Home wireless LAN bandwidth throttling

Is this possible under a home setup?

I'm in the process of getting broadband enabled (still haven't decided who
I'll go with yet though) and one of the things that I want is either a 1meg
or 2meg connection (we're close enough to the exchange for it).

However there's 2 computers in the house (mine and the kids) and due to the
issues of putting cabling through the house I was going to opt for a
wireless network. On top of that though (especially if I only go for a 1meg
connection) I don't want the kids nicking all the bandwidth (after all it's
my toy). I know in reality I wouldn't even notice that someone else was
using the connection but the ability to hog the bandwidth myself would be
ideal for downloading ISO's etc.

I can't seem to find much by googling except for the Vigor 2600G but it's
specs seem to imply that it can only throttle on ethernet connections it
doesn't say anything about wireless. Does anyone know anything about this?

Also does anyone have any ideas of "cheap" alternatives that are around?

Thanks

Anth

"Anthony Bowles" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:40c71452$(E-Mail Removed):

> I can't seem to find much by googling except for the Vigor 2600G but
> it's specs seem to imply that it can only throttle on ethernet
> connections it doesn't say anything about wireless. Does anyone know
> anything about this?

WiFi IS ethernet, just wireless.

--
My photos: http://www.weezer.plus.com/
To send me an e-mail, remove TEETH

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:49:51 +0100, Phil Chung
<(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:

>"Anthony Bowles" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:40c71452$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> I can't seem to find much by googling except for the Vigor 2600G but
>> it's specs seem to imply that it can only throttle on ethernet
>> connections it doesn't say anything about wireless. Does anyone know
>> anything about this?
>
>WiFi IS ethernet, just wireless.
>
I think he means the limiting only works on the hardwired ports and
not the wireless side.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

(E-Mail Removed) (Lurch) wrote in news:40c716ff.140716619@
195.129.110.67:

> I think he means the limiting only works on the hardwired ports and
> not the wireless side.

Hmmm.... so it throttles bandwidth per switch port? Then have two access
points - one for kids' computer and one for main computer. Throttle the
speed of one of the ports. :-)

Maybe using a Linux box to throttle bandwidth by IP would be better
then...

--
My photos: http://www.weezer.plus.com/
To send me an e-mail, remove TEETH

Anthony Bowles wrote:
> Also does anyone have any ideas of "cheap" alternatives that are around?

The Zyxel 660HW might support this:
http://www.zyxel.com/product/model.p...ate=1079416368

"Lurch" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40c716ff.140716619@195.129.110.67...
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:49:51 +0100, Phil Chung
> <(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:
>
> >"Anthony Bowles" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> >news:40c71452$(E-Mail Removed):
> >
> >> I can't seem to find much by googling except for the Vigor 2600G but
> >> it's specs seem to imply that it can only throttle on ethernet
> >> connections it doesn't say anything about wireless. Does anyone know
> >> anything about this?
> >
> >WiFi IS ethernet, just wireless.
> >
> I think he means the limiting only works on the hardwired ports and
> not the wireless side.
> --
>
> SJW
> A.C.S. Ltd

Yep it seems to imply the 4 ports on the specs.

Anth

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:06:40 +0100, Phil Chung
<(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:

>(E-Mail Removed) (Lurch) wrote in news:40c716ff.140716619@
>195.129.110.67:
>
>> I think he means the limiting only works on the hardwired ports and
>> not the wireless side.
>
>Hmmm.... so it throttles bandwidth per switch port? Then have two access
>points - one for kids' computer and one for main computer. Throttle the
>speed of one of the ports. :-)
>
I was thinking something along those lines, although if the main PC
could be a wired one next to the router then only one access point is
needed.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

(E-Mail Removed) (Lurch) wrote in
news:40c72ffa.147110814@195.129.110.67:

> I was thinking something along those lines, although if the main PC
> could be a wired one next to the router then only one access point is
> needed.

Yep, I was thinking that too, but I was working on the assumption that
both machines would be wireless :-)

--
My photos: http://www.weezer.plus.com/
To send me an e-mail, remove TEETH

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:50:08 +0100, Phil Chung
<(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:

>(E-Mail Removed) (Lurch) wrote in
>news:40c72ffa.147110814@195.129.110.67:
>
>> I was thinking something along those lines, although if the main PC
>> could be a wired one next to the router then only one access point is
>> needed.
>
>Yep, I was thinking that too, but I was working on the assumption that
>both machines would be wireless :-)
>
Sorry, I'm having a bit of a slow day today but if they were both
wireless it still only needs one access point as the main PC can be
connected unthrottled to the built in wi-fi of the router.
I'm going to go for a lie down now, my heads starting to hurt!
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:44:47 +0100, "Anthony Bowles"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On top of that though (especially if I only go for a 1meg
>connection) I don't want the kids nicking all the bandwidth (after all it's
>my toy). I know in reality I wouldn't even notice that someone else was
>using the connection but the ability to hog the bandwidth myself would be
>ideal for downloading ISO's etc.

So you tell the kids to get off the net when you're downloading stuff.
Unless you're happy to push more spoilt, selfish brats into society by
letting them do whatever they want, whenever they want.