"Gig" base station

I'm trying to set up a new wireless network.

I'd like a wireless base station in each room, each of which is connected
to the server room via a gig ethernet backbone.

Does anyone make a base station with 1000 base-T wired connection port?

--
Marcus 'Dr' Dee

"Marcus 'Dr' Dee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Does anyone make a base station with 1000 base-T wired connection port?

What would be the point? Even the "108 megabit" APs aren't going to
use the full bandwidth of a 100BaseT interface...

I'm sure they'll have triple-speed interfaces in a year or so as the
prices for chipsets come down, but even then it won't matter.

Marcus 'Dr' Dee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I'm trying to set up a new wireless network.
>
> I'd like a wireless base station in each room, each of which is connected
> to the server room via a gig ethernet backbone.
>
> Does anyone make a base station with 1000 base-T wired connection port?

Not much point in it, as wireless is too slow to put a strain even on
100BaseT. There's a point in combining a Gigabit *switch* with a
wireless base station, but the cost of Gigabit will have to fall before
that becomes appealing to the home and small office users who would be
the target market for such a device.

It sounds like you want to create a "backbone" by daisy-chaining Gigabit
switches between two or more computers or workgroups that could actually
benefit from the Gigabit speed. The networking experts will probably
tell you that's poor topology and that you should try to minimize the
number of switches connected in series.

In article <1goxr6y.1kso95e1ya2j5sN%(E-Mail Removed) et>,
Neill Massello <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
;There's a point in combining a Gigabit *switch* with a
;wireless base station, but the cost of Gigabit will have to fall before
;that becomes appealing to the home and small office users who would be
;the target market for such a device.

You haven't been looking at the prices lately, I take it.
5 port gigabit switches are down to something like $US75.
--
Preposterous!! Where would all the calculators go?!

Walter Roberson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> You haven't been looking at the prices lately, I take it.
> 5 port gigabit switches are down to something like $US75.

Less than $60, but that's still about what consumer-class wireless
routers (with built-in 100BaseT switches) go for these days. We'll
probably see Gigabit switches displace 100BaseT over the next year, but
it still isn't standard equipment on most desktop PCs.

(E-Mail Removed) (Walter Roberson) wrote:
>Neill Massello <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>;wireless base station, but the cost of Gigabit will have to fall before
>;that becomes appealing to the home and small office users who would be
>;the target market for such a device.

>You haven't been looking at the prices lately, I take it.
>5 port gigabit switches are down to something like $US75.

Adding $75 to the cost of most APs would price them out of the market.

(E-Mail Removed) (Neill Massello) wrote in
news:1goxr6y.1kso95e1ya2j5sN%neillmassello@earthli nk.net:

> Not much point in it, as wireless is too slow to put a strain even on
> 100BaseT.

On the contrary.

The 108Mbit is between the wireless device and the base station. A base
station can support many simultaneous wireless connections all operating at
this speed. If all of those devices are not communicating with each other,
but are instead copying large files to/from the server room, the bottleneck
will NOT be the 108Mbit of the wireless connection, but the 100Mbit of the
100 base-T ethernet.

> It sounds like you want to create a "backbone" by daisy-chaining Gigabit
> switches between two or more computers or workgroups that could actually
> benefit from the Gigabit speed. The networking experts will probably
> tell you that's poor topology and that you should try to minimize the
> number of switches connected in series.

No, I hope to have a single swich in the server room, several 100 base-T
backbones to separate rooms, and a wireless access point in each of those
rooms. It's quite coventional, but requires wireless access points that
have 1000 base-T.

I am not concerned by 'consumer' pricing - pro equipment would be
acceptable.

--
Marcus 'Dr' Dee

Marcus 'Dr' Dee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The 108Mbit is between the wireless device and the base station. A base
> station can support many simultaneous wireless connections all operating at
> this speed. If all of those devices are not communicating with each other,
> but are instead copying large files to/from the server room, the bottleneck
> will NOT be the 108Mbit of the wireless connection, but the 100Mbit of the
> 100 base-T ethernet.

That 108Mbps (or 54Mbps or 11Mbps) represents the maximum speed of the
wireless *connection* between the access point and any or all of its
clients collectively. Clients must share that bandwidth: two clients
cannot simultaneously communicate with an access point at that maximum
rate.

In addition, the 108 (and 54 and 11) is never achieved in actual
practice. Cut it in half for something more like a real world figure.
Until the next big improvement in wireless comes along, the bottlenecks
will be on the wireless side rather than the 100BaseT links.


> No, I hope to have a single swich in the server room, several 100 base-T
> backbones to separate rooms, and a wireless access point in each of those
> rooms. It's quite coventional, but requires wireless access points that
> have 1000 base-T.

I think you mean 1000BaseT backbones, as the speed of any link, assuming
proper cabling, is limited by the speed of the slower device at either
end of it. In any case, the network you describe doesn't have a true
"backbone" but uses a "star" topology, with a switch in the center and
an access point at the end of every spoke.


> I am not concerned by 'consumer' pricing - pro equipment would be
> acceptable.

I suspect you'll have a hard time finding any single-radio access points
with a Gigabit LAN port. But if money's no problem, why not consult a
wireless networking professional?

(E-Mail Removed) (Neill Massello) wrote in
news:1gozcbi.1s66sikkb8drgN%neillmassello@earthlin k.net:

> That 108Mbps (or 54Mbps or 11Mbps) represents the maximum speed of the
> wireless *connection* between the access point and any or all of its
> clients collectively.

Thanks for that. You have just disavowed me of a piece of misinformation
upon which my whole proposal was based.

> But if money's no problem, why not
> consult a wireless networking professional?

I didn't say money was "no problem". But some of the responses refuted the
viability of a gig access point on the grounds of "consumer" pricing. I
just pointed ouut that I could pay pro pricing if necessary.

And while I am happy to pay when I have to, I prefer not to ;-)
The information here was free and helpful.

Many thanks.

--
Marcus 'Dr' Dee

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:33:03 +0000 (UTC), in alt.internet.wireless ,
"Marcus 'Dr' Dee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) (Neill Massello) wrote in
>news:1goxr6y.1kso95e1ya2j5sN%neillmassello@earthl ink.net:
>
>> Not much point in it, as wireless is too slow to put a strain even on
>> 100BaseT.
>
>On the contrary.
>
>The 108Mbit is between the wireless device and the base station. A base
>station can support many simultaneous wireless connections all operating at
>this speed.

Euh, no it can't. The stated speed is shared between all clients. If you
don't believe me, read the 802.11b or g specs or empirically test this.

>No, I hope to have a single swich in the server room, several 100 base-T
>backbones to separate rooms, and a wireless access point in each of those
>rooms. It's quite coventional, but requires wireless access points that
>have 1000 base-T.

Its a waste of time, unless you have some wired units with 1000base-T cards
in.


--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----