Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624

Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624?

And just to be sure I'm not forgetting to ask a question I perhaps need
to ask (though I think if the above is YES, these should be as well,
but I have learned with consumer wireless stuff, presumptions are bad):

Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports
be able to communicate with a computer attached to the WGT624 via one
of its ethernet ports?

Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports
be able to communicate with with the broadband internet attached to
the WGT624?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-19-(E-Mail Removed) |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624?

According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page:

Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and
access points

That includes the WGT624.

>And just to be sure I'm not forgetting to ask a question I perhaps need
>to ask (though I think if the above is YES, these should be as well,
>but I have learned with consumer wireless stuff, presumptions are bad):
>
>Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports
>be able to communicate with a computer attached to the WGT624 via one
>of its ethernet ports?

If properly configured, yes.

>Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports
>be able to communicate with with the broadband internet attached to
>the WGT624?

Ditto.

--
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 Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:42:16 GMT John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
| On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
| <(E-Mail Removed)>:
|
|>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624?
|
| According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page:
|
| Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and
| access points
|
| That includes the WGT624.
|
|>And just to be sure I'm not forgetting to ask a question I perhaps need
|>to ask (though I think if the above is YES, these should be as well,
|>but I have learned with consumer wireless stuff, presumptions are bad):
|>
|>Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports
|>be able to communicate with a computer attached to the WGT624 via one
|>of its ethernet ports?
|
| If properly configured, yes.
|
|>Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports
|>be able to communicate with with the broadband internet attached to
|>the WGT624?
|
| Ditto.

Then this may be the way for me to achieve what I want with one more device,
which I would expect to buy anyway (through previously was going to get a
3rd WGT624).

WGPS606 connected by ethernet to wired switched LAN with my servers and
desktops. WGT624(1) connected to DSL modem. WGT624(2) at brother's house
connected to his cable modem (via WAN port) and desktop. I might be able
to use his cable modem, but he won't be able to use my DSL except via a
router or proxy I set up.

Hopefully the following will then also work to reach the printer.

Add the IP address of the WGT624(1) router (bridge side) to the HP 6980
printer as default gateway. Add HP 6980's IP address in route table of
the Linux machines that need to print with gateway being the WGT624(1)
IP address.

Although the WGPS606 has 2 USB printer ports and the HP 6980 can also
work on USB, for other reasons, these need to be a substantial distance
apart and running a wire is not practical. The HP 6980 sees full signal
strength at the other end of the house with either WGT624 when I connect
them on the wired LAN.

If the above works, then the only remaining issue is the RF path between
my house and my brother's house across the street. Unfortunately the
WGPS606 does NOT have the range extender that the WGT624 has, so there
is less chance of this succeeding.

The WGT624 has the 108 Mb capability, but it looks like there's no way
for me to use it. I would have been better off with WGR614's.

Maybe I would have been better off with some other brand models that can
attach external antennas and put some gain between the two houses. I did
see a +9dbi omni and a +18dbi panel on Netgear's web site.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-21-(E-Mail Removed) |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:42:16 GMT John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
| On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
| <(E-Mail Removed)>:
|
|>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624?
|
| According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page:
|
| Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and
| access points
|
| That includes the WGT624.

I think I need to revise my question:

Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with TWO different WGT624
devices at the same time?

I have found that the nameless bridge I am playing with will only talk to
ONE of the WGT624's at a time. Whichever WGT624 it find first makes the
other one unreachable. Maybe this is a limitation of that bridge such as
no more than one MAC at a time on the wireless side? Or maybe that is
part of the standard?

The big question is if the WGPS606 has this limitation.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-21-(E-Mail Removed) |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On 21 Jul 2006 08:18:26 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>Then this may be the way for me to achieve what I want with one more device,
>which I would expect to buy anyway (through previously was going to get a
>3rd WGT624).
>
>WGPS606 connected by ethernet to wired switched LAN with my servers and
>desktops. WGT624(1) connected to DSL modem. WGT624(2) at brother's house
>connected to his cable modem (via WAN port) and desktop. I might be able
>to use his cable modem, but he won't be able to use my DSL except via a
>router or proxy I set up.

What network topology are you expecting with that? The WGPS606 is a
wireless client bridge and printer server that will attach to only *one*
wireless access point (WGT624) at a time. You can't mesh these all
together.

>Hopefully the following will then also work to reach the printer.
>
>Add the IP address of the WGT624(1) router (bridge side) to the HP 6980
>printer as default gateway. Add HP 6980's IP address in route table of
>the Linux machines that need to print with gateway being the WGT624(1)
>IP address.

Why would you do that? With the HP 6980 connected to WGT624(1), it's
accessible by all clients in that subnet. Assign a static IP address to
the HP 6980, either by fixed DHCP or manually, and you should be able to
reach it reliably from any client on that subnet. The HP 6980 shouldn't
need a gateway address unless it's going to make connections over the
public Internet.

When the HP 6980 is connected to WGT624(1), it won't be connected to
WGT624(2), and so won't be accessible to that subnet. You would have to
bridge the subnets; e.g., by VPN over the public Internet, or with a
wireless bridge (other than what you have now).

>If the above works, then the only remaining issue is the RF path between
>my house and my brother's house across the street. Unfortunately the
>WGPS606 does NOT have the range extender that the WGT624 has, so there
>is less chance of this succeeding.

How is that an issue? This isn't a mesh; i.e., you can't construct a
wireless network covering both houses with just this gear.

>The WGT624 has the 108 Mb capability, but it looks like there's no way
>for me to use it. I would have been better off with WGR614's.

True.

>Maybe I would have been better off with some other brand models that can
>attach external antennas and put some gain between the two houses. I did
>see a +9dbi omni and a +18dbi panel on Netgear's web site.

Please be more clear and precise on what you're trying to do, including
the entire network topology. Something like
<http://i5.tinypic.com/20kujq1.png>.

--
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 21 Jul 2006 17:00:35 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:42:16 GMT John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>| On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
>| <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>|
>|>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624?
>|
>| According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page:
>|
>| Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and
>| access points
>|
>| That includes the WGT624.
>
>I think I need to revise my question:
>
>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with TWO different WGT624
>devices at the same time?

No. A Wi-Fi network can only have *one* access point (central
controller).

>I have found that the nameless bridge I am playing with will only talk to
>ONE of the WGT624's at a time. Whichever WGT624 it find first makes the
>other one unreachable. Maybe this is a limitation of that bridge such as
>no more than one MAC at a time on the wireless side? Or maybe that is
>part of the standard?

Standard and normal.

>The big question is if the WGPS606 has this limitation.

It does. All other Wi-Fi gear does too.

1. Please, please don't start more threads -- too hard to follow.

2. Be specific about what you're trying to do in network terms. We can
tell you what gear you need once we know *exactly* what you're trying to
do.

--
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 Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:05:28 GMT John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
| On 21 Jul 2006 08:18:26 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
| <(E-Mail Removed)>:
|
|>Then this may be the way for me to achieve what I want with one more device,
|>which I would expect to buy anyway (through previously was going to get a
|>3rd WGT624).
|>
|>WGPS606 connected by ethernet to wired switched LAN with my servers and
|>desktops. WGT624(1) connected to DSL modem. WGT624(2) at brother's house
|>connected to his cable modem (via WAN port) and desktop. I might be able
|>to use his cable modem, but he won't be able to use my DSL except via a
|>router or proxy I set up.
|
| What network topology are you expecting with that? The WGPS606 is a
| wireless client bridge and printer server that will attach to only *one*
| wireless access point (WGT624) at a time. You can't mesh these all
| together.

What I'm "expecting" is not a specific topology. I would set up some
topology on top of it. I might expect some default topology to already
be set up for less sophisticated users to be able to get up and running
faster. But that "expecting" implied being able to make box A talk to
box B wirelessly. I can do that with ethernet regardless of what type
of boxes A and B are. I expected the same from wireless and have seen
no online documentation that says I should expect for some boxes to NOT
be able to talk to certain other boxes, even of their own kind.


|>Hopefully the following will then also work to reach the printer.
|>
|>Add the IP address of the WGT624(1) router (bridge side) to the HP 6980
|>printer as default gateway. Add HP 6980's IP address in route table of
|>the Linux machines that need to print with gateway being the WGT624(1)
|>IP address.
|
| Why would you do that? With the HP 6980 connected to WGT624(1), it's
| accessible by all clients in that subnet. Assign a static IP address to
| the HP 6980, either by fixed DHCP or manually, and you should be able to
| reach it reliably from any client on that subnet. The HP 6980 shouldn't
| need a gateway address unless it's going to make connections over the
| public Internet.

It has a static IP. Everything is in 169.254.0.0/16. But I cannot reach
the printer from the computer. I can reach the WGT624, and see that in
its list of attached devices there is the MAC address of the HP 6980, but
without an IP address (which I presume is because it has never seen any
IP type traffic with it). Apparently my ARP broadcasts from the computer
are not reaching the printer.

Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> bridge <-Air-> WGT624 <-???-> HP6980

When I wire up like this, I can print:

Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> WGT624 <-AIR-> HP6980

But then I can't reach an isolated (future) DSL connection:

Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> WGT624(1) <-AIR-> WGT624(2)

But for the DSL, it seems this might work:

Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> bridge <-Air-> WGT624 <-CAT5-> DSL

I also tried this:

Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> bridge <-Air-> WGT624(1) (future DSL)
same switch <-CAT5-> WGT624(2) <-AIR-> HP6980

That did work when the bridge was peered with WGT624(1). However, it
sometimes peers with WGT624(2) instead, which break things (and gives me
nice broadcast storms). I presume using different SSIDs will fix that
but I have not tried it, yet.


| When the HP 6980 is connected to WGT624(1), it won't be connected to
| WGT624(2), and so won't be accessible to that subnet. You would have to
| bridge the subnets; e.g., by VPN over the public Internet, or with a
| wireless bridge (other than what you have now).

So this is just a too cheap bridge. Given there is no manufacturer name
on it at all. The MAC's OUI gives me this, in case you are curious:

00-02-6F (hex) Senao International Co., Ltd.
00026F (base 16) Senao International Co., Ltd.
2F, No. 531, Chung-Cheng Rd.,
Hsin-Tien City, Taipei County,
TAIWAN
TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA


|>If the above works, then the only remaining issue is the RF path between
|>my house and my brother's house across the street. Unfortunately the
|>WGPS606 does NOT have the range extender that the WGT624 has, so there
|>is less chance of this succeeding.
|
| How is that an issue? This isn't a mesh; i.e., you can't construct a
| wireless network covering both houses with just this gear.

Apparently not. But what I want to do is figure out WHAT gear I should
use, and do so by figuring it out from clearly written documentation,
which I have not yet found. Such documentation would obviously have to
state exactly what devices (or classes of devices) can, and cannot, talk
to each other (including of its own kind), and for classes of devices,
also tell how to determine which commercial devices are of each class,
despite misleading sales/marketing jargon and puffing.


|>The WGT624 has the 108 Mb capability, but it looks like there's no way
|>for me to use it. I would have been better off with WGR614's.
|
| True.

I actually chose those models for their extended range technology, which
the WGR614 did not have, on the basis that it might increase my chance of
being able to reach between the houses (I always understood this much was
never a certainty). So whatever device classes would interconnect the
two wired LANs, I'd like to have it with that or some other range extend
technology.

And it would be a big plus if one of those would ALSO talk wirelessly
with the WGT624 so I can have ONE wireless device on the wired LAN in
this house and have it talk wirelessly to both the WGT624 to reach the
DSL, and whatever is at the other house to reach it's LAN.

And reaching the printer is important, too. If that has to be through
a double hop from the wireless device on the LAN to the WGT624 on the
DSL and back out over air to the printer, that's fine, as the printer
bandwidth isn't an issue.


|>Maybe I would have been better off with some other brand models that can
|>attach external antennas and put some gain between the two houses. I did
|>see a +9dbi omni and a +18dbi panel on Netgear's web site.
|
| Please be more clear and precise on what you're trying to do, including
| the entire network topology. Something like
| <http://i5.tinypic.com/20kujq1.png>.

I can't say what the network topology is, because I don't know which one
would work in wireless. I've been trying a few I know would work wired.

The picture you show is one possible way, although incomplete.

If youw ant to figure out the best topology for me, here are the parts:

-- my house --

1. My "computer farm" running on a wired switch. Using wireless PC cards
here is not an option. 3 ports are available on the switch.

2. My future DSL connection. It shall not connect to anything by wire.

3. Wireless printer. It cannot be connected to the computer farm by wire.
But a wireless print server might be an option for it (though that
would sure seem silly, and a bit inconvenient).

4. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she comes
over and brings it here.

-- brother's house --

5. My brother's Cable modem.

6. My brother's Windows computer (currently connected directly to the
cable modem running the cable provided software).

7. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she has
it at her home.

8. File server I will place in my brother's house in the future. It may
be possible to use a wireless PC card on this. It will be Linux

9. My nephew's computer, not networked at all, yet. Probably will be dual
boot Windows + Linux.


I need the following reachability, whether by layer 2 or layer 3:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 . Y Y Y - Y - Y N Y = a must
2 Y . N Y N N N N N! + = a plus
3 Y N . + N N N N N - = might be useful
4 Y Y + . N N N N N N = no need for it
5 - N N N . Y Y + N! N! = I really want to block
6 Y N N N Y . + + ?
7 - N N N Y + . + ?
8 Y N N N + + + . ?
9 N N N N N ? ? ? .

Note that if 2 devices cannot reach each other, but both can reach computers
in the computer farm, I can set up routing for them on a computer there.
Don't assume same for the file server in by brother's house as that is
likely a year or so away.

I want NONE of the connectivity to go through the public internet for
reasons of utilization. E.g. the idea of having wireless between houses
is to avoid using the internet for it. Security isn't the issue, but
racking up bandwidth utilization on either the cable or DSL is. I want
inter-house communication to work even if DSL and/or cable is down.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-21-(E-Mail Removed) |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:18:27 GMT John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
| On 21 Jul 2006 17:00:35 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
| <(E-Mail Removed)>:
|
|>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:42:16 GMT John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|>| On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
|>| <(E-Mail Removed)>:
|>|
|>|>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624?
|>|
|>| According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page:
|>|
|>| Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and
|>| access points
|>|
|>| That includes the WGT624.
|>
|>I think I need to revise my question:
|>
|>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with TWO different WGT624
|>devices at the same time?
|
| No. A Wi-Fi network can only have *one* access point (central
| controller).

The wiki you have says all wireless is bridging. I guess it isn't.


|>I have found that the nameless bridge I am playing with will only talk to
|>ONE of the WGT624's at a time. Whichever WGT624 it find first makes the
|>other one unreachable. Maybe this is a limitation of that bridge such as
|>no more than one MAC at a time on the wireless side? Or maybe that is
|>part of the standard?
|
| Standard and normal.
|
|>The big question is if the WGPS606 has this limitation.
|
| It does. All other Wi-Fi gear does too.

So how do I get more than 2 things to talk to each other? Say maybe in
a structure like:

*-*--*-*
| |
* *

where everything is wireless and the "--" is a particularly long path
that all but the two *'s connected by it cannot necessarily see each
other.


| 1. Please, please don't start more threads -- too hard to follow.

My first thread actually disappeared from my end. Not sure why. Thought
maybe someone deleted it.


| 2. Be specific about what you're trying to do in network terms. We can
| tell you what gear you need once we know *exactly* what you're trying to
| do.

I'd rather have documentation that makes it clear to figure this out on
my own. I want to know that there was something I SHOULD have read to
have made the correct purchase, ... or that no such thing yet exists.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-21-(E-Mail Removed) |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On 21 Jul 2006 21:38:09 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:18:27 GMT John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>| On 21 Jul 2006 17:00:35 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
>| <(E-Mail Removed)>:

>|>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with TWO different WGT624
>|>devices at the same time?

>| No. A Wi-Fi network can only have *one* access point (central
>| controller).

>The wiki you have says all wireless is bridging. I guess it isn't.

Again, you're confusing *network* (bridging) with wireless *connection*
(star).

Much like a wired Ethernet hub or switch, a WLAN (wireless LAN,
infrastructure point-to-multipoint) consists of one and only one central
controller (wireless access point) plus one or more wireless clients.
That central controller is a network bridge, just as the wiki states..

>|>The big question is if the WGPS606 has this limitation.
>|
>| It does. All other Wi-Fi gear does too.
>
>So how do I get more than 2 things to talk to each other?
>
>Say maybe in
>a structure like:
>
>*-*--*-*
> | |
> * *
>
>where everything is wireless and the "--" is a particularly long path
>that all but the two *'s connected by it cannot necessarily see each
>other.

The standard WLAN architecture is a star topology, usually connected to
a wired Ethernet:


WAP<--Ethernet-->
/|\
/ | \
WC WC WC

Different LANs and WLANs can be interconnected with

* Wires:

WAP<--Ethernet-->WAP
/|\ /|\
/ | \ / | \
WC WC WC WC WC WC

* WDS (Wireless Distribution System):

WAP<--Ethernet-->
/|\
/ | \
WC WC WDS
/|\
/ | \
WC WC WC

* Wireless Point-To-Point Bridge (to which WLANs can be connected)

Ethernet<-->WPTPB----------WPTPB<-->Ethernet


>| 2. Be specific about what you're trying to do in network terms. We can
>| tell you what gear you need once we know *exactly* what you're trying to
>| do.
>
>I'd rather have documentation that makes it clear to figure this out on
>my own. I want to know that there was something I SHOULD have read to
>have made the correct purchase, ... or that no such thing yet exists.

Read Wikipedia and the wikis below. Lots of helpful links.

The problem is that you're trying to do something beyond normal consumer
networking, so it's inevitably going to get complicated if you're not
willing to pay (or beg) an expert to do it for you.

You should decide whether you want to (a) debate terminology or (b) get
your network working. I'm happy to help with (b), but don't really have
the time for (a).

--
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 21 Jul 2006 21:31:29 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:05:28 GMT John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>| What network topology are you expecting with that? The WGPS606 is a
>| wireless client bridge and printer server that will attach to only *one*
>| wireless access point (WGT624) at a time. You can't mesh these all
>| together.
>
>What I'm "expecting" is not a specific topology. I would set up some
>topology on top of it. I might expect some default topology to already
>be set up for less sophisticated users to be able to get up and running
>faster. But that "expecting" implied being able to make box A talk to
>box B wirelessly. I can do that with ethernet regardless of what type
>of boxes A and B are. I expected the same from wireless and have seen
>no online documentation that says I should expect for some boxes to NOT
>be able to talk to certain other boxes, even of their own kind.

Do you want to just rant and waste time? Or do you want to get the job
done? I'm only willing to help with the latter.

In fact wired Ethernet networking can be quite complex, even more
complex than WLAN (wireless LAN). I'd point out some of the many ways,
but I really don't have the time or interest.

The only way I can help you configure a WLAN is if you tell me exactly
what you want to do. Exactly what boxes need to talk to what boxes?
What boxes need to talk to which broadband connections? Give me the
details, and I'll show you how to do it. Keep them a secret, and
perhaps someone else can help you.

A key principle of networking is to carefully plan the network first,
then implement it. Rushing ahead is a bad idea.

>| Why would you do that? With the HP 6980 connected to WGT624(1), it's
>| accessible by all clients in that subnet. Assign a static IP address to
>| the HP 6980, either by fixed DHCP or manually, and you should be able to
>| reach it reliably from any client on that subnet. The HP 6980 shouldn't
>| need a gateway address unless it's going to make connections over the
>| public Internet.
>
>It has a static IP. Everything is in 169.254.0.0/16.

You should be using one of the RFC 1918 Private IP address blocks,
typically 192.168/16

>But I cannot reach
>the printer from the computer. I can reach the WGT624, and see that in
>its list of attached devices there is the MAC address of the HP 6980, but
>without an IP address (which I presume is because it has never seen any
>IP type traffic with it).

DHCP or manual configuration?
Of the computer? What IP address? What netmask?
Of the HP 6980? What IP address? What netmask?

>Apparently my ARP broadcasts from the computer
>are not reaching the printer.
>[BIG SNIP]

Gack! Let's please not go there. Just stick to standard networking.
We need a network topology diagram. If you don't like my first cut, fix
it up.

>That did work when the bridge was peered with WGT624(1). However, it
>sometimes peers with WGT624(2) instead, which break things (and gives me
>nice broadcast storms). I presume using different SSIDs will fix that
>but I have not tried it, yet.

Gack! Each WLAN should have a really unique SSID, at least for
starters. The only time you want the same SSID is when you want
wireless clients to roam between them, which is probably not what you
want even later.

>| When the HP 6980 is connected to WGT624(1), it won't be connected to
>| WGT624(2), and so won't be accessible to that subnet. You would have to
>| bridge the subnets; e.g., by VPN over the public Internet, or with a
>| wireless bridge (other than what you have now).
>
>So this is just a too cheap bridge.

It's not a bridge between the *two* WLANs -- it's just a bridge for
*one* WLAN! If you want to bridge the two WLANs, then you'll probably
need more gear.

Are you trying to create a big network covering both houses, where
everything can talk to everything? If so, you're options include:

1. One WLAN covering both house. Wireless probably won't work, and a
bitch to use both broadbands.

2. Master WLAN at one house, with:

(a) WDS at the other house. Kludge. A bitch to use both broadbands.

(b) Wireless client bridge and access point at the other house.
Better. A bitch to use both broadbands.

3. Each house with its own WLAN, bridged with a point-to-point wireless
bridge. Best bet, but takes two more wireless boxes.

4. Bridge with VPN over the public Internet.

>Given there is no manufacturer name
>on it at all. The MAC's OUI gives me this, in case you are curious:

I'm not, but thanks.

>| How is that an issue? This isn't a mesh; i.e., you can't construct a
>| wireless network covering both houses with just this gear.
>
>Apparently not. But what I want to do is figure out WHAT gear I should
>use, and do so by figuring it out from clearly written documentation,
>which I have not yet found. Such documentation would obviously have to
>state exactly what devices (or classes of devices) can, and cannot, talk
>to each other (including of its own kind), and for classes of devices,
>also tell how to determine which commercial devices are of each class,
>despite misleading sales/marketing jargon and puffing.

That would be a big book on advanced networking, wired and wireless.

>|>The WGT624 has the 108 Mb capability, but it looks like there's no way
>|>for me to use it. I would have been better off with WGR614's.
>|
>| True.
>
>I actually chose those models for their extended range technology, which
>the WGR614 did not have, on the basis that it might increase my chance of
>being able to reach between the houses (I always understood this much was
>never a certainty). So whatever device classes would interconnect the
>two wired LANs, I'd like to have it with that or some other range extend
>technology.

Your best bet for range is MIMO, but that would take MIMO on *all*
devices, which isn't going to happen (HP printer), and might not be
enough in any event. Better to bridge two WLANs with a point-to-point
wireless bridge.

>And it would be a big plus if one of those would ALSO talk wirelessly
>with the WGT624 so I can have ONE wireless device on the wired LAN in
>this house and have it talk wirelessly to both the WGT624 to reach the
>DSL, and whatever is at the other house to reach it's LAN.

Could we please just stay in the world of the possible?

>And reaching the printer is important, too. If that has to be through
>a double hop from the wireless device on the LAN to the WGT624 on the
>DSL and back out over air to the printer, that's fine, as the printer
>bandwidth isn't an issue.

See above.

>| Please be more clear and precise on what you're trying to do, including
>| the entire network topology. Something like
>| <http://i5.tinypic.com/20kujq1.png>.
>
>I can't say what the network topology is, because I don't know which one
>would work in wireless. I've been trying a few I know would work wired.
>
>The picture you show is one possible way, although incomplete.

Then please finish it.

>If youw ant to figure out the best topology for me, here are the parts:

I actually don't want to,

>-- my house --
>
>1. My "computer farm" running on a wired switch. Using wireless PC cards
> here is not an option. 3 ports are available on the switch.
>
>2. My future DSL connection. It shall not connect to anything by wire.
>
>3. Wireless printer. It cannot be connected to the computer farm by wire.
> But a wireless print server might be an option for it (though that
> would sure seem silly, and a bit inconvenient).
>
>4. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
> to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she comes
> over and brings it here.
>
>-- brother's house --
>
>5. My brother's Cable modem.
>
>6. My brother's Windows computer (currently connected directly to the
> cable modem running the cable provided software).
>
>7. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
> to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she has
> it at her home.
>
>8. File server I will place in my brother's house in the future. It may
> be possible to use a wireless PC card on this. It will be Linux
>
>9. My nephew's computer, not networked at all, yet. Probably will be dual
> boot Windows + Linux.
>
>I need the following reachability, whether by layer 2 or layer 3:

Forget the layer stuff.

> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
>1 . Y Y Y - Y - Y N Y = a must
>2 Y . N Y N N N N N! + = a plus
>3 Y N . + N N N N N - = might be useful
>4 Y Y + . N N N N N N = no need for it
>5 - N N N . Y Y + N! N! = I really want to block
>6 Y N N N Y . + + ?
>7 - N N N Y + . + ?
>8 Y N N N + + + . ?
>9 N N N N N ? ? ? .

Here you go -- add a wireless client bridge (WCB), and everything
connects to everything: <http://i5.tinypic.com/20p7rro.png>
* Put your WLAN with a unique SSID (Phil's WLAN) on one channel.
* Put your brother's WLAN with a different SSID (Brother LAN) on a
different channel.
* Use channels with minimal overlap (1, 6, 11).
* Configure DHCP in the two wireless routers (WGT624) for different
subnets in the same private netblock; e.g.,
- Your network: 192.168.1/16 Gateway (WGT624): 192.168.1.1
- Brother's network: 192.168.2/16 Gateway (WGT624): 192.168.2.1
* Turn off DHCP and configure everything manually.
* Put the network printer at a fixed address on your network so
computers on both networks can find it (e.g., 192.168.1.50).
That way:
(a) The wireless client bridge will properly bridge traffic back and
forth between the two networks.
(b) Both networks will use their own broadband gateways.

The hassle is having to configure everything manually to ensure that
both WLANs use their own broadband connections, especially when a
visitor with wireless laptop drops in. (If you use WGT624 DHCP, it
would be unpredictable with bridged networks which WGT624 a given client
would connect to.)

>Note that if 2 devices cannot reach each other, but both can reach computers
>in the computer farm, I can set up routing for them on a computer there.

Forget all that cool computer stuff you know. This is networking.

>Don't assume same for the file server in by brother's house as that is
>likely a year or so away.

I'm not going to assume anything.

>I want NONE of the connectivity to go through the public internet for
>reasons of utilization. ...

OK.

Happy networking!

--
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>