Cutting the wire on a sailboat

Hi, y'all,

In addition to a Hawking 54G desktop unit, which serves me reasonably well
(even though I use it in a sheltered outdoor environment, using an active
USB extension cable), but has some limitations for what I want to do, I've
got this neat bridge (Senao 2611DB3 Deluxe) in a NEMA enclosure atop
the mast, with an 8.5 dBi antenna connected to it via a 6" pigtail
(virtually no signal loss). It's 200mw, so it reaches out really far (23
dBm). Its antenna
is omidirectional so it doesn't matter which direction the boat's pointing.
The signal pattern is fat enough to cover sea level to many hundred feet
high from the typical anchoring location. It's point-to-multipoint so it
can see any available "visible" access point. Because my XP network program
controls for me, I can select which of the available access points it sees
that I want to talk to.

Connected to my computer via ethernet, and powered with 12V via separately
appropriately sized wire, both up the mast, it sees a WAAAY farther than the
card in my laptop would, allowing me a great deal more latitude in finding a
usable signal when I'm at anchor, wherever that may be.

However, I'd really like to shed the wired connection (the ethernet
connected to my computer, as it's a laptop and I'd like to be able to carry
it up on deck without a tether).

Unfortunately, a bridge won't talk in both directions over the antenna. How
can I get some other wireless device (one which can talk to my computer) to
seamlessly (so I see my remote AP as though it were coming in via my laptop
antenna) talk to my bridge?

There may be a variety of voltages of whatever this device may need; I'll
work out getting power to it (but 12V, being a boat, would be preferable),
and, as long as I'm having more than one I'll put it up the mast, in the
enclosure, too, so there's essentially no distance between the two, in case
that's of any issue.

Can this be done? Can I put some other wireless device (that is, which can
see my computer's wifi) in connection with my bridge, so I can see (and
choose which of potentially many) a remote AP? If so, what is that device?

Better, is there a device which already integrates those functions? I need
the wattage for power, the N-connector (or pigtail) for the hi-gain stick,
and the means of communication to the top of the mast both from shore and
from the deck (which my laptop wifi can see without extra help like the
Hawking 54G or other signal boosters) so that I can choose, like a hotspot
finder would, the particular shorepoint I want.

FWIW, what's prompted this search is the intractible IP conflicts which
arise whenever I connect two of these (2611DB3) together, one set as AP and
the other as bridge. They work fine in either wireless mode or ethernet,
connected to my laptop one at a time (with the other on the other, wifi or
cat5 connection). No amount of IP configuration fiddling will change that
behavior when they're linked via cat5, so I presume there's some internal
conflict between the units when connected together. I'm ready to ditch that
setup, if there's something else which will do the job, either the AP side
of the two I have, or a single unit resulting in the ditching of both of
them.

Thanks.

L8R

Skip, trying to cruise with connectivity, but not by wire

--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig
http://tinyurl.com/384p2 The vessel as Tehamana, as we bought her

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore.
Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <5f578$43540370$a227fd95$(E-Mail Removed)> on Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:00:35
-0400, "Skip Gundlach" <skipgundlach at gmail dotcom> wrote:

>In addition to a Hawking 54G desktop unit, which serves me reasonably well
>(even though I use it in a sheltered outdoor environment, using an active
>USB extension cable), but has some limitations for what I want to do, I've
>got this neat bridge (Senao 2611DB3 Deluxe) in a NEMA enclosure atop
>the mast, with an 8.5 dBi antenna connected to it via a 6" pigtail
>(virtually no signal loss). It's 200mw, so it reaches out really far (23
>dBm). Its antenna
>is omidirectional so it doesn't matter which direction the boat's pointing.
>The signal pattern is fat enough to cover sea level to many hundred feet
>high from the typical anchoring location. It's point-to-multipoint so it
>can see any available "visible" access point. Because my XP network program
>controls for me, I can select which of the available access points it sees
>that I want to talk to.
>
>Connected to my computer via ethernet, and powered with 12V via separately
>appropriately sized wire, both up the mast, it sees a WAAAY farther than the
>card in my laptop would, allowing me a great deal more latitude in finding a
>usable signal when I'm at anchor, wherever that may be.
>
>However, I'd really like to shed the wired connection (the ethernet
>connected to my computer, as it's a laptop and I'd like to be able to carry
>it up on deck without a tether).
>
>Unfortunately, a bridge won't talk in both directions over the antenna. ...

Why not? That's what a bridge is supposed to do. In other words:

+-------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----+
<--+ Senao +-E-+ Wireless Bridge +-W-+ Wireless bridge +-+ You |
+-------+ +--------+--------+ +-----------------+ +-----+

E = Ethernet
W = Wireless (802.11/Bluetooth)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Hi, John, and nice to renew your acquaintance (we met in DSL land about 5
years ago...).

>>Unfortunately, a bridge won't talk in both directions over the antenna.
>>...
>
> Why not? That's what a bridge is supposed to do. In other words:

So, if I understand you correctly, I should be able to just power up my
2611, connect the honking antenna to it (any merit to connecting the 5.5
ducky I have to the other outlet on the card, the better to see below - or
is the 8.5 [with its flat dispersion donut] 60+ feet up strong enough to see
right below?), and have it function as a repeater?

That is, I'd see however many shore points there were in range, just by
virtue of the bridge? My XP program (or any other, such as the Hawking I
use on the higher gain indoor antenna, since it has more info than the XP
native one) controlling what point to which I connect, would see that (the
available shore points) through the power of the antenna and amplified
bridge?

OTOH:
> +-------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----+
> <--+ Senao +-E-+ Wireless Bridge +-W-+ Wireless bridge +-+ You |
> +-------+ +--------+--------+ +-----------------+ +-----+
>
> E = Ethernet
> W = Wireless (802.11/Bluetooth)

seems to suggest I need not only two wireless bridges (e.g. the two I have
already, but both set to bridge, rather than one each AP and bridge), but
some other Senao device (not specified as to AP or bridge, but with two
bridges shown, I presume AP) and a bluetooth? I'm not aware that the 2611s
talk "bluetooth" - but my laptops are Bluetooth equipped - and don't "see"
the bridge that way, though I've not done anything to try to make them do
so.

Obviously I'm (and the supplier I used is) out of my depth here, or I'd not
have started this way. One other correspondent (a HAM) led me down this
path, saying the bridge was all I needed, also, but both Senao and Hyperlink
(the antenna guys, who also have a 1W amp (but not bridge/AP, and it needs
antenna cable, not fed by ethernet, so too short for my mast) tell me it
can't be done.

Hm....

L8R

Skip
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig
http://tinyurl.com/384p2 The vessel as Tehamana, as we bought her

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore.
Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <d4200$4354324d$a227fd95$(E-Mail Removed)> on Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:22:51
-0400, "Skip Gundlach" <skipgundlach at gmail dotcom> wrote:
>>>Unfortunately, a bridge won't talk in both directions over the antenna.
>>>...
>>
>> Why not? That's what a bridge is supposed to do.
>
>So, if I understand you correctly, I should be able to just power up my
>2611, connect the honking antenna to it (any merit to connecting the 5.5
>ducky I have to the other outlet on the card, the better to see below - or
>is the 8.5 [with its flat dispersion donut] 60+ feet up strong enough to see
>right below?), and have it function as a repeater?

That's not what I said. That would work if and only if the Senao can be used
as a wireless repeater, not just an Ethernet-wireless bridge -- those are two
different things. What I actually said was:

>> +-------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----+
>> <--+ Senao +-E-+ Wireless Bridge +-W-+ Wireless bridge +-+ You |
>> +-------+ +--------+--------+ +-----------------+ +-----+
>>
>> E = Ethernet
>> W = Wireless (802.11/Bluetooth)
>
>seems to suggest I need not only two wireless bridges (e.g. the two I have
>already, but both set to bridge, rather than one each AP and bridge), but
>some other Senao device (not specified as to AP or bridge, but with two
>bridges shown, I presume AP) and a bluetooth? I'm not aware that the 2611s
>talk "bluetooth" - but my laptops are Bluetooth equipped - and don't "see"
>the bridge that way, though I've not done anything to try to make them do
>so.

Those are different boxes:
1. Your Senao connected by Ethernet to
2. an Ethernet-wireless bridge.
Plus possibly:
3. A wireless bridge for your computer.
The wireless link can be whatever the bridge units support.

It's possible that the Bluetooth on your computer (using Bluetooth networking
profile) could be used to connect to an Ethernet-Bluetooth network bridge
connected to your Senao by Ethernet (i.e., just one additional device),
although I've never tried to do that.

The Bluetooth on your computer is probably Class 2, which only has 10 meter
range, so that would only work if you ran an Ethernet cable down the mast and
mounted the Ethernet-Bluetooth network bridge in the cabin. Otherwise you'll
need Class 1 (100 meter) devices at both ends (top of mast and computer), and
you'll need to be careful that your Bluetooth doesn't interfere your WiFi
(since they use the same frequency).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Hi, John, and thanks for the note.

>>So, if I understand you correctly, I should be able to just power up my
>>2611, connect the honking antenna to it (any merit to connecting the 5.5
>>ducky I have to the other outlet on the card, the better to see below - or
>>is the 8.5 [with its flat dispersion donut] 60+ feet up strong enough to
>>see
>>right below?), and have it function as a repeater?
>
> That's not what I said. That would work if and only if the Senao can be
> used
> as a wireless repeater, not just an Ethernet-wireless bridge -- those are
> two
> different things.

So, do you know of any wireless repeaters? As far as my limited knowledge
will carry me, that's what I need. However, in looking further in the senao
site, I see a 3054etc. which claims to be a repeater.

However, pulling down the specs and the manual, the thing looks identical to
the 2611 functionally except it's only 100, not 200, mw, a step backwards,
not to mention that none of the literature says anything about repeater
function.

> What I actually said was:
>
>>> +-------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----+
>>> <--+ Senao +-E-+ Wireless Bridge +-W-+ Wireless bridge +-+ You |
>>> +-------+ +--------+--------+ +-----------------+ +-----+
>>>
>>> E = Ethernet
>>> W = Wireless (802.11/Bluetooth)
>>
>>seems to suggest I need not only two wireless bridges (e.g. the two I have
>>already, but both set to bridge, rather than one each AP and bridge), but
>>some other Senao device (not specified as to AP or bridge, but with two
>>bridges shown, I presume AP) and a bluetooth? I'm not aware that the
>>2611s
>>talk "bluetooth" - but my laptops are Bluetooth equipped - and don't "see"
>>the bridge that way, though I've not done anything to try to make them do
>>so.
>
> Those are different boxes:
> 1. Your Senao connected by Ethernet to
> 2. an Ethernet-wireless bridge.
> Plus possibly:
> 3. A wireless bridge for your computer.
> The wireless link can be whatever the bridge units support.

What I have now, and which emphatically doesn't work, is two senao units:
One configured as a bridge, and, connected via crossover, to the other,
configured as an AP, both "wireless" in that they use antennas to talk to
the outside world, but ethernet to talk to each other. Unfortunately, as
soon as you put the two together, they generate intractible IP conflicts,
and no amount of tweaking the IP resolves it. Even worse, without specific
IPs, one can't specify which shore point to which it would communicate,
because you can't interrogate it (and it's not a passthrough like a repeater
would be, allowing my XP or other wifi controller to select which point it
wants). However, that's what you seem to recommend (the 2611 AP <-> 2611
Bridge as "repeater") - but I don't see how adding another wireless bridge
would cure that - unless you're saying it (the new bridge) should be
connected via cat5, in which case, I've not achieved the objective (cutting
the cord), anyway.

I don't know that I want to introduce 2 or more additional parts to overcome
having to have the ethernet connected - but I can't believe that I'm the
only one who wants to do this - effectively the same as wardriving, but with
something else between me and the AP, providing lots of oomph, without
wires.

I can't imagine the HAM (amateur radio) community manages to make repeaters
an everyday occurence, nobody watching, nobody doing anything other than
making sure the hardware is powered up and the antenna's still up there, and
it works perfectly, and the wifi universe, with orders of magnitude more
users, hasn't one...

L8R

Skip, frustrated

--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig
http://tinyurl.com/384p2 The vessel as Tehamana, as we bought her

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore.
Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <3efe9$4355a33c$a227fd84$(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:36:58
-0400, "Skip Gundlach" <skipgundlach at gmail dotcom> wrote:

>So, do you know of any wireless repeaters? ...

Example: Linksys WRE54G
<http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?childpagename=US%2FLayout&packedargs=c%3 DL_Product_C2%26cid%3D1115416829757&pagename=Links ys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper>
or <http://tinyurl.com/8xuj3>

>What I have now, and which emphatically doesn't work, is two senao units:
>One configured as a bridge, and, connected via crossover, to the other,
>configured as an AP, both "wireless" in that they use antennas to talk to
>the outside world, but ethernet to talk to each other. Unfortunately, as
>soon as you put the two together, they generate intractible IP conflicts,
>and no amount of tweaking the IP resolves it.

The apparent problem is that your senao units seem to only be infrastructure
mode client devices, connecting to access points, or point to point devices,
connecting to each other. In both cases their clients (e.g., your laptop) are
wired, not wireless -- they aren't wireless repeaters. So to connect your
laptop wirelessly, you need to bridge between the wired network coming out of
the senao at the head of your mast and your laptop. For that, you need a
conventional wireless access point (not a router) to bridge your laptop to the
wired network. Better diagram:

+-------+ mast +--------------+ +-----------------+
<--+ Senao +----E----+ Access Point +----W----+ Wireless laptop |
+-------+ +--------------+ +-----------------+

E = Ethernet
W = Wireless (802.11/Bluetooth)

* Senao at top of mast
* Ethernet cable down the mast
* Access Point in the cabin

Since the Access Point is just acting as a wireless bridge, the Wireless
laptop network adapter is configured just as if it were a wired NIC connected
to the Ethernet cable.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Hi, John, and thanks for the thoughtful response. Leaving the discussion
below for the other group, and trying desperately to formulate my
question/where I'm stuck :{)) properly:

>>What I have now, and which emphatically doesn't work, is two senao units:
>>One configured as a bridge, and, connected via crossover, to the other,
>>configured as an AP, both "wireless" in that they use antennas to talk to
>>the outside world, but ethernet to talk to each other. Unfortunately, as
>>soon as you put the two together, they generate intractible IP conflicts,
>>and no amount of tweaking the IP resolves it.
>
> The apparent problem is that your senao units seem to only be
> infrastructure
> mode client devices, connecting to access points, or point to point
> devices,
> connecting to each other. In both cases their clients (e.g., your laptop)
> are
> wired, not wireless -- they aren't wireless repeaters. So to connect your
> laptop wirelessly, you need to bridge between the wired network coming out
> of
> the senao at the head of your mast and your laptop. For that, you need a
> conventional wireless access point (not a router) to bridge your laptop to
> the
> wired network. Better diagram:
>
> +-------+ mast +--------------+ +-----------------+
> <--+ Senao +----E----+ Access Point +----W----+ Wireless laptop |
> +-------+ +--------------+ +-----------------+
>
> E = Ethernet
> W = Wireless (802.11/Bluetooth)
>
> * Senao at top of mast
> * Ethernet cable down the mast
> * Access Point in the cabin
>
> Since the Access Point is just acting as a wireless bridge, the Wireless
> laptop network adapter is configured just as if it were a wired NIC
> connected
> to the Ethernet cable.

Hoping not to be redundant, the wired (through my RJ45 NIC, with the wifi
card disabled) bridge seems to work with its antenna (the external hi gain
on an N connector with a pigtail to the card). However, I want to avoid the
wire (at least to my laptop). So, the (non-working) provided setup is 2611
as AP (web-based setup) to crossover cable to 2611 as Bridge (web...). It's
there that the conflicts occur if I try to assign them IPs so I can
interrogate them. As both have antennas which are way overkill for anything
close by, but, common sense tells me, should work at close range, too - and,
in reality, this has never left the bench, as it doesn't yet work as I want
it to - I had assumed that I could look at either one of them with the
appropriately classed IP in my wifi (vs DHCP). However, IP conflicts
rendered the setup dead when the IPs were set in them individually, and then
they were XO'd together. Without the IPs, I can't interrogate, and
therefore can't select which of however many shore points might be found, as
all my wifi card sees is the AP, with whatever name I give it (but not
seeing the bridge, or individual shore points, though it will connect if
DHCP in all regards).

So, I think your diagram is what, in fact, I'd been trying to build. The
bridge was expected to talk to the outside world and pass info over the XO
to the AP, which would talk to me (and, presumably, anyone else who cared to
come aboard, or nearby). The bridge has been configured in both P-P and
P-MP, to no avail (against the IP conflicts when both are together).

Having bought them both, I'd sure like to be able to make them behave like a
repeater. I wasn't smart enough to ask for that when I got suckered by the
vendor after explaining what I wanted to do. However, if I have to start
over with some device already made to do that, I'm assuming one can pass
signal through an amplifier immediately to hand, and get the gain I'd
attempted here (200mw, 8.5dBi). Am I correct in that? I see amplifiers all
the way to a full watt, so presumably I'd have not only plenty of power, but
plenty of range.

Related, but not directly to the direction this has been going, in my
additional reading, I've discovered an area which might be fruitful. Do you
think that changing channels (both default to 6, which is also the case in
my internal wifi card) might change the outcome (IP conflicts, unaddressable
units)? As the gear is currently in a storage building (I'm in the middle
of more pressing issues related to our leaving at the moment), I can't just
hook it up to verify, but I *assume* it can be changed. However, as I
mentally look at the URL screens in my memory, I don't specifically see a
box around the "6" so perhaps I'm stuck. However, if you believe that to be
a worthwhile change, I'll do it.

As I've spent many days in troubleshooting this, many hours of which, over
many telephone conversations, included the vendor, I have a fair grasp of
what *doesn't* work :{/)

L8R

Skip, in study for HAM licensing



--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig
http://tinyurl.com/384p2 The vessel as Tehamana, as we bought her

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore.
Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <66c07$4356a96c$a227fd84$(E-Mail Removed)> on Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:13:38
-0400, "Skip Gundlach" <skipgundlach at gmail dotcom> wrote:

>> ... So to connect your
>> laptop wirelessly, you need to bridge between the wired network coming out of
>> the senao at the head of your mast and your laptop. For that, you need a
>> conventional wireless access point (not a router) to bridge your laptop to the
>> wired network. Better diagram:
>>
>> +-------+ mast +--------------+ +-----------------+
>><--+ Senao +----E----+ Access Point +----W----+ Wireless laptop |
>> +-------+ +--------------+ +-----------------+
>>
>> E = Ethernet
>> W = Wireless (802.11/Bluetooth)

Since your laptop apparently has builtin Bluetooth, and since speed probably
isn't an issue, you might want to consider a Bluetooth access point; e.g.,
<http://www.mobiletechreview.com/tips/belkin_AP.htm>, which would even allow
you to print wirelessly.

>> * Senao at top of mast
>> * Ethernet cable down the mast
>> * Access Point in the cabin
>>
>> Since the Access Point is just acting as a wireless bridge, the Wireless
>> laptop network adapter is configured just as if it were a wired NIC connected
>> to the Ethernet cable.
>
>Hoping not to be redundant, the wired (through my RJ45 NIC, with the wifi
>card disabled) bridge seems to work with its antenna (the external hi gain
>on an N connector with a pigtail to the card). However, I want to avoid the
>wire (at least to my laptop). So, the (non-working) provided setup is 2611
>as AP (web-based setup) to crossover cable to 2611 as Bridge (web...). It's
>there that the conflicts occur if I try to assign them IPs so I can
>interrogate them. [SNIP]

What you're trying to do will only work if the lower 2611 can be configured as
a *host* access point in bridging mode to which your laptop wireless client
can connect. IP addresses shouldn't be an issue (as long as the two 2611's
have manually-configured different addresses on the same subnet) -- bridges
(unlike routers) are transparent to network traffic.

>So, I think your diagram is what, in fact, I'd been trying to build. The
>bridge was expected to talk to the outside world and pass info over the XO
>to the AP, which would talk to me (and, presumably, anyone else who cared to
>come aboard, or nearby). The bridge has been configured in both P-P and
>P-MP, to no avail (against the IP conflicts when both are together).

You need to be more precise -- I don't know which unit "bridge" refers to.

>Having bought them both, I'd sure like to be able to make them behave like a
>repeater.

Repeater isn't what you need. See below. "Stay on target, Luke, stay on
target!"

>I wasn't smart enough to ask for that when I got suckered by the
>vendor after explaining what I wanted to do. However, if I have to start
>over with some device already made to do that, I'm assuming one can pass
>signal through an amplifier immediately to hand, and get the gain I'd
>attempted here (200mw, 8.5dBi). Am I correct in that? I see amplifiers all
>the way to a full watt, so presumably I'd have not only plenty of power, but
>plenty of range.

That would mean a weather-sealed repeater at the top of the mast (to avoid a
long antenna cable run) with enough power and both enough horizontal gain to
connect to shore stations and enough vertical signal to connect to your
computer down on deck. I'm not a radio expert, but I don't think that's
practical.

>Related, but not directly to the direction this has been going, in my
>additional reading, I've discovered an area which might be fruitful. Do you
>think that changing channels (both default to 6, which is also the case in
>my internal wifi card) might change the outcome (IP conflicts, unaddressable
>units)? [SNIP]

No.

If you want help in making this work, then take the advice, rather than doing
something else.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Here I am again :{))

<clip discussion of wired-up configuration between AP and Bridge>

> What you're trying to do will only work if the lower 2611 can be
> configured as
> a *host* access point in bridging mode to which your laptop wireless
> client
> can connect. IP addresses shouldn't be an issue (as long as the two
> 2611's
> have manually-configured different addresses on the same subnet) --
> bridges
> (unlike routers) are transparent to network traffic.

Is there any reason to run wire (cat5 XO) up the mast, instead of a pigtail
between the two units, a few inches long, both in the same NEMA
(weatherproof) enclosure? The AP has a 5.5dBi duck (to talk to my laptop),
and the P-MP Bridge has an 8.5dBi Hyperlink 20" stick (to talk to shore).
And, to the AP, perhaps what I need, inferred from your above, is actually
two bridges? One to talk to shore, the other to me? I could set the IPs
to, e.g., 192.168.10. (101 and 102) and interrogate them if I had my wifi as
192.168.10.10 (same subset mask in all cases)? And, somehow, despite my
widely variant previous attempts (i.e. 15.15.15. or 10.10.10 sets), I'd
avoid the IP conflicts I've gotten so far when I plug the two together with
the crossover?

I have to admit not having tried two bridge configurations. The vendor
asserted I'd need both, so that's the path we've been going down and
continually mugged in. As you can tell, I'm pretty ignorant about
networking, which likely gets me in trouble. However, I believe that my AP
(and maybe bridge) setup can act as host. Actually, that's sorta what I had
in mind - while I get the shore point with high power, any other cruiser
nearby could use the same signal I'm getting (that's assuming we can work
out this little equipment problem!). My duck should provide a wide enough
signal to cover the nearby boats in an anchorage; if they couldn't see the
shore, they could see my duck.

>>So, I think your diagram is what, in fact, I'd been trying to build. The
>>bridge was expected to talk to the outside world and pass info over the XO
>>to the AP, which would talk to me (and, presumably, anyone else who cared
>>to
>>come aboard, or nearby). The bridge has been configured in both P-P and
>>P-MP, to no avail (against the IP conflicts when both are together).
>
> You need to be more precise -- I don't know which unit "bridge" refers to.

"Bridge" is the 2611 unit configured in P-MP bridge mode. The other 2611
(with the duck) is configured to be AP. The web-based configuration can
toggle between those modes; the bridge lets you specify P-P or P-MP.

>>Having bought them both, I'd sure like to be able to make them behave like
>>a
>>repeater.
>
> Repeater isn't what you need. See below. "Stay on target, Luke, stay on
> target!"

Good! Trying very hard to stay on target, too, but thought I was SOL with
what I had...

>>I wasn't smart enough to ask for that when I got suckered by the
>>vendor after explaining what I wanted to do. However, if I have to start
>>over with some device already made to do that, I'm assuming one can pass
>>signal through an amplifier immediately to hand, and get the gain I'd
>>attempted here (200mw, 8.5dBi). Am I correct in that? I see amplifiers
>>all
>>the way to a full watt, so presumably I'd have not only plenty of power,
>>but
>>plenty of range.
>
> That would mean a weather-sealed repeater at the top of the mast (to avoid
> a
> long antenna cable run) with enough power and both enough horizontal gain
> to
> connect to shore stations and enough vertical signal to connect to your
> computer down on deck. I'm not a radio expert, but I don't think that's
> practical.

Well, I dunno. In my home D-Link cheapo hub/router, there are two (little,
of course!) sticks. One I have vertical, for my office upstairs, and
distant points (like my next door neighbor). The other I have horizontal,
for folks downstairs and on the deck. Of course, I still have the issue of
either a repeater (which I don't need?) with an amplifier, or the two 200mw
units which currently, at least, don't talk to each other or play nice (at
least not so one can specify which shore point to communicate with).

And, my setup would be weatherproof. If I could get just one of these units
to behave like a repeater, since they are actually a laptop card in a
breadboard base (enclosed in a housing for usual use indoors, but also
available as a module, as I have them), and have two antenna outputs, I
suppose I could put the duck on one and the stick on the other. (Both
antennae have the appropriate short pigtail to the card[s].) But, back to
your premise, yes, that's exactly what I was trying to do. Power the units
directly (vs 12V wallwarts) with the appropriately sized (to avoid voltage
drop) wire inside the mast, but have it wireless otherwise, in a
weatherproof enclosure with two antennae sticking out of it, the duck
horizontal below, and the stick vertical above.

>>Related, but not directly to the direction this has been going, in my
>>additional reading, I've discovered an area which might be fruitful. Do
>>you
>>think that changing channels (both default to 6, which is also the case in
>>my internal wifi card) might change the outcome (IP conflicts,
>>unaddressable
>>units)? [SNIP]
>
> No.
>
> If you want help in making this work, then take the advice, rather than
> doing
> something else.

So, summarizing, I don't need to fiddle with the channel settings. I don't
need a repeater or amp. I just need an AP configured in host bridge mode,
talking to my bridge?

Thanks.

L8R

Skip


--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig
http://tinyurl.com/384p2 The vessel as Tehamana, as we bought her

The Society for the Preservation of Tithesis commends your ebriated
and scrutible use of delible and defatigable, which are gainly, sipid
and couth. We are gruntled and consolate that you have the ertia and
eptitude to choose such putably pensible tithesis, which we parage.

>>Stamp out Sesquipedalianism<<

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <cabc7$4356c57a$a227fd84$(E-Mail Removed)> on Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:15:20
-0400, "Skip Gundlach" <skipgundlach at gmail dotcom> wrote:

>Here I am again :{))
>
><clip discussion of wired-up configuration between AP and Bridge>
>
>> What you're trying to do will only work if the lower 2611 can be
>> configured as
>> a *host* access point in bridging mode to which your laptop wireless
>> client
>> can connect. IP addresses shouldn't be an issue (as long as the two
>> 2611's
>> have manually-configured different addresses on the same subnet) --
>> bridges
>> (unlike routers) are transparent to network traffic.
>
>Is there any reason to run wire (cat5 XO) up the mast, instead of a pigtail
>between the two units, a few inches long, both in the same NEMA
>(weatherproof) enclosure?

Possible radio interference, although you may be able to avoid that with
proper antenna selection. Otherwise, you don't want them to both be on the
same primary channel (1/6/11), but that's something dictated by the shore
hotspots and is thus out of your control.

>The AP has a 5.5dBi duck (to talk to my laptop),

Which will radiate all over the place. I think you may need a directional
antenna facing down.

>and the P-MP Bridge has an 8.5dBi Hyperlink 20" stick (to talk to shore).
>And, to the AP, perhaps what I need, inferred from your above, is actually
>two bridges? One to talk to shore, the other to me?

Please read what I wrote, and stick to what I said. I don't have the time to
do it your way and/or chase down blind alleys.

>I could set the IPs
>to, e.g., 192.168.10. (101 and 102) and interrogate them if I had my wifi as
>192.168.10.10 (same subset mask in all cases)?

That should work *if* the lower (local) unit is bridging. The first step is
to make sure that your laptop can connect to the lower (local) device, and
then to see if it's properly bridging traffic to the upper (remote) device.

>And, somehow, despite my
>widely variant previous attempts (i.e. 15.15.15. or 10.10.10 sets), I'd
>avoid the IP conflicts I've gotten so far when I plug the two together with
>the crossover?

I have no idea what kind of problems you've actually run into. With bridging
and different manually configured IP addresses, there shouldn't be any IP
address conflicts.

>I have to admit not having tried two bridge configurations. The vendor
>asserted I'd need both, so that's the path we've been going down and
>continually mugged in. As you can tell, I'm pretty ignorant about
>networking, which likely gets me in trouble. However, I believe that my AP
>(and maybe bridge) setup can act as host. Actually, that's sorta what I had
>in mind - while I get the shore point with high power, any other cruiser
>nearby could use the same signal I'm getting (that's assuming we can work
>out this little equipment problem!). My duck should provide a wide enough
>signal to cover the nearby boats in an anchorage; if they couldn't see the
>shore, they could see my duck.

Not if your two devices are on the same channel and conflicting with each
other.

>> You need to be more precise -- I don't know which unit "bridge" refers to.
>
>"Bridge" is the 2611 unit configured in P-MP bridge mode.

Please stick to upper (or remote) and lower (or local). That sounds like
upper (or remote).

>The other 2611
>(with the duck) is configured to be AP.

That sounds like lower (or local).

>> Repeater isn't what you need. See below. "Stay on target, Luke, stay on
>> target!"
>
>Good! Trying very hard to stay on target, too, but thought I was SOL with
>what I had...

And you might be -- I don't know what your gear will or will not do.

>> That would mean a weather-sealed repeater at the top of the mast (to avoid a
>> long antenna cable run) with enough power and both enough horizontal gain to
>> connect to shore stations and enough vertical signal to connect to your
>> computer down on deck. I'm not a radio expert, but I don't think that's
>> practical.
>
>Well, I dunno.

Now you're a network expert?

>In my home D-Link cheapo hub/router, there are two (little,
>of course!) sticks. One I have vertical, for my office upstairs, and
>distant points (like my next door neighbor). The other I have horizontal,
>for folks downstairs and on the deck.

That's just diversity, not some sort of radio relay. Different network
topology -- those are all clients on one network, not clients bridged to a
short hotspot.

>And, my setup would be weatherproof. If I could get just one of these units
>to behave like a repeater,

[sigh]

>> If you want help in making this work, then take the advice, rather than
>> doing something else.
>
>So, summarizing, I don't need to fiddle with the channel settings. I don't
>need a repeater or amp. I just need an AP configured in host bridge mode,
>talking to my bridge?

Don't restate anything -- just follow what I said (wrote).

No offense, but you're making this more complex, confusing, and difficult than
it needs to be. FIRST TRY what I suggested, NOT something else. Come back if
you STILL have problems. Or do your own thing entirely.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>