Client Bridge Mode

Hi all,

Tried to find the answer, but cannot find it.

I have several computers running BSD/Solaris/Irix (yup, a real
Indigo2) which I would like to connect to my wireless setup.

Is it possible to put them all behind one 3Com OfficeConnect Wireless
11g Access Point in Client Bridge Mode (connected via a HUB)?

I've tried two computers behind a DynaLink WL-024 Ethernet-to-Wireless
Bridge (11 Mb), but that didn't work, because neither could connect. I
suspected this happened because of the low speed, but since I read the
3Com manual I'm not sure anymore:

"Client Bridge Mode is a secondary mode of the access point. When in
Client Bridge Mode th eaccess point will act as a wireless client,
allowing one computer to access a wireless network"

Anyone?

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards,

Peter

Hi Peter,

I am working for an institute which gives internet to students by
wireless lan. For usual people are using the Client-Mode, to make their
brigde connected to our accesspoint. By this way, all connected network
devices are brigded into our network.

If u just want to add some wireless to a wired network, just choose the
ap-mode. Think, this would be usual.

So, where is the problem exactly? For usual it is not to hard, to do
some wireless...

best regards,

Jens


Peter Boosten wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Tried to find the answer, but cannot find it.
>
> I have several computers running BSD/Solaris/Irix (yup, a real
> Indigo2) which I would like to connect to my wireless setup.
>
> Is it possible to put them all behind one 3Com OfficeConnect Wireless
> 11g Access Point in Client Bridge Mode (connected via a HUB)?
>
> I've tried two computers behind a DynaLink WL-024 Ethernet-to-Wireless
> Bridge (11 Mb), but that didn't work, because neither could connect. I
> suspected this happened because of the low speed, but since I read the
> 3Com manual I'm not sure anymore:
>
> "Client Bridge Mode is a secondary mode of the access point. When in
> Client Bridge Mode th eaccess point will act as a wireless client,
> allowing one computer to access a wireless network"
>
> Anyone?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Peter

on Thu, 25 Nov 2004 at 11:31 GMT, Jens Hartmann wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I am working for an institute which gives internet to students by
> wireless lan. For usual people are using the Client-Mode, to make their
> brigde connected to our accesspoint. By this way, all connected network
> devices are brigded into our network.
>
> If u just want to add some wireless to a wired network, just choose the
> ap-mode. Think, this would be usual.
>
> So, where is the problem exactly? For usual it is not to hard, to do
> some wireless...
>
> best regards,
>
> Jens
>
>

Thnx for your answer, Jens.

The problem is not configuring a device in client mode (or bridging
mode), but the problem is connecting more than one device to such a
bridge.

I do not want to buy one bridge per computer, but would like to connect
several computers (via a switch of hub) to one bridge.

Regards, Peter
--
People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them that
Benjamin Franklin said it first.

MSN/Mail: pboosten at hotmail dot com

Peter Boosten wrote:
> on Thu, 25 Nov 2004 at 11:31 GMT, Jens Hartmann wrote:
>
>>Hi Peter,
>>
>>I am working for an institute which gives internet to students by
>>wireless lan. For usual people are using the Client-Mode, to make their
>>brigde connected to our accesspoint. By this way, all connected network
>>devices are brigded into our network.
>>
>>If u just want to add some wireless to a wired network, just choose the
>>ap-mode. Think, this would be usual.
>>
>>So, where is the problem exactly? For usual it is not to hard, to do
>>some wireless...
>>
>>best regards,
>>
>>Jens
>>
>>
>
>
> Thnx for your answer, Jens.
>
> The problem is not configuring a device in client mode (or bridging
> mode), but the problem is connecting more than one device to such a
> bridge.
>
> I do not want to buy one bridge per computer, but would like to connect
> several computers (via a switch of hub) to one bridge.
>
> Regards, Peter


Hmm, for usual I have no problems with wirless. I used two WAP54G to
connect my wired network to my friend's. Behind every AP there were
several switches and hubs. I just got access to a command-line on my
friends computer and was able to ping different computers in my network.

Of course, no wireless clients can connect to the APs in brigde mode,
but therefore I have the wireless router. The WAPs were limited to make
connections to four other brigdes (enter mac) whith the meanwhile
unknown firmware I used...

Even If you would like to want to connect all stations via radio to the
brigde, u should just put one AP to the wired network the brigde is
connected with.

Ok, maybe it was a hard night, maybe there was a lack of sleep and I
still have no coffee - but I think, I am not too wrong.
Or am I, maybe I missunderstood your question at the main point - sorry
for the results of beeing a creature of the night in a society of
day-active human beeings

regards,

Jens

ps: @ ng : excuse my bad english, its years ago I had some experience
with this language...but I read, that skills can be trained - hope so

on Thu, 25 Nov 2004 at 12:48 GMT, Jens Hartmann wrote:
>
> Ok, maybe it was a hard night, maybe there was a lack of sleep and I
> still have no coffee - but I think, I am not too wrong.
> Or am I, maybe I missunderstood your question at the main point - sorry
> for the results of beeing a creature of the night in a society of
> day-active human beeings
>

Oke, back to basics: I'll explain my network in detail:

My @home-cable internet connection is terminated by a hardware firewall.
This firewall is on the LAN-site connected to a 5-ports switch.
My 3Com OfficeConnect 11g AP is connected to this switch as well.

I have several clients, with their own wireless NIC:

My laptop with a 3Com PCMCIA-NIC;
A desktop with a Belkin 802.11a-NIC;
Even my iPaq has its own wireless NIC

Works perfectly.

Then I decided to put my sons' PlayStation on the net as well (without
having to drill for cables) and bought this cute thingy:

http://www.sitecom.com/products_info...d=236&grp_id=6

It's a ethernet-to-wireless bridge, which gives devices without wireless
support the opportunity to enter the 'wireless world', via a crosslink
UTP-cable.

Then I thought: why not change the crosslink for a normal UTP-cable, put
in a HUB, and connect other devices as well (to that one
sitecomm-thing). This however doesn't work. So I suspected the low speed
of that wl-024 (11Mb) to be the bad guy.

But I read other people putting more than one device behind a bridge
having troubles as well.

What bridge does allow this kind of setup (as I can imagine that
AP-manufacturers would like to sell as many as possible, one for each
device).

Regards, Peter
--
People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them that
Benjamin Franklin said it first.

MSN/Mail: pboosten at hotmail dot com

Peter Boosten wrote:
> on Thu, 25 Nov 2004 at 12:48 GMT, Jens Hartmann wrote:
>
>>Ok, maybe it was a hard night, maybe there was a lack of sleep and I
>>still have no coffee - but I think, I am not too wrong.
>>Or am I, maybe I missunderstood your question at the main point - sorry
>>for the results of beeing a creature of the night in a society of
>>day-active human beeings
>>
>
>
> Oke, back to basics: I'll explain my network in detail:
>
> My @home-cable internet connection is terminated by a hardware firewall.
> This firewall is on the LAN-site connected to a 5-ports switch.
> My 3Com OfficeConnect 11g AP is connected to this switch as well.
>
> I have several clients, with their own wireless NIC:
>
> My laptop with a 3Com PCMCIA-NIC;
> A desktop with a Belkin 802.11a-NIC;
> Even my iPaq has its own wireless NIC
>
> Works perfectly.
>
> Then I decided to put my sons' PlayStation on the net as well (without
> having to drill for cables) and bought this cute thingy:
>
> http://www.sitecom.com/products_info...d=236&grp_id=6
>
> It's a ethernet-to-wireless bridge, which gives devices without wireless
> support the opportunity to enter the 'wireless world', via a crosslink
> UTP-cable.
>
> Then I thought: why not change the crosslink for a normal UTP-cable, put
> in a HUB, and connect other devices as well (to that one
> sitecomm-thing). This however doesn't work. So I suspected the low speed
> of that wl-024 (11Mb) to be the bad guy.
>
> But I read other people putting more than one device behind a bridge
> having troubles as well.
>
> What bridge does allow this kind of setup (as I can imagine that
> AP-manufacturers would like to sell as many as possible, one for each
> device).
>
> Regards, Peter

Hi Peter,

today a work I asked arround a bit. One answer I got says, that their
are some brigdes which dont allow to handle more than one device
connected...
If I read the text describing the the wl-024, I have the feeling, u got
such a thing. Of course, I dont know exactly. Think, the most easy way
ist to write an email to the support to know exactly about the features
of that brigde.

When I have to support some students who wants to connect many pcs to
our network, I tell them to get the dlink dwl 810+ . This brigde allows
to connect many pcs through that brigde to one of our APs. 9 of 10 are
working properly (and I have to say, most of the students have really no
imagination about what a network is and how they can connect).

Because we need to integrate the 802.1X Protokoll, we are experimenting
with the linksys wrt54g(s) after flashed it with openwrt (openwrt.org).
It`s very nice to have a bash on an AP No Fear, even a Webinterface
can be used and is in development. And at all, even this linksys is
working properly with many firmwares from thirdparty-distributors and
also with the original firmware.

I just make a good experience with the two products.

So maybe u just have the wrong Product? "My" students also have problems
with some other wireless2ethernet-products...

Hope this will help you a bit to find out whats wrong. Maybe the others
have some experiences with this at all. I am sure

with best regards,

Jens

Peter Boosten <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> What bridge does allow this kind of setup (as I can imagine that
> AP-manufacturers would like to sell as many as possible, one for each
> device).

You have been (justifiably) confused by the excessive and inconsistent
use of the term "bridge", which ought to be reserved for something that
connects two physical *networks* together. Connecting a single *device*
to a network is done by an *adapter*.

That cute thingy you bought was an Ethernet-to-wireless adapter. To
connect multiple wired devices to an existing wireless network you need
a thingy that can do what is now generally called a Wireless
Distribution System (WDS). The function of WDS is essentially that of an
uplink between two switches (or hubs), passing packets from a device
connected to one switch to a device connected to the other switch.

WDS capability found in many recent wireless access points and routers.
Unfortunately, WDS is not yet standardized across the wireless
networking industry, so it usually doesn't work between different makes
of APs or routers. To complicate things further, some devices that can
do WDS cannot service wireless clients at the same time or cannot
connect via WDS to more than one other AP/router.

For the greatest flexibility in using WDS, I recommend the
Broadcom-based products such as Buffalo's <http://www.buffalotech.com/>
or Apple's <http://www.apple.com/airport>. (Note that, except for
Apple's base stations, you are currently restricted to WEP encryption
when using WDS.)

on Thu, 25 Nov 2004 at 18:19 GMT, Jens Hartmann wrote:

<snip very good explanation>

Thanks Jens, for your answer. I'm going to look around for such a
device.

Regards, Peter
--
People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them that
Benjamin Franklin said it first.

MSN/Mail: pboosten at hotmail dot com

on Thu, 25 Nov 2004 at 18:22 GMT, Neill Massello wrote:

<snip very good explanation>

Thanks Neill, I'm going to have a look at those products.

Regards, Peter
--
People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them that
Benjamin Franklin said it first.

MSN/Mail: pboosten at hotmail dot com

Neill Massello wrote:
> Peter Boosten <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>What bridge does allow this kind of setup (as I can imagine that
>>AP-manufacturers would like to sell as many as possible, one for each
>>device).
>
>
> You have been (justifiably) confused by the excessive and inconsistent
> use of the term "bridge", which ought to be reserved for something that
> connects two physical *networks* together. Connecting a single *device*
> to a network is done by an *adapter*.
>
> That cute thingy you bought was an Ethernet-to-wireless adapter. To
> connect multiple wired devices to an existing wireless network you need
> a thingy that can do what is now generally called a Wireless
> Distribution System (WDS). The function of WDS is essentially that of an
> uplink between two switches (or hubs), passing packets from a device
> connected to one switch to a device connected to the other switch.
>
> WDS capability found in many recent wireless access points and routers.
> Unfortunately, WDS is not yet standardized across the wireless
> networking industry, so it usually doesn't work between different makes
> of APs or routers. To complicate things further, some devices that can
> do WDS cannot service wireless clients at the same time or cannot
> connect via WDS to more than one other AP/router.
>
> For the greatest flexibility in using WDS, I recommend the
> Broadcom-based products such as Buffalo's <http://www.buffalotech.com/>
> or Apple's <http://www.apple.com/airport>. (Note that, except for
> Apple's base stations, you are currently restricted to WEP encryption
> when using WDS.)
>

Thank u Neill, for giving that information and taking it to the point
I hope, people who creating network devices will work a bit more
together instead of praising the top features of their products which
are not compatible (what isnt printed on the box) to products from other
people...

regards,

Jens