.
> (I assume it has multiple wired ports.)
>
> Try plugging the TiVo into one of the wired ports, and either have your
> laptop connect wirelessly to the Netgear router, or plug in either the
> laptop or a desktop to the Netgear router temporarily.
>
> Ensure that the TiVo can connect to the PC, and/or vice versa, in this
> configuration.
>
> If this works, then it's a non-trivial leap to get the TiVo (connected to
> the Netgear) on your larger network. What you need to do is make the
> Netgear router a client on the USR router. To do this, you may need to
> make the Netgear router stop being a router (turn of DHCP, etc.). This may
> be possible, or it may not be. I may have been wrong in my original
> followup. I've never actually tried to make a _wireless_ router act as a
> hub, but I know it's possible to make a wired router into one.
>
> I may have lead you astray with my original post, and if so I'm sorry.
>
> Maybe you could run a wire from one router to another, through some walls,
> perhaps?

Until I got my 802.11g up and and running, I just used a 50' Ethernet
Cable snaked between rooms, and did file transfers over night.

Linksys USB200M at the TiVo to my Router.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:WauXd.1726$yp.108@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying
to
> configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work. Tell
> me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."
>
> My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
> Robotics 8054 wireless router. The wireless is necessary for a roaming
> laptop. I have tried to connect my TiVo, via WiFi, but all of the USB
> adapters quit after about 20 minutes or so. Now, I have a wired adapter
> connected to a network cable that I string from the living room, where the
> TiVo is, to the computer room, but this can't be a permanent solution,
> 'cause it's really ugly, and dear wife doesn't like it (neither do I).
So,
> if there's a way to configure the Netgear, I would like to try, but I
> haven't had any luck so far. If I don't get it working within few days,
> it's going back to Best Buy. The Netgear is a WGR614v5.

Neither of your routers will act as a bridge. The wireless routers get their
internet connection from the wired side. Bridges will only work with
compatible routers.

You can look for 802.11g range extenders, there may be one that works with
your one the USR. You can also try playing with the antennas to increase the
range. Here are some examples: http/wireless.hackaday.com/

Brad Houser

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <jzwick3-8FF19D.07333409032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> In article <cuCXd.4124$WK2.712@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Thanks to both of you guys for your comments, especially that it's hard to
> > know before you buy. I still stand by a comment I made in another post last
> > night: TiVo's updates aren't very "up to date." Why in the world would you
> > come up with an option (TiVo ToGo) with such inadequate 802.11g capability,
> > when the rest of the world is pretty much "g?" I also read in lots of
> > forums that using a wireless adapter is frequently impossible, at least for
> > transfers.
>
> Works fine for me with the Linksys WET54G Bridge. If one has an 802.11b
> setup, and it downshifts speed to maintain a connection, transfer rates
> can be abysmal.

My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge. So, if you already have
wireless client(s) using the WAP, that means you need two more pieces of
HW, not one That's why I so badly wanted to use a linksys WAP as a
AP client and bridge some stuff upstairs to it, but not at the expense
of using WEP

 

[seth]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c99510336f181a49896d0@news.giganews.com...
> In article <jzwick3-8FF19D.07333409032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
>> In article <cuCXd.4124$WK2.712@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks to both of you guys for your comments, especially that it's hard
>> > to
>> > know before you buy. I still stand by a comment I made in another post
>> > last
>> > night: TiVo's updates aren't very "up to date." Why in the world would
>> > you
>> > come up with an option (TiVo ToGo) with such inadequate 802.11g
>> > capability,
>> > when the rest of the world is pretty much "g?" I also read in lots of
>> > forums that using a wireless adapter is frequently impossible, at least
>> > for
>> > transfers.
>>
>> Works fine for me with the Linksys WET54G Bridge. If one has an 802.11b
>> setup, and it downshifts speed to maintain a connection, transfer rates
>> can be abysmal.
>
> My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
> connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge. So, if you already have
> wireless client(s) using the WAP, that means you need two more pieces of
> HW, not one That's why I so badly wanted to use a linksys WAP as a
> AP client and bridge some stuff upstairs to it, but not at the expense
> of using WEP

I don't know if it can connect to another WAP or not as I have never tried,
but a bridge, specifically the Linksys ones, can connect to devices other
than bridges, namely directly to a router. Doesn't have to be bridge to
bridge.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <ANLXd.21$hg.18@news01.roc.ny>, seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
says...
> > My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
> > connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge. So, if you already have
> > wireless client(s) using the WAP, that means you need two more pieces of
> > HW, not one That's why I so badly wanted to use a linksys WAP as a
> > AP client and bridge some stuff upstairs to it, but not at the expense
> > of using WEP
>
> I don't know if it can connect to another WAP or not as I have never tried,
> but a bridge, specifically the Linksys ones, can connect to devices other
> than bridges, namely directly to a router. Doesn't have to be bridge to
> bridge.

I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...

 

[seth]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c99579a804fb3039896d1@news.giganews.com...
> In article <ANLXd.21$hg.18@news01.roc.ny>, seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
> function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
> doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
> bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
> otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...

Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his house
he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the pool
house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <wcMXd.11767$Xv4.4690@fe09.lga>,
seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
> "Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c99579a804fb3039896d1@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <ANLXd.21$hg.18@news01.roc.ny>, seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >
> > I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
> > function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
> > doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
> > bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
> > otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...
>
> Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
> can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his house
> he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the pool
> house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.

You misunderstood me, I think. Presenting an actual configuration that
works counts as proof in my book I do have to admit to being
surprised though...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c9985e18e6e6f9d9896d3@news.giganews.com>,
dswartz@druber.com says...
> In article <wcMXd.11767$Xv4.4690@fe09.lga>,
> seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
> > "Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c99579a804fb3039896d1@news.giganews.com...
> > > In article <ANLXd.21$hg.18@news01.roc.ny>, seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
> > > says...
> > >
> > > I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
> > > function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
> > > doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
> > > bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
> > > otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...
> >
> > Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
> > can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his house
> > he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the pool
> > house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.

I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
(what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
mode". Still doesn't support WPA though

 

[seth]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9985e18e6e6f9d9896d3@news.giganews.com...
> In article <wcMXd.11767$Xv4.4690@fe09.lga>,
> seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
>> "Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c99579a804fb3039896d1@news.giganews.com...
>> > In article <ANLXd.21$hg.18@news01.roc.ny>,
>> > seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
>> > says...
>> >
>> > I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units
>> > can
>> > function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
>> > doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
>> > bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
>> > otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...
>>
>> Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
>> can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his
>> house
>> he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the
>> pool
>> house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.
>
> You misunderstood me, I think. Presenting an actual configuration that
> works counts as proof in my book I do have to admit to being
> surprised though...

Well, some people don't think anything has been proven until they physically
see it with their own eyes and touch it...

I try not to guess at which camp people are in.

 

[seth]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c99885ed8ae58679896d4@news.giganews.com...
>
> I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
> think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
> little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
> in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
> (what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
> it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
> which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
> mode". Still doesn't support WPA though

I only use in infrastructure mode. Things can get unruly if you let each
device talk to whomever they want. Also, when you need to troubleshoot a
system and see what's going on, the router built in logger doesn't do much
good if some of the traffic is bypassing it.

They haven't ported WPA over to the "B" class devices yet? I haven't really
stayed up to speed on the B stuff as most of my people have moved on to "G",
and I try to discourage wireless whenever I can. I do a lot of linking
people's homes to the office via VPN and all I have to do is mention how a
kid in a car can easily see everything in their office if they have wireless
at either location and wireless pretty much disappears from the
conversation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <d0o3ri$e49$1@news01.intel.com>,
Brad Houser <bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote:

>> if there's a way to configure the Netgear, I would like to try, but I
>> haven't had any luck so far. If I don't get it working within few days,
>> it's going back to Best Buy. The Netgear is a WGR614v5.
>
>Neither of your routers will act as a bridge. The wireless routers get their
>internet connection from the wired side. Bridges will only work with
>compatible routers.

I think there is, unfortunately, some blurring of terminology going on
here which is confusing the issue. It's probably the fault of some
company's marketing department for mis-using the word "bridge".

In normal networking terminology, a "bridge" is a device with two
Ethernet interfaces. It can receive Ethernet packets on one
interface, and retransmit them on the other (or in some cases
retransmit them back out the same interface). It can do so without
regard for the higher-level protocol (e.g. IP, AppleTalk, NetBEUI,
etc.) wrapped in the Ethernet packet. Bridging is largely transparent
to the Ethernet devices whose packets are being forwarded - they need
not be aware of the presence of the bridge. A bridge makes two
physically-discontigous Ethernet segments look like a single Ethernet.

A "router" is a higher-level (IP-level, usually) device. It also has
two or more interfaces (often but not always Ethernet), and each such
interface has its own IP address. The interfaces are typically
connected to different IP networks (different network numbers,
possibly different net-masks). The router can receive packets from
systems on one IP network, and route/forward them onto another network.
Devices which are using a router for packet forwarding *must* be aware
of the router, and voluntarily send the packets to the router for
forwarding (i.e. each device learns the Ethernet interface address of
the router's port on that network, and sends the packet to that
interface rather than to the Ethernet interface of its ultimate
destination).

All of the above applies to Ethernet and IP in general.

Then, there comes 802.11 of its various flavors. It's possible for
802.11b/g devices to operate in "ad hoc" mode, where each of them
sends packets directly to another - this is the wireless equivalent of
a simple twisted-pair wired LAN.

Very few people use ad hoc mode. It's generally felt to be suitable
only for relatively small, simple networks.

Almost everybody uses "infrastructure" mode. In this mode, 802.11
nodes are broken into two classes - access points, and clients.
Clients speak directly *only* to access points - they don't speak to
one another.

Access points will forward packets between wireless clients - they act
as Ethernet-level bridges on their wireless side (retransmitting
packets out of the same interface from which it arrived). They will
also usually act as Ethernet-level bridges between the wired and
wireless interfaces.

Access points may also incorporate IP-level router functionality.
They may have a "WAN" interface which hooks up to a cable modem, DSL,
or other Ethernet.

A lot of the small/home-office devices sold todays are all of these:
802.11 WAP (with wireless-to-wireless bridging), wired-to-wireless
bridge, and IP router. Extra functions such as IP firewalling and a
DHCP or print server are also built in sometimes.

Now, there comes the confusion: the device called a "wireless
bridge". This is a device which is an Ethernet-level bridge, where
one of the interfaces is an 802.11b/g card or radio which is operating
as a client.

To make matters even more confusing, there are (I believe) some WAPs
on the market which can be configured to operate either as normal
WAPs (802.11 infrastructure-mode access points with Ethernet-level
bridging) or as "wireless bridges" (802.11 infrastructure-mode clients
of another access point, with both it and the AP to which it's
associated acting as Ethernet bridges).

There are even some which can operate in both modes at once, I think -
they're an infrastructure access point using one radio and antenna,
and an infrastructure client on a different network using a second
radio and antenna.

Confusing things even further is the "wireless repeater" or "range
extender", which uses a special very-low-level 802.11 packet
forwarding mechanism which actually lies "beneath" the Ethernet level.
These are fairly uncommon, expensive, and not all 802.11 cards will
know how to work with them).

Devices which can operate as 802.11b clients, and Ethernet-level
bridges ("wireless bridges" in marketing-speak) don't *need* to be
more expensive than normal 802.11b WAPs - they use the same radio,
pretty much the same firmware, and they both implement the same
Ethernet-level bridging functions. Arguably they're technically
easier to implement, since their firmware doesn't need to implement
access-point functionality. However, for reasons that I suspect have
to do with the low number which are sold, they're uncommon and
expensive. Very few vendors seem to bother building this
functionality into their standard WAPs, although it's not technically
difficult to do.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http/www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c99510336f181a49896d0@news.giganews.com>,
Dan Swartzendruber <dswartz@druber.com> wrote:

> In article <jzwick3-8FF19D.07333409032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> > In article <cuCXd.4124$WK2.712@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks to both of you guys for your comments, especially that it's hard
> > > to
> > > know before you buy. I still stand by a comment I made in another post
> > > last
> > > night: TiVo's updates aren't very "up to date." Why in the world would
> > > you
> > > come up with an option (TiVo ToGo) with such inadequate 802.11g
> > > capability,
> > > when the rest of the world is pretty much "g?" I also read in lots of
> > > forums that using a wireless adapter is frequently impossible, at least
> > > for
> > > transfers.
> >
> > Works fine for me with the Linksys WET54G Bridge. If one has an 802.11b
> > setup, and it downshifts speed to maintain a connection, transfer rates
> > can be abysmal.
>
> My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
> connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge.

I know thats not true, as I have my Bridge connecting to my Wireless
Router.



> So, if you already have
> wireless client(s) using the WAP, that means you need two more pieces of
> HW, not one That's why I so badly wanted to use a linksys WAP as a
> AP client and bridge some stuff upstairs to it, but not at the expense
> of using WEP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <jzwick3-51FD26.19235909032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> > My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
> > connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge.
>
> I know thats not true, as I have my Bridge connecting to my Wireless
> Router.

This is a linksys router? And it's not in bridge mode? If so, that's
pretty surprising, as their own documentation says you have to pick a
mode to operate the WAP in - and if you pick "bridge" mode, it won't
associate with any roaming clients.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <112v7jsnkuhfu2f@corp.supernews.com>,
dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote:

> Devices which can operate as 802.11b clients, and Ethernet-level
> bridges ("wireless bridges" in marketing-speak) don't *need* to be
> more expensive than normal 802.11b WAPs - they use the same radio,
> pretty much the same firmware, and they both implement the same
> Ethernet-level bridging functions. Arguably they're technically
> easier to implement, since their firmware doesn't need to implement
> access-point functionality. However, for reasons that I suspect have
> to do with the low number which are sold, they're uncommon and
> expensive. Very few vendors seem to bother building this
> functionality into their standard WAPs, although it's not technically
> difficult to do.

Perhaps also Bridges cost more as they generate more support calls.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>> Devices which can operate as 802.11b clients, and Ethernet-level
>> bridges ("wireless bridges" in marketing-speak) don't *need* to be
>> more expensive than normal 802.11b WAPs - they use the same radio,
>> pretty much the same firmware, and they both implement the same
>> Ethernet-level bridging functions. Arguably they're technically
>> easier to implement, since their firmware doesn't need to implement
>> access-point functionality. However, for reasons that I suspect have
>> to do with the low number which are sold, they're uncommon and
>> expensive. Very few vendors seem to bother building this
>> functionality into their standard WAPs, although it's not technically
>> difficult to do.

>Perhaps also Bridges cost more as they generate more support calls.

That could very well be the case. The secondary cost of providing
client-bridge capability (support calls, extra pages written up and
maintained in the manual, a more complex user interface for the
onboard HTTP-based configuration server) could easily be more than the
actual low-level engineering cost of adding client-mode support.

Then again it may be a matter of not cannibalizing your own market.
"Hey, Bob, we're selling this 802.11 client bridge for $100. Why
are you talking about adding this capability to our SOHO WAP/router
which is regularly being discounted for $40 minus rebate? None of
our competitors have this capability in their WAPs - what's the
justification for adding it to ours? You're gonna cost me my sales
bonus for the quarter, dude!"

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http/www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <ffQXd.438$mP1.232@fe10.lga>,
Seth <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>They haven't ported WPA over to the "B" class devices yet?

It depends. I believe that some vendors have upgraded their card
firmware and driver software, and implemented WPA supplicants, but
many have not. Ditto for the access points - I believe it's quite
unusual for WPA support to be added to an 802.11B AP firmware for
APs which didn't support it initially.

On the other hand, on Linux and other open-source operating systems
it's often possible to run an open-source WPA supplicant, a driver
which at least allows rapid re-keying, and use host-side encryption
support. The card itself is put in a "transmit and receive packets
unencrypted" mode, and the host handles all of the encryption. Faster
that way, really.


--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http/www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
> think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
> little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
> in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
> (what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
> it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
> which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
> mode". Still doesn't support WPA though

That's true, but I still think you're going to run into a problem
because you won't be able to designate the wireless interface (actually
a particular *client* on the wireless interface) as the WAN source.

RandY S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <ffQXd.438$mP1.232@fe10.lga>, seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
says...
> "Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c99885ed8ae58679896d4@news.giganews.com...
> >
> > I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
> > think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
> > little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
> > in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
> > (what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
> > it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
> > which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
> > mode". Still doesn't support WPA though
>
> I only use in infrastructure mode. Things can get unruly if you let each
> device talk to whomever they want. Also, when you need to troubleshoot a
> system and see what's going on, the router built in logger doesn't do much
> good if some of the traffic is bypassing it.

Good to hear...

> They haven't ported WPA over to the "B" class devices yet? I haven't really
> stayed up to speed on the B stuff as most of my people have moved on to "G",
> and I try to discourage wireless whenever I can. I do a lot of linking
> people's homes to the office via VPN and all I have to do is mention how a
> kid in a car can easily see everything in their office if they have wireless
> at either location and wireless pretty much disappears from the
> conversation.

Nope. There is a "G" version that does do WPA and has a builtin 5-port
switch though...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <d0pge0$15fo$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>,
rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com says...
>
> > I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
> > think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
> > little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
> > in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
> > (what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
> > it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
> > which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
> > mode". Still doesn't support WPA though
>
> That's true, but I still think you're going to run into a problem
> because you won't be able to designate the wireless interface (actually
> a particular *client* on the wireless interface) as the WAN source.

Not sure what you mean by WAN source. The gateway to the outside world?
That's done via the default gateway at the IP level and has nothing to
do with wireless...