Need some advice on wireless devices...

I'm looking for the fastest wireless routers that...

1) are the fastest
2) will maintain the same speed with mixed matched network cards that
support that speed.
3) supports WDS that won't chop up the speed as it retransmits
4) standard security stuff... WEP (or what is common now a days)
5) supports MAC filtering

At the moment the three manufacturers that come to mind are LinkSys,
NetGear, and D-Link.

Currently, I have three LinkSys routers WRT54Gs all upgraded with the
Alchemy (sp?) firmware for the WDS support. Works great, but, it's at 54mb
and the network speed gets chopped in half of what it should be. I can live
with it if I have to but if there are newer devices out there that will get
me what I'm after I will definitely upgrade.


Thanks

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:32:08 -0700, "AJM" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I'm looking for the fastest wireless routers that...
> 1) are the fastest

How fast do you want to go? How many Mbits/sec? TCP or UDP?
I assume you want 2.4GHz 802.11b/g.

> 2) will maintain the same speed with mixed matched network cards that
>support that speed.

Well, that's easy. Just set the access point to a fixed speed instead
of the usual "auto" which adjusts the speed for best error rate. Of
course with a fixed speed, the error rate will go up and down.

> 3) supports WDS that won't chop up the speed as it retransmits

Sorry. That's not going to happen. WDS is a half duplex repeater. It
can only transmit and receive one at a time. Because of this
limitation, the maximum WDS thruput is 1/2 of the transfer speed,
which is roughly 1/2 of the connection speed. Actually, this is the
best case as mutual interference and timing issues can cause
additional slow downs.

> 4) standard security stuff... WEP (or what is common now a days)

BARF. WEP is old and insecure. You should be using WPA or WPA2.

> 5) supports MAC filtering

Waste of time and effort. MAC addresses are easily spoofed and offer
little in the way of real security.

>At the moment the three manufacturers that come to mind are LinkSys,
>NetGear, and D-Link.

Ok, you also want cheap. Got a price limit?

>Currently, I have three LinkSys routers WRT54Gs all upgraded with the
>Alchemy (sp?) firmware for the WDS support. Works great, but, it's at 54mb
>and the network speed gets chopped in half of what it should be.

That's the way it works. Transfer speed (i.e. copying a file) is
about half the wireless connection speed. WDS cuts that in half
again.

>I can live
>with it if I have to but if there are newer devices out there that will get
>me what I'm after I will definitely upgrade.

How fast do you want to go? Is WDS really required or can your run
CAT5 to the various access points? What are you doing that requires
such speed?

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

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:32:08 -0700, "AJM" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm looking for the fastest wireless routers that...
>> 1) are the fastest
>
> How fast do you want to go? How many Mbits/sec? TCP or UDP?
> I assume you want 2.4GHz 802.11b/g.
>

Not quite sure? What's the fastest available wireless available today?

>> 2) will maintain the same speed with mixed matched network cards that
>>support that speed.
>
> Well, that's easy. Just set the access point to a fixed speed instead
> of the usual "auto" which adjusts the speed for best error rate. Of
> course with a fixed speed, the error rate will go up and down.
>

I'll have to look closer at this on all the routers. I assume the setting
would need to be same on all three routers that I currently have?

>> 3) supports WDS that won't chop up the speed as it retransmits
>
> Sorry. That's not going to happen. WDS is a half duplex repeater. It
> can only transmit and receive one at a time. Because of this
> limitation, the maximum WDS thruput is 1/2 of the transfer speed,
> which is roughly 1/2 of the connection speed. Actually, this is the
> best case as mutual interference and timing issues can cause
> additional slow downs.
>

This is not good news. I understand, but I was hoping by now someone out
there would have had a better solution.

>> 4) standard security stuff... WEP (or what is common now a days)
>
> BARF. WEP is old and insecure. You should be using WPA or WPA2.

That's how old my routers are... they only support two versions of WEP...

>
>> 5) supports MAC filtering
>
> Waste of time and effort. MAC addresses are easily spoofed and offer
> little in the way of real security.
>
>>At the moment the three manufacturers that come to mind are LinkSys,
>>NetGear, and D-Link.
>
> Ok, you also want cheap. Got a price limit?
>

Cheap? Price limit? Not necessarily. If it is worth the cost then I'd be
willing to bite the bullet. These three manufacturers came to mind. Are
there others out there? I just learned today of another "Buffalo" from this
group. As far as cost... at the moment I'm not thinking dollar amounts, if
the hardware will get what I want then I'll weigh the cost at that time.

>>Currently, I have three LinkSys routers WRT54Gs all upgraded with the
>>Alchemy (sp?) firmware for the WDS support. Works great, but, it's at
>>54mb
>>and the network speed gets chopped in half of what it should be.
>
> That's the way it works. Transfer speed (i.e. copying a file) is
> about half the wireless connection speed. WDS cuts that in half
> again.
>
>>I can live
>>with it if I have to but if there are newer devices out there that will
>>get
>>me what I'm after I will definitely upgrade.
>
> How fast do you want to go? Is WDS really required or can your run
> CAT5 to the various access points? What are you doing that requires
> such speed?
>

As fast as I can get with wireless. I'm getting back into development and
will be running several VMWare servers through the LAN on my laptop.
Because of the size of the VMWare files storing them on my laptop would not
be feasible and I'd hate to swap them on and off as needed to. In my old
home I personally ran CAT5 throughout the house so the whole house was hard
wired (it was nice!). I'm now living in a 2 story 4000sq ft home, wiring
the home could be done but not easily, it would be a major project and not
sure I'm willing just yet to under go it. I'd rather not use WDS but at the
moment and the size of my home that's my only current option.

With the laptop I like the idea that I can be anywhere in my home and be
both on the LAN and internet, I'm just getting frustrated with the through
put and bandwidth being chopped.

Hey Jeff... side note... I like your domain name below
"LearnByDestroying.com", been in the industry now for just about 25 years
and self taught everything.

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

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

>
>"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:32:08 -0700, "AJM" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm looking for the fastest wireless routers that...
>>> 1) are the fastest
>>
>> How fast do you want to go? How many Mbits/sec? TCP or UDP?
>> I assume you want 2.4GHz 802.11b/g.
>>
>
>Not quite sure? What's the fastest available wireless available today?

Gig-E wireless. 1.25Mbits/sec thruput.
http://www.proxim.com/terabeam/produ...nk1/index.html
You don't want to know the price.

The reason I asked is that it's YOU that has the applications
requirement. I was hoping for some numbers. When you get beyond
commodity 802.11g speeds, both the technology and the price escalate
rapidly. If I had a clue what you're trying to accomplish and why you
need the speed, it might be possible to offer a more practical
suggestion. For example, a mess of wireless clients sharing an
internet connection don't need to go any faster than the internet
connection as the DSL/cable/satellite limits the speed, not the
wireless. However, if you're running a wireless game network, speed
is everything.

>I'll have to look closer at this on all the routers. I assume the setting
>would need to be same on all three routers that I currently have?

Nope. You can have each one fixed to a different speed. The client
radios adjust to the speed of the access point they connect with.

>This is not good news. I understand, but I was hoping by now someone out
>there would have had a better solution.

Better than WDS? Sure, use two radios back to back on different
channels. That eliminates the requirement for half duplex and allows
full duplex operation. I have a repeater running in the tree tops
arranged that way. There's no 50% reduction in speed through the
repeater. However, there's still a reduction in speed due to timing
problems. My guess(tm) is about 20%. Another catch is that such a
two radio system hogs too many channels. There are "dual radio"
wireless vendors, mostly found in the mesh networks area.

>> BARF. WEP is old and insecure. You should be using WPA or WPA2.
>That's how old my routers are... they only support two versions of WEP...

Well, if you have something to protect, or suspect you might be
attacked, then upgrade before the inevitable disaster, not afterwards.

>>>At the moment the three manufacturers that come to mind are LinkSys,
>>>NetGear, and D-Link.
>> Ok, you also want cheap. Got a price limit?

>Cheap? Price limit? Not necessarily. If it is worth the cost then I'd be
>willing to bite the bullet. These three manufacturers came to mind. Are
>there others out there? I just learned today of another "Buffalo" from this
>group. As far as cost... at the moment I'm not thinking dollar amounts, if
>the hardware will get what I want then I'll weigh the cost at that time.

Look at wireless offerings by Cisco, Netscreen, 3com, and Sonicwall.
They're considerably more expensive, but generally worth the price.
However, none of these vendors care about speed. It's security and
reliability that their business customers want. Speed is whatever the
technology will bear. If speed is an issue, look into the various
MIMO offerings. (That's MIMO using Airgo chips, not beam forming).

>As fast as I can get with wireless. I'm getting back into development and
>will be running several VMWare servers through the LAN on my laptop.
>Because of the size of the VMWare files storing them on my laptop would not
>be feasible and I'd hate to swap them on and off as needed to.

Ok, the network is local and you're doing local file transfers.
Therefore, speed is important, but not critical.

>I'd rather not use WDS but at the
>moment and the size of my home that's my only current option.

Compromise. Run additional access points to get coverage to the
various parts of the house, but use CAT5 for the backhaul to the main
router. That won't require wiring the entire house, just the
backhauls.

WDS is its own worst enemy because it all runs on one channel. My
favorite demonstration is to setup a WDS network in a single enclosed
room. The mutual interference makes the system almost unusable. It
works much better when only the WDS bridges can hear each other.

>With the laptop I like the idea that I can be anywhere in my home and be
>both on the LAN and internet, I'm just getting frustrated with the through
>put and bandwidth being chopped.

Allow me to offer some general advice. Speed and range are inversely
related. If you want speed, you don't go very far. You can tinker
with the antenna patterns and gains to improve the situation, but
there are limits to what can be accomplished. High speeds also
implies susceptibility to interference. It doesn't take much "noise"
to force an access point to slow down from the mythical 108Mbits/sec
to something slower. High speeds also imply that inter-symbol
interference from reflections and timing problems become more
pronounced. None of these are fatal, but all of them conspire to make
high speed connections rather unreliable.

The current best of the breed are the various MIMO implementations.
I'm partial to the Airgo chipset products. They don't really go much
faster than conventional 802.11g. What the offer is much better
tolerance to reflections, interference, and multipath. What you'll
notice is that you really do have a more reliable connection at
generally higher speeds. Not the fastest available, but certainly the
most stable and reliable. (Retransmissions are a common cause of
apparent slowdowns).

I found an article that compares MIMO with beam forming wireless
routers with some benchmark tests. Of course, I can't find it now.
Maybe later.

>Hey Jeff... side note... I like your domain name below
>"LearnByDestroying.com", been in the industry now for just about 25 years
>and self taught everything.

Well, I have a sheepskin signed by Ronald Reagan (when he was Governor
of Calif). The motto at Cal Poly, Pomona was "Learn by Doing", which
I immediately butchered into "Learn By Destroying". Most everything
else, I learned the hard way. You don't really know the subject until
you actually work with it. Learning tends to be greatly accelerated
immediately after breaking something important. Incidentally, that's
why tech support tends to be so lousy; they don't get their hands
dirty working with the stuff.

Good luck.

--
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)> hath wroth:

>I found an article that compares MIMO with beam forming wireless
>routers with some benchmark tests. Of course, I can't find it now.
>Maybe later.

Foundit:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.i...a8efd2638d674b

--
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)...
> "AJM" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
>>
>>"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:32:08 -0700, "AJM" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm looking for the fastest wireless routers that...
>>>> 1) are the fastest
>>>
>>> How fast do you want to go? How many Mbits/sec? TCP or UDP?
>>> I assume you want 2.4GHz 802.11b/g.
>>>
>>
>>Not quite sure? What's the fastest available wireless available today?
>
> Gig-E wireless. 1.25Mbits/sec thruput.
> http://www.proxim.com/terabeam/produ...nk1/index.html
> You don't want to know the price.
>

Actually, I do want to know the price... I've been searching the net and
haven't been able to find it.... yet ..... Is this more of a commercial
solution rather than a home network solution?


> The reason I asked is that it's YOU that has the applications
> requirement. I was hoping for some numbers. When you get beyond
> commodity 802.11g speeds, both the technology and the price escalate
> rapidly. If I had a clue what you're trying to accomplish and why you
> need the speed, it might be possible to offer a more practical
> suggestion. For example, a mess of wireless clients sharing an
> internet connection don't need to go any faster than the internet
> connection as the DSL/cable/satellite limits the speed, not the
> wireless. However, if you're running a wireless game network, speed
> is everything.
>
>>I'll have to look closer at this on all the routers. I assume the setting
>>would need to be same on all three routers that I currently have?
>
> Nope. You can have each one fixed to a different speed. The client
> radios adjust to the speed of the access point they connect with.
>
>>This is not good news. I understand, but I was hoping by now someone out
>>there would have had a better solution.
>
> Better than WDS? Sure, use two radios back to back on different
> channels. That eliminates the requirement for half duplex and allows
> full duplex operation. I have a repeater running in the tree tops
> arranged that way. There's no 50% reduction in speed through the
> repeater. However, there's still a reduction in speed due to timing
> problems. My guess(tm) is about 20%. Another catch is that such a
> two radio system hogs too many channels. There are "dual radio"
> wireless vendors, mostly found in the mesh networks area.
>
>>> BARF. WEP is old and insecure. You should be using WPA or WPA2.
>>That's how old my routers are... they only support two versions of WEP...
>
> Well, if you have something to protect, or suspect you might be
> attacked, then upgrade before the inevitable disaster, not afterwards.
>
>>>>At the moment the three manufacturers that come to mind are LinkSys,
>>>>NetGear, and D-Link.
>>> Ok, you also want cheap. Got a price limit?
>
>>Cheap? Price limit? Not necessarily. If it is worth the cost then I'd
>>be
>>willing to bite the bullet. These three manufacturers came to mind. Are
>>there others out there? I just learned today of another "Buffalo" from
>>this
>>group. As far as cost... at the moment I'm not thinking dollar amounts,
>>if
>>the hardware will get what I want then I'll weigh the cost at that time.
>
> Look at wireless offerings by Cisco, Netscreen, 3com, and Sonicwall.
> They're considerably more expensive, but generally worth the price.
> However, none of these vendors care about speed. It's security and
> reliability that their business customers want. Speed is whatever the
> technology will bear. If speed is an issue, look into the various
> MIMO offerings. (That's MIMO using Airgo chips, not beam forming).
>
>>As fast as I can get with wireless. I'm getting back into development and
>>will be running several VMWare servers through the LAN on my laptop.
>>Because of the size of the VMWare files storing them on my laptop would
>>not
>>be feasible and I'd hate to swap them on and off as needed to.
>
> Ok, the network is local and you're doing local file transfers.
> Therefore, speed is important, but not critical.
>
>>I'd rather not use WDS but at the
>>moment and the size of my home that's my only current option.
>
> Compromise. Run additional access points to get coverage to the
> various parts of the house, but use CAT5 for the backhaul to the main
> router. That won't require wiring the entire house, just the
> backhauls.
>
> WDS is its own worst enemy because it all runs on one channel. My
> favorite demonstration is to setup a WDS network in a single enclosed
> room. The mutual interference makes the system almost unusable. It
> works much better when only the WDS bridges can hear each other.
>
>>With the laptop I like the idea that I can be anywhere in my home and be
>>both on the LAN and internet, I'm just getting frustrated with the through
>>put and bandwidth being chopped.
>
> Allow me to offer some general advice. Speed and range are inversely
> related. If you want speed, you don't go very far. You can tinker
> with the antenna patterns and gains to improve the situation, but
> there are limits to what can be accomplished. High speeds also
> implies susceptibility to interference. It doesn't take much "noise"
> to force an access point to slow down from the mythical 108Mbits/sec
> to something slower. High speeds also imply that inter-symbol
> interference from reflections and timing problems become more
> pronounced. None of these are fatal, but all of them conspire to make
> high speed connections rather unreliable.
>
> The current best of the breed are the various MIMO implementations.
> I'm partial to the Airgo chipset products. They don't really go much
> faster than conventional 802.11g. What the offer is much better
> tolerance to reflections, interference, and multipath. What you'll
> notice is that you really do have a more reliable connection at
> generally higher speeds. Not the fastest available, but certainly the
> most stable and reliable. (Retransmissions are a common cause of
> apparent slowdowns).
>
> I found an article that compares MIMO with beam forming wireless
> routers with some benchmark tests. Of course, I can't find it now.
> Maybe later.
>
>>Hey Jeff... side note... I like your domain name below
>>"LearnByDestroying.com", been in the industry now for just about 25 years
>>and self taught everything.
>
> Well, I have a sheepskin signed by Ronald Reagan (when he was Governor
> of Calif). The motto at Cal Poly, Pomona was "Learn by Doing", which
> I immediately butchered into "Learn By Destroying". Most everything
> else, I learned the hard way. You don't really know the subject until
> you actually work with it. Learning tends to be greatly accelerated
> immediately after breaking something important. Incidentally, that's
> why tech support tends to be so lousy; they don't get their hands
> dirty working with the stuff.
>
> Good luck.
>
> --
> 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 Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:01:49 -0700, "AJM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in <(E-Mail Removed)>:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> "AJM" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>>
>>>"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:32:08 -0700, "AJM" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm looking for the fastest wireless routers that...
>>>>> 1) are the fastest
>>>>
>>>> How fast do you want to go? How many Mbits/sec? TCP or UDP?
>>>> I assume you want 2.4GHz 802.11b/g.
>>>
>>>Not quite sure? What's the fastest available wireless available today?
>>
>> Gig-E wireless. 1.25Mbits/sec thruput.
>> http://www.proxim.com/terabeam/produ...nk1/index.html
>> You don't want to know the price.
>>
>
>Actually, I do want to know the price... I've been searching the net and
>haven't been able to find it.... yet ..... Is this more of a commercial
>solution rather than a home network solution?

[HUGE SNIP]

Please trim your posts down to the relevant part. Thanks.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:01:49 -0700, "AJM" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> Gig-E wireless. 1.25Mbits/sec thruput.
>> http://www.proxim.com/terabeam/produ...nk1/index.html
>> You don't want to know the price.

>Actually, I do want to know the price... I've been searching the net and
>haven't been able to find it.... yet ..... Is this more of a commercial
>solution rather than a home network solution?

It's very much a commercial solution. No home user needs it or can
justify the expense. 60GHz is an unlicensed band. It is usually used
as a backup for either a fiber link or FSO (free space optical) link.
When the fog rolls in, 60GHz is unaffected.

Try searching eBay for "gigalink". It returns a variety of models
ranging from $10,760 each to $20,800 depending on features and
options. MSRP is usually about 25% more. You need two to make a
point to point link. If you want really fast, you pay $$$$.

Try digging around the Winncom site for high end wireless goodies.
http://www.winncom.com
You can sometimes find the stuff used for much less than new. If you
really want orders of magnitude increase in speed of 802.11g, the
systems become either WiMax or point to point. The reason is that to
get more speed out of the same occupied bandwidth, you need a fabulous
SNR (signal to noise ratio). This can be achieve by either the
increase in xmit power offered by WiMax, or high gain dish antennas.
Neither method is currently useful for home wireless networking.

Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick two.

Reading between your line, my guess(tm) is that you want something
better than commodity hardware for your home network. I think I
previously suggested Cisco, 3com, Sonicwall, and Netscreen. If you
have more money to burn, then look into one of the wireless switch
vendors such as Aruba, 3com, Trapeze, Chantry, Meru, Symbol, Arespace
(Cisco), and Nortel.

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

> As fast as I can get with wireless. I'm getting back into development and
> will be running several VMWare servers through the LAN on my laptop.
> Because of the size of the VMWare files storing them on my laptop would
not
> be feasible and I'd hate to swap them on and off as needed to.

If you're doing development and you don't have a drive big enough to hold
the VMware images you have a problem. Get a bigger drive and stop dragging
those huge images across the airwaves.

Or run VMware on a server and use VNC to connect to the desktop session.
VNC requires considerably less bandwidth. And you can stuff disk, RAM and
CPU into a desktop box for a lot cheaper than a laptop. Make the laptop do
little more than act as a graphic terminal and it'll REALLY cut down on
bandwidth demands. Most remote desktop protocols require around 30Kbps per
session.

> I'd rather not use WDS but at the
> moment and the size of my home that's my only current option.

Right then you're definitely going to see only half your available
bandwidth, at best, provided only one device is active. If you've got
things going on with more than one wifi device then expect throughput to be
considerably less.