Linking two LANs with 802.11n?

Hi all,

I need to link two Gigabit switches that are in two
different buildings. I would like to do it with wireless
802.11n for the speed (300M). Does anyone out
there make an 802.11n that can be put into "bridge"
mode so that when connected the two lans work as
one? Yes, I know it hasn't been ratified yet.
I did find the WG302 but that only goes up to 108M

thanks,
charles......

***** charles wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I need to link two Gigabit switches that are in two
> different buildings. I would like to do it with wireless
> 802.11n for the speed (300M). Does anyone out
> there make an 802.11n that can be put into "bridge"
> mode so that when connected the two lans work as
> one? Yes, I know it hasn't been ratified yet.
> I did find the WG302 but that only goes up to 108M
>
> thanks,
> charles......
>
>

First of all, let me say that I don't have an answer to your question.
But I have a few questions you might want to consider before committint
to wireless since I have a bit of experience connecting sites using
various layer-1 media.

Are the bridge endpoints more than 100' apart? If more than 100 feet, do
you have line-of-site between? Can you use unidirectional, aimed
antennas? How reliable does this this connection need to be? Is there a
conduit or aerial path for a fiber optic cable?

Wireless, as you know if you've dealt with it much, can be a real
challenge to keep up and running (at lease acceptably). Our local
medical center fitted a lot of their nearby buildings with wireless.
Ideal setups with full line-of-site from high points. They had so much
trouble with it, they gave it up and installed fiber between. I've NEVER
seen wireless sustain its rated throughput beyond about 50' with even
the slightest obstruction using an omni antenna. And .11n is "cutting
edge", which equals "unproven" in my book. If you have a path, go fiber
(or even copper if you're close enough for gig over copper). In fact, if
your switches use sfp gbics, I'd go singlemode. It'll take you into the
10Mb future, and cost over multimode is minimal these days.

....kurt

"kurt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> ***** charles wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I need to link two Gigabit switches that are in two
> > different buildings. I would like to do it with wireless
> > 802.11n for the speed (300M). Does anyone out
> > there make an 802.11n that can be put into "bridge"
> > mode so that when connected the two lans work as
> > one? Yes, I know it hasn't been ratified yet.
> > I did find the WG302 but that only goes up to 108M
> >
> > thanks,
> > charles......
> >
> >
>
> First of all, let me say that I don't have an answer to your question.
> But I have a few questions you might want to consider before committint
> to wireless since I have a bit of experience connecting sites using
> various layer-1 media.
>
> Are the bridge endpoints more than 100' apart? If more than 100 feet, do
> you have line-of-site between? Can you use unidirectional, aimed
> antennas? How reliable does this this connection need to be? Is there a
> conduit or aerial path for a fiber optic cable?
>
> Wireless, as you know if you've dealt with it much, can be a real
> challenge to keep up and running (at lease acceptably). Our local
> medical center fitted a lot of their nearby buildings with wireless.
> Ideal setups with full line-of-site from high points. They had so much
> trouble with it, they gave it up and installed fiber between. I've NEVER
> seen wireless sustain its rated throughput beyond about 50' with even
> the slightest obstruction using an omni antenna. And .11n is "cutting
> edge", which equals "unproven" in my book. If you have a path, go fiber
> (or even copper if you're close enough for gig over copper). In fact, if
> your switches use sfp gbics, I'd go singlemode. It'll take you into the
> 10Mb future, and cost over multimode is minimal these days.
>
> ...kurt

Thanks for the response kurt. I have worked with wireless a bit and I
am well aware of the reliability/security issues. Here are the specs of
the problem domain (old Mac G4 computer, the two wireless boxes
have to be moveable from one location to another, can't run a wire
between the two networks since it is not in one fixed location all the
time). If the server side was a "pc", I could just use a PCI N-card but
there are no drivers for pci cards for the Mac. Once location is in a
big gym type room that is more than 150 feet long and the two networks
are on each side of the room. Streaming video is one requirement so
I would like to get the 300M link if I could. The Internet access is a T3.
I have looked into the 108M (double 54's) technology but I don't know
if they will actually flow between antennas at 108M. There are plenty
of 54M solutions but that may be too slow for streaming video. The
LAN's are Gigabit LANs. The connectio to the Internet seems to be
the real bottleneck, T3, T1 or DSL. I have never tried to do streaming
video over a dsl line so I don't know what the client side of the
experience would be. Any other thoughts?

thanks,
charles....

***** charles wrote:

> Thanks for the response kurt. I have worked with wireless a bit and I
> am well aware of the reliability/security issues. Here are the specs of
> the problem domain (old Mac G4 computer, the two wireless boxes
> have to be moveable from one location to another, can't run a wire
> between the two networks since it is not in one fixed location all the
> time). If the server side was a "pc", I could just use a PCI N-card but
> there are no drivers for pci cards for the Mac. Once location is in a
> big gym type room that is more than 150 feet long and the two networks
> are on each side of the room. Streaming video is one requirement so
> I would like to get the 300M link if I could. The Internet access is a T3.
> I have looked into the 108M (double 54's) technology but I don't know
> if they will actually flow between antennas at 108M. There are plenty
> of 54M solutions but that may be too slow for streaming video. The
> LAN's are Gigabit LANs. The connectio to the Internet seems to be
> the real bottleneck, T3, T1 or DSL. I have never tried to do streaming
> video over a dsl line so I don't know what the client side of the
> experience would be. Any other thoughts?
>
> thanks,
> charles....
>
>

54Mbps should be plenty fast for video streaming unless you're running a
lot of sreams. MPEG4 uses about 12Mpbs per stream and MPEG2-HD
approaching 20Mbps. QoS is your biggest issue when bandwidth is near
saturation. A T3 is ~45Mbps, so will fit into your 54M pipe. This is
assuming you can actually get 54. 3-Com (ya, I know, not usually my
choice either) makes some wireless bridges with decent range. I've used
their wireless APs which also bridge wirelessly between each other with
real good success.

....kurt

***** charles wrote:
> "kurt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> ***** charles wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I need to link two Gigabit switches that are in two
>>> different buildings. I would like to do it with wireless
>>> 802.11n for the speed (300M). Does anyone out
>>> there make an 802.11n that can be put into "bridge"
>>> mode so that when connected the two lans work as
>>> one? Yes, I know it hasn't been ratified yet.
>>> I did find the WG302 but that only goes up to 108M
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> charles......
>>>
>>>
>> First of all, let me say that I don't have an answer to your question.
>> But I have a few questions you might want to consider before committint
>> to wireless since I have a bit of experience connecting sites using
>> various layer-1 media.
>>
>> Are the bridge endpoints more than 100' apart? If more than 100 feet, do
>> you have line-of-site between? Can you use unidirectional, aimed
>> antennas? How reliable does this this connection need to be? Is there a
>> conduit or aerial path for a fiber optic cable?
>>
>> Wireless, as you know if you've dealt with it much, can be a real
>> challenge to keep up and running (at lease acceptably). Our local
>> medical center fitted a lot of their nearby buildings with wireless.
>> Ideal setups with full line-of-site from high points. They had so much
>> trouble with it, they gave it up and installed fiber between. I've NEVER
>> seen wireless sustain its rated throughput beyond about 50' with even
>> the slightest obstruction using an omni antenna. And .11n is "cutting
>> edge", which equals "unproven" in my book. If you have a path, go fiber
>> (or even copper if you're close enough for gig over copper). In fact, if
>> your switches use sfp gbics, I'd go singlemode. It'll take you into the
>> 10Mb future, and cost over multimode is minimal these days.
>>
>> ...kurt
>
> Thanks for the response kurt. I have worked with wireless a bit and I
> am well aware of the reliability/security issues. Here are the specs of
> the problem domain (old Mac G4 computer, the two wireless boxes
> have to be moveable from one location to another, can't run a wire
> between the two networks since it is not in one fixed location all the
> time). If the server side was a "pc", I could just use a PCI N-card but
> there are no drivers for pci cards for the Mac. Once location is in a
> big gym type room that is more than 150 feet long and the two networks
> are on each side of the room. Streaming video is one requirement so
> I would like to get the 300M link if I could. The Internet access is a T3.
> I have looked into the 108M (double 54's) technology but I don't know
> if they will actually flow between antennas at 108M. There are plenty
> of 54M solutions but that may be too slow for streaming video. The
> LAN's are Gigabit LANs. The connectio to the Internet seems to be
> the real bottleneck, T3, T1 or DSL. I have never tried to do streaming
> video over a dsl line so I don't know what the client side of the
> experience would be. Any other thoughts?
>
> thanks,
> charles....
>
>

After re-reading your last post, I also feel obliged to mention the
range of the wireless computers. Obviously you're aware that the
computers themselves will have less range than even wal-mart grade APs.

....kurt

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <aeBIh.9398$(E-Mail Removed)> , ***** charles wrote:

>I need to link two Gigabit switches that are in two
>different buildings. I would like to do it with wireless
>802.11n for the speed (300M).

The news group you want is 'alt.internet.wireless', and before you
bother posting there, get the details they are going to want to know.
The least of this is "how far apart" and "is there a clear shot between
the proposed antenna locations". "Clear shot" means that _nothing_ is
in the way, or within 6-12 feet of the line of sight. Also know that
the "radios" need to be as close to the antennas as possible because
the cable loss at S and C band is pretty horrible. Three meters of cable
is going to cost you most of the antenna gain you can get with common
(read "relatively inexpensive") antennas.

>Does anyone out there make an 802.11n that can be put into "bridge"
>mode so that when connected the two lans work as one? Yes, I know it
>hasn't been ratified yet. I did find the WG302 but that only goes up
>to 108M

Look really hard at why you need connecting the two as one. You're going
to pay a lot for that, and it's _RARELY_ needed. Connecting the two as
individual subnets, with a gateway in between is a LOT less of a hassle.
If you really do need that bandwidth and it has to be one network, then
you'll probably find putting fiber underground is going to be a lot more
reliable and cheaper in the long term. Copper is also possible if the
distances are short enough, but is probably against local fire regulations,
never mind making your insurance carrier unhappy.

Old guy

"kurt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> ***** charles wrote:
> > "kurt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> ***** charles wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I need to link two Gigabit switches that are in two
> >>> different buildings. I would like to do it with wireless
> >>> 802.11n for the speed (300M). Does anyone out
> >>> there make an 802.11n that can be put into "bridge"
> >>> mode so that when connected the two lans work as
> >>> one? Yes, I know it hasn't been ratified yet.
> >>> I did find the WG302 but that only goes up to 108M
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> charles......
> >>>
> >>>
> >> First of all, let me say that I don't have an answer to your question.
> >> But I have a few questions you might want to consider before committint
> >> to wireless since I have a bit of experience connecting sites using
> >> various layer-1 media.
> >>
> >> Are the bridge endpoints more than 100' apart? If more than 100 feet,
do
> >> you have line-of-site between? Can you use unidirectional, aimed
> >> antennas? How reliable does this this connection need to be? Is there a
> >> conduit or aerial path for a fiber optic cable?
> >>
> >> Wireless, as you know if you've dealt with it much, can be a real
> >> challenge to keep up and running (at lease acceptably). Our local
> >> medical center fitted a lot of their nearby buildings with wireless.
> >> Ideal setups with full line-of-site from high points. They had so much
> >> trouble with it, they gave it up and installed fiber between. I've
NEVER
> >> seen wireless sustain its rated throughput beyond about 50' with even
> >> the slightest obstruction using an omni antenna. And .11n is "cutting
> >> edge", which equals "unproven" in my book. If you have a path, go fiber
> >> (or even copper if you're close enough for gig over copper). In fact,
if
> >> your switches use sfp gbics, I'd go singlemode. It'll take you into the
> >> 10Mb future, and cost over multimode is minimal these days.
> >>
> >> ...kurt
> >
> > Thanks for the response kurt. I have worked with wireless a bit and I
> > am well aware of the reliability/security issues. Here are the specs of
> > the problem domain (old Mac G4 computer, the two wireless boxes
> > have to be moveable from one location to another, can't run a wire
> > between the two networks since it is not in one fixed location all the
> > time). If the server side was a "pc", I could just use a PCI N-card but
> > there are no drivers for pci cards for the Mac. Once location is in a
> > big gym type room that is more than 150 feet long and the two networks
> > are on each side of the room. Streaming video is one requirement so
> > I would like to get the 300M link if I could. The Internet access is a
T3.
> > I have looked into the 108M (double 54's) technology but I don't know
> > if they will actually flow between antennas at 108M. There are plenty
> > of 54M solutions but that may be too slow for streaming video. The
> > LAN's are Gigabit LANs. The connectio to the Internet seems to be
> > the real bottleneck, T3, T1 or DSL. I have never tried to do streaming
> > video over a dsl line so I don't know what the client side of the
> > experience would be. Any other thoughts?
> >
> > thanks,
> > charles....
> >
> >
>
> After re-reading your last post, I also feel obliged to mention the
> range of the wireless computers. Obviously you're aware that the
> computers themselves will have less range than even wal-mart grade APs.
>
> ...kurt

Final/Interum solution. I ended up installing (Netgear) one WPN824NA
and two WPN802NA's. The 824 was the link to the internet and the
two 802's were the bridges between the lans. I set them up intially when
they were about 5 feet apart and they roared at 108M. My friend is
going to move them to another location where the 802's will be 150 to
250 feet apart and see if they still work. I plan to call him sunday to get
a report on them. If they don't work, I'll try to find someting like a
wireless bridge that I can put between the two 802's so they can still
communicate. Or, maybe I can put custom antenna's on the 802's to
boost their range. I don't know if the newer WN802T100NAS can do
the same thing as the older WPN802NA's. That may be a workable
sollution but two of them are a lot more money and I can't take the two
older one back to the place I bought them.

later,
charles.....

PS. Netgear tech support says you can only put max 80 feet between two
802's. We'll see.

"Moe Trin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
> article <aeBIh.9398$(E-Mail Removed)> , ***** charles
wrote:
>
> >I need to link two Gigabit switches that are in two
> >different buildings. I would like to do it with wireless
> >802.11n for the speed (300M).
>
> The news group you want is 'alt.internet.wireless', and before you
> bother posting there, get the details they are going to want to know.
> The least of this is "how far apart" and "is there a clear shot between
> the proposed antenna locations". "Clear shot" means that _nothing_ is
> in the way, or within 6-12 feet of the line of sight. Also know that
> the "radios" need to be as close to the antennas as possible because
> the cable loss at S and C band is pretty horrible. Three meters of cable
> is going to cost you most of the antenna gain you can get with common
> (read "relatively inexpensive") antennas.
>
> >Does anyone out there make an 802.11n that can be put into "bridge"
> >mode so that when connected the two lans work as one? Yes, I know it
> >hasn't been ratified yet. I did find the WG302 but that only goes up
> >to 108M
>
> Look really hard at why you need connecting the two as one. You're going
> to pay a lot for that, and it's _RARELY_ needed. Connecting the two as
> individual subnets, with a gateway in between is a LOT less of a hassle.
> If you really do need that bandwidth and it has to be one network, then
> you'll probably find putting fiber underground is going to be a lot more
> reliable and cheaper in the long term. Copper is also possible if the
> distances are short enough, but is probably against local fire
regulations,
> never mind making your insurance carrier unhappy.
>
> Old guy

Thanks for the ref of alt.internet.wireless.

later....