Difference between Linkys WAP54G and WET54G

I'm trying to hookup my son's XBox to the home network. While I'm at it, I
also want to connect the DirecTV DVR player (HR-20) to the network as well.
There is no hardwire connection between the TV/XBox and the wireless router
(WRT54G) upstairs so a wireless solution is sought. For the XBox I could
use a gaming adapter (WGA5G) but I've used one before and found them
unreliable and I no longer have one anyway or I'd try. Other possible
solutions are the WAP54G and the WET54G. I've read the WAP54G (less
expensive than the WET) can be used if set in client mode (which I'm
assuming must put it in bridge mode). The WET54G is a bridge and is
advertised as being XBox compliant so I know it must work as well.

1) What are the differences between the two devices (WAG54G and WET54G)?
Will either one allow me to connect an ethernet device (the XBox and the
DVR) wirelessly to a remote WRT54G?
2) Both the devices apparently only come with one port. I want to hook up
two devices. Can I just use a switch to hook up the XBox and the DVR to the
W**54G?

Thanks.

On Sep 5, 10:57 am, "jch" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> 2) Both the devices apparently only come with one port. I want to hook up
> two devices. Can I just use a switch to hook up the XBox and the DVR to the
> W**54G?

You can get the Buffalo wireless client adapter, which also acts as a
"gaming adapter", but it has 4 LAN ports. Much cheaper than other ones
too, only $54 at Amazon ($70 list).

http://www.buffalotech.com/products/...net-converter/

"Bucky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> On Sep 5, 10:57 am, "jch" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> 2) Both the devices apparently only come with one port. I want to hook up
>> two devices. Can I just use a switch to hook up the XBox and the DVR to
>> the
>> W**54G?
>
> You can get the Buffalo wireless client adapter, which also acts as a
> "gaming adapter", but it has 4 LAN ports. Much cheaper than other ones
> too, only $54 at Amazon ($70 list).
>
> http://www.buffalotech.com/products/...net-converter/
>

I'm sorry, but I don't give a rat's behind about ads for other equipment at
the moment. I'm specifically asking two questions:
1) Will both the Linksys WAP54G and the WET54G both act as a bridge to
connect ethernet devices to a wireless network administered by a WRT54G?
and,
2) Utilizing a switch, can I connect two ethernet devices to either of these
devices and by doing so have them both networked?

Anyone? Thanks.

jch wrote:
> "Bucky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>> On Sep 5, 10:57 am, "jch" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> 2) Both the devices apparently only come with one port. I want to
>>> hook up two devices. Can I just use a switch to hook up the XBox
>>> and the DVR to the
>>> W**54G?
>>
>> You can get the Buffalo wireless client adapter, which also acts as a
>> "gaming adapter", but it has 4 LAN ports. Much cheaper than other
>> ones too, only $54 at Amazon ($70 list).
>>
>> http://www.buffalotech.com/products/...net-converter/
>>
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't give a rat's behind about ads for other
> equipment at the moment. I'm specifically asking two questions:
> 1) Will both the Linksys WAP54G and the WET54G both act as a bridge to
> connect ethernet devices to a wireless network administered by a
> WRT54G? and,
> 2) Utilizing a switch, can I connect two ethernet devices to either
> of these devices and by doing so have them both networked?
>
> Anyone? Thanks.

Not sure why you would want a bridge only, you can pick up a second WRT54G
at walmart for about $48.....

"jch" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>I'm trying to hookup my son's XBox to the home network. While I'm at it, I
>also want to connect the DirecTV DVR player (HR-20) to the network as well.
>There is no hardwire connection between the TV/XBox and the wireless router
>(WRT54G) upstairs so a wireless solution is sought. For the XBox I could
>use a gaming adapter (WGA5G) but I've used one before and found them
>unreliable and I no longer have one anyway or I'd try. Other possible
>solutions are the WAP54G and the WET54G. I've read the WAP54G (less
>expensive than the WET) can be used if set in client mode (which I'm
>assuming must put it in bridge mode). The WET54G is a bridge and is
>advertised as being XBox compliant so I know it must work as well.
>
>1) What are the differences between the two devices (WAG54G and WET54G)?
>Will either one allow me to connect an ethernet device (the XBox and the
>DVR) wirelessly to a remote WRT54G?

See below.

>2) Both the devices apparently only come with one port. I want to hook up
>two devices. Can I just use a switch to hook up the XBox and the DVR to the
>W**54G?

Yes, but only if the WAP54G or WET54G support passing more than one
MAC address. See below.

That's one of the most common un-answered questions. Most wireless
ethernet bridges and game adapters will pass more than one MAC
address. Therefore, you can pile on the computers behind the wireless
bridge as needed, usually through an added ethernet switch. See the
list at:
<http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Ethernet_Bridges>
The one's labelled "multi" will pass multiple MAC addresses.

The problem is that the list is not 100.0% reliable. For example,
someone recently found out the hard way that two recent firmware
versions for the DWL-2100AP will not pass multiple MAC addresses in
client mode. I've had the same problem with combinations of the
WAP54G and assorted wireless routers. The manufacturers are of zero
help because it's not really a "supported" configuration, which really
means that the vendors can sell more client bridges if they don't
admit that you don't need one wireless bridge per computah. For the
few that will admit that you can bridge more than one MAC address,
they won't tell how many MAC's can be bridged. Usually, it's
something dismal like 16 or 32 MAC addresses.

Anyway, I've had problems with the WAP54G hanging in point to point
bridge applications and would not recommend using it. I haven't tried
the WET54G. Since you don't give a "rat's behind" about alternative
hardware suggestions, I won't offer any.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "jch" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
>>I'm trying to hookup my son's XBox to the home network. While I'm at it, I
>>also want to connect the DirecTV DVR player (HR-20) to the network as
>>well.
>>There is no hardwire connection between the TV/XBox and the wireless
>>router
>>(WRT54G) upstairs so a wireless solution is sought. For the XBox I could
>>use a gaming adapter (WGA5G) but I've used one before and found them
>>unreliable and I no longer have one anyway or I'd try. Other possible
>>solutions are the WAP54G and the WET54G. I've read the WAP54G (less
>>expensive than the WET) can be used if set in client mode (which I'm
>>assuming must put it in bridge mode). The WET54G is a bridge and is
>>advertised as being XBox compliant so I know it must work as well.
>>
>>1) What are the differences between the two devices (WAG54G and WET54G)?
>>Will either one allow me to connect an ethernet device (the XBox and the
>>DVR) wirelessly to a remote WRT54G?
>
> See below.
>
>>2) Both the devices apparently only come with one port. I want to hook up
>>two devices. Can I just use a switch to hook up the XBox and the DVR to
>>the
>>W**54G?
>
> Yes, but only if the WAP54G or WET54G support passing more than one
> MAC address. See below.
>
> That's one of the most common un-answered questions. Most wireless
> ethernet bridges and game adapters will pass more than one MAC
> address. Therefore, you can pile on the computers behind the wireless
> bridge as needed, usually through an added ethernet switch. See the
> list at:
> <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Ethernet_Bridges>
> The one's labelled "multi" will pass multiple MAC addresses.
>
> The problem is that the list is not 100.0% reliable. For example,
> someone recently found out the hard way that two recent firmware
> versions for the DWL-2100AP will not pass multiple MAC addresses in
> client mode. I've had the same problem with combinations of the
> WAP54G and assorted wireless routers. The manufacturers are of zero
> help because it's not really a "supported" configuration, which really
> means that the vendors can sell more client bridges if they don't
> admit that you don't need one wireless bridge per computah. For the
> few that will admit that you can bridge more than one MAC address,
> they won't tell how many MAC's can be bridged. Usually, it's
> something dismal like 16 or 32 MAC addresses.
>
> Anyway, I've had problems with the WAP54G hanging in point to point
> bridge applications and would not recommend using it. I haven't tried
> the WET54G. Since you don't give a "rat's behind" about alternative
> hardware suggestions, I won't offer any.

Me and the now attentive rat thank you I read a past post (possibly
from you) on a different subject and saw a table of the max simultaneous
connections a list of routers could handle
(http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/compo...189/chart,124/)
My little WRT54G is working just fine now but I plan to quickly bring on two
more computers and of course the 2 devices listed in this post (Xbox and
DVR). Since this router maxs out at 8 connections (per the referenced
table), I'm thinking I want a new router and am considering the Zyxel X-550
also from that router list. I could go with the WRT54GL but as happy as
I've been with Linksys, I wouldn't mind trying something new. In that case,
I would use the existing WRT54G ver.5 as an AP and provide connectivity to
the XBox and DVR. From your response above, it would appear to be a crap
shoot as to if the WAP54G would support multi-MACs.

Thanks again.


>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"jch" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>I read a past post (possibly
>from you) on a different subject and saw a table of the max simultaneous
>connections a list of routers could handle
>(http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/compo...189/chart,124/)

No, no. Totally different issue. The chart reflects the number of
clients or connections (or simulated connections) that can connect to
a wireless router before something inside the router firmware
overflows or blows up. Chances that you would hit one of these limits
is fairly small unless you were planning a commercial hot spot or
building a public system.

The limit to the number of MAC addresses that can be passed through a
single wireless ethernet bridge is quite different. That's limited by
implimentation of the 802.11 protocol and has nothing to do with the
router running out of table space or horsepower. In the beginning
daze of wireless, it was assumed that each wireless client bridge
would pass exactly one MAC address and no more. If you wanted more,
you setup a transparent bridge, which is usually just point to point,
not point to multipoint. Somewhere along the line, someone clever
figured out how to connect a transparent bridge to a wireless access
point, thus allowing multiple MAC addresses to connect. This was not
exactly in the 802.11 standard, but became a highly desireable feature
in only some sectors. So, implementation was spotty and little
testing was done.

>My little WRT54G is working just fine now but I plan to quickly bring on two
>more computers and of course the 2 devices listed in this post (Xbox and
>DVR). Since this router maxs out at 8 connections (per the referenced
>table),

You didn't specify which WRT54G hardware mutation you're using. The
v5 and v6 mutations certainly had problems with horsepower and would
barely handle 8 connections. The V1 thru V4 versions have no problems
with more. I don't have Ixia Chariot, so I can't duplicate the tests
in SmallNetBuilder, but I've setup coffee shops where there are far
more than 8 simultaneous users and never had a problem. The
difference is probably that I use DD-WRT firmware instead of the stock
Linksys firmware.

>I'm thinking I want a new router and am considering the Zyxel X-550
>also from that router list. I could go with the WRT54GL but as happy as
>I've been with Linksys, I wouldn't mind trying something new. In that case,
>I would use the existing WRT54G ver.5 as an AP and provide connectivity to
>the XBox and DVR.

I'm not sure what I would suggest. I'm having decent luck with
various Buffalo products including their client bridge. The WRT54G v5
is not my favorite product. When I find them, they get returned or
exchanged for something better as I can't do much with them. Try it
with whatever wireless bridge you select, but be prepared to change if
there are problems.

>From your response above, it would appear to be a crap
>shoot as to if the WAP54G would support multi-MACs.

No. I said that the WAP54G was hanging erratically at 3 different
sites. All are used as point to point transparent bridges so it's not
exactly an exact prediction of what you'll experience. However,
that's not the problem. The problem is that *ALL* the wireless
ethernet bridges listed on the shopping list may be suspect because
nobody has bothered to test for passing multiple MAC addresses on
every conceivable combination of client bridge and wireless access
point available. At one point, I posted a list of wireless clients
that worked for me. Almost immediately, I started getting email which
seemed to indicate that various hardware mutations, and various
firmware versions, didn't work with various routers, each with their
own assortment of hardware and firmware combinations.

The best I can suggest is to buy it from some place where you can
return it or possibly borrow one from someone for testing. Chances
are good that anything on the list will work, but there's no
guarantee.



--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sep 6, 6:18 am, "jch" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I don't give a rat's behind about ads for other equipment at
> the moment.

My post wasn't a spam/ad, although I guess in hindsight it does look
like one. The main issue is that the bridges with only 1 port usually
only support device (at least officially). That's I recommended the
Buffalo, because it has 4 LAN ports.

On Sep 6, 10:08 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> someone recently found out the hard way that two recent firmware
> versions for the DWL-2100AP will not pass multiple MAC addresses in
> client mode. I've had the same problem with combinations of the
> WAP54G and assorted wireless routers.

I understand the multiple MAC addresses issue if hooking up a hub/
switch to a wireless client adapter. But about hooking up a router
with NAT to the wireless client adapter? Is the multiple MAC address
issue still relevant for that? My thinking is that the wireless client
adapter only sees one device, the router w/ NAT.

Bucky <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>On Sep 6, 10:08 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> someone recently found out the hard way that two recent firmware
>> versions for the DWL-2100AP will not pass multiple MAC addresses in
>> client mode. I've had the same problem with combinations of the
>> WAP54G and assorted wireless routers.

>I understand the multiple MAC addresses issue if hooking up a hub/
>switch to a wireless client adapter. But about hooking up a router
>with NAT to the wireless client adapter?

That always works. There's only one MAC addresses that needs to be
sent over the wireless bridge and the added router NAT takes care of
the multiple clients. The downside is that you end up with what's
called "double NAT", which causes problems for any service that needs
to go from the internet, throught two routers, and to the client.
Double NAT is not a major problem as most services will work. At
worst, one gets to setup port forwarding in BOTH routers for each
service.

>Is the multiple MAC address
>issue still relevant for that?

No.

>My thinking is that the wireless client
>adapter only sees one device, the router w/ NAT.

Correct.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558