Please help with WAP54G

I have been fighting a WAP54G for several days. It seems to be working - in
that I don't think it's defective - but I cannot connect to my network
through it. Without killing with details, here are the basics:

The WAP54G currently is defaulted (although I've tried many configs). The
only change I made was to give it a static address within my network. It's
address is 192.168.0.31. The Netgear router/switch it's connected to lists
it in "Attached Devices".
My desktop computer that I'm using as a test machine has a Dlink PCI NIC
installed. Using either the Dlink utility or Windows wireless config, the
"linksys" SSID is seen just fine, with near-100% signal strength. I have no
security enabled currently. Everything is open. But the NIC will not
connect.

I have left the Linksys at its default IP, and I have assigned it other IPs.
It doesn't seem to matter.

My Netgear router has wireless functionality, and when I enable it, I can
connect fine. I also can connect to a Dlink DI-524 that I tried. I would
think I should be able to connect to the Linksys just as easily.

I have tried the WAP54G setup utility, to no avail. Whether connected
directly via patch cable or with the WAP54G connected to my router, the
utility does not detect the AP.

I realize Linksys is a good product, and this problem very well may be of my
own making, but I swear I have more trouble with Linksys than any other
brand. I routinely set up Netgear, Dlink, Belkin, and Hawking, and I rarely
have problems. But it seems like Linksys and I just don't get along.

Help appreciated.

jm

JM <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> address is 192.168.0.31.

> I have left the Linksys at its default IP, and I have assigned it other
> IPs. It doesn't seem to matter.

Did you change the address to a different subnet?
192.168.0.anything won't work in a default setup, if 192.168.0.something is
used on the other side of the router.

Try 192.168.31.1

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

"JM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>The WAP54G currently is defaulted (although I've tried many configs).

>"linksys" SSID is seen just fine, with near-100% signal strength. I have no
>security enabled currently. Everything is open. But the NIC will not
>connect.

Then there's probably a hardware problem with the AP, maybe it's
transmitting OK, but it's receiver is deaf, and it can't hear the
connect requests.

Other than loading the latest firmware _FOR THAT HARDARE REVISION_ and
doing the full hardware reset to defaults, if it's not working I'd
send it back for warranty service.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:15:35 GMT, "JM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I have been fighting a WAP54G for several days. It seems to be working - in
>that I don't think it's defective - but I cannot connect to my network
>through it.

Connections come in layers. At what point is it failing to "connect"?
More simply, does your test machine get a DHCP delivered IP address
that can be used to connect? It should be coming from your
unspecified model Netgear router/switch which presumably has a built
in DHCP server. Assuming your test machine is running Windoze XP
Home, run:
Start -> Run -> cmd <enter>
IPCONFIG
what does it say for the IP address? If it's 169.254.xxx.xxx, you're
not seeing the DHCP server. If it's 192.168.1.xxx (which is what I
think Netgear uses), then it's working.

>Without killing with details, here are the basics:
>
>The WAP54G currently is defaulted (although I've tried many configs). The
>only change I made was to give it a static address within my network. It's
>address is 192.168.0.31. The Netgear router/switch it's connected to lists
>it in "Attached Devices".
>My desktop computer that I'm using as a test machine has a Dlink PCI NIC
>installed. Using either the Dlink utility or Windows wireless config, the
>"linksys" SSID is seen just fine, with near-100% signal strength. I have no
>security enabled currently. Everything is open. But the NIC will not
>connect.

Nice mess. You might want to do this in an organized manner.
1. Can you plug the test machine directly into your unspecified model
Netgear router/switch? Duz it work and can you get to the internet?
If so, kindly disclose what IP address it gives the test computer via
DHCP. Note that the test computer should be set to DHCP, not a
static IP address. My guess(tm) is that it's 192.168.1.xxx.

2. Meanwhile, you probably have the test machine set to 192.168.0.xxx
so you can talk to the WAP54G. Kindly move the IP address of the
WAP54G, the test machine, and the unspecified model Netgear
router/switch to a common IP address block. I think it best to use
the Netgear default of 192.168.1.xxx.

3. I'm not sure how the WAP54G ethernet connector is wired, but you
might want to check if the cable lights turn on when it's plugged in.
If the lights don't come on at the ethernet card or at the WAP54G, try
a cross over cable. I don't think it will be necessary, but it's
worth checking.

>I have left the Linksys at its default IP, and I have assigned it other IPs.
>It doesn't seem to matter.

Is there some innate fear of disclosing the Netgear model number and
its corresponding default IP? Try not to be so [insert suitable
expletive] vague.

>My Netgear router has wireless functionality, and when I enable it, I can
>connect fine. I also can connect to a Dlink DI-524 that I tried. I would
>think I should be able to connect to the Linksys just as easily.
>
>I have tried the WAP54G setup utility, to no avail. Whether connected
>directly via patch cable or with the WAP54G connected to my router, the
>utility does not detect the AP.

This is beginning to sound more like either the cable problem I
mentioned, or that you have the test machine set for a static IP
address. Kindly move all the IP's into the same IP address block.

>I realize Linksys is a good product, and this problem very well may be of my
>own making, but I swear I have more trouble with Linksys than any other
>brand. I routinely set up Netgear, Dlink, Belkin, and Hawking, and I rarely
>have problems. But it seems like Linksys and I just don't get along.

Burnt offerings often help. I suggest you keep an old 286 motherboard
around for barbeque on the hibachi. The smoke is known to appease the
computer gods and will surely improve your connectivity and product
experience.

--
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

Mr. Liebermann,

Your standards for technical specificity in the first presentation of a
problem are too high for me.

And my standards for common courtesy are too high for you.

So "kindly" go dump your arrogance, sarcasm, and condescension in someone
else's thread.

Thank you and have a nice day.

jm









"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:15:35 GMT, "JM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I have been fighting a WAP54G for several days. It seems to be working -
>>in
>>that I don't think it's defective - but I cannot connect to my network
>>through it.
>
> Connections come in layers. At what point is it failing to "connect"?
> More simply, does your test machine get a DHCP delivered IP address
> that can be used to connect? It should be coming from your
> unspecified model Netgear router/switch which presumably has a built
> in DHCP server. Assuming your test machine is running Windoze XP
> Home, run:
> Start -> Run -> cmd <enter>
> IPCONFIG
> what does it say for the IP address? If it's 169.254.xxx.xxx, you're
> not seeing the DHCP server. If it's 192.168.1.xxx (which is what I
> think Netgear uses), then it's working.
>
>>Without killing with details, here are the basics:
>>
>>The WAP54G currently is defaulted (although I've tried many configs). The
>>only change I made was to give it a static address within my network.
>>It's
>>address is 192.168.0.31. The Netgear router/switch it's connected to
>>lists
>>it in "Attached Devices".
>>My desktop computer that I'm using as a test machine has a Dlink PCI NIC
>>installed. Using either the Dlink utility or Windows wireless config, the
>>"linksys" SSID is seen just fine, with near-100% signal strength. I have
>>no
>>security enabled currently. Everything is open. But the NIC will not
>>connect.
>
> Nice mess. You might want to do this in an organized manner.
> 1. Can you plug the test machine directly into your unspecified model
> Netgear router/switch? Duz it work and can you get to the internet?
> If so, kindly disclose what IP address it gives the test computer via
> DHCP. Note that the test computer should be set to DHCP, not a
> static IP address. My guess(tm) is that it's 192.168.1.xxx.
>
> 2. Meanwhile, you probably have the test machine set to 192.168.0.xxx
> so you can talk to the WAP54G. Kindly move the IP address of the
> WAP54G, the test machine, and the unspecified model Netgear
> router/switch to a common IP address block. I think it best to use
> the Netgear default of 192.168.1.xxx.
>
> 3. I'm not sure how the WAP54G ethernet connector is wired, but you
> might want to check if the cable lights turn on when it's plugged in.
> If the lights don't come on at the ethernet card or at the WAP54G, try
> a cross over cable. I don't think it will be necessary, but it's
> worth checking.
>
>>I have left the Linksys at its default IP, and I have assigned it other
>>IPs.
>>It doesn't seem to matter.
>
> Is there some innate fear of disclosing the Netgear model number and
> its corresponding default IP? Try not to be so [insert suitable
> expletive] vague.
>
>>My Netgear router has wireless functionality, and when I enable it, I can
>>connect fine. I also can connect to a Dlink DI-524 that I tried. I would
>>think I should be able to connect to the Linksys just as easily.
>>
>>I have tried the WAP54G setup utility, to no avail. Whether connected
>>directly via patch cable or with the WAP54G connected to my router, the
>>utility does not detect the AP.
>
> This is beginning to sound more like either the cable problem I
> mentioned, or that you have the test machine set for a static IP
> address. Kindly move all the IP's into the same IP address block.
>
>>I realize Linksys is a good product, and this problem very well may be of
>>my
>>own making, but I swear I have more trouble with Linksys than any other
>>brand. I routinely set up Netgear, Dlink, Belkin, and Hawking, and I
>>rarely
>>have problems. But it seems like Linksys and I just don't get along.
>
> Burnt offerings often help. I suggest you keep an old 286 motherboard
> around for barbeque on the hibachi. The smoke is known to appease the
> computer gods and will surely improve your connectivity and product
> experience.
>
> --
> 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

"JM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Mr. Liebermann,

JM, please understand that Jeff is our local guru, and probably knows
more about WiFi than the rest of us put together.

>Your standards for technical specificity in the first presentation of a
>problem are too high for me.

Yeah, he gets (understandably) annoyed when people come in without
sufficient information time after time after time after [...] I
realize it's the first time for you, but it's the third time _today_
for him.

>And my standards for common courtesy are too high for you.

>So "kindly" go dump your arrogance, sarcasm, and condescension in someone
>else's thread.

Yeah, Jeff burns out every once in a while and flames {some poor guy
who asked a simple question, yet another fool who can't be bothered to
tell us what he has but wants an answer anyway}. We're not sure what
the answer is, as the newbies _always_ leave some important details
out.

Anyway, give Jeff a break and he'll probably give you a break...

William P.N. Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> JM, please understand that Jeff is our local guru, and probably knows
> more about WiFi than the rest of us put together.

He's not local, and guru is an evasive title.
Jeff is Jeff.

He did ask JM the right questions, but went out of his way to bury it in
insulting diatribes that are sometimes mistaken for knowledge.

---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

"William P.N. Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> "JM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Mr. Liebermann,
>
> JM, please understand that Jeff is our local guru, and probably knows
> more about WiFi than the rest of us put together.
>
>>Your standards for technical specificity in the first presentation of a
>>problem are too high for me.
>
> Yeah, he gets (understandably) annoyed when people come in without
> sufficient information time after time after time after [...] I
> realize it's the first time for you, but it's the third time _today_
> for him.

I appreciate your attempt to find the middle ground here. I really do. But
you and Jeff are missing a couple of very important points: First,
considering what I've been through with this problem, there was no humanly
possible way for me to include *everything* that *everyone* would need to
fit the problem into their own experience or framework. The kind and amount
of info necessary for one person may be complete overkill or not nearly
enough for someone else. I gave some pertinent facts in an effort to
*start* the dialogue and get the ball rolling. I completely expected to be
asked clarifying questions. I didn't quite expect to be someone's
entertainment for the afternoon.

Secondly, there is much more information in my original post than was
perceived. If read with any true desire to understand, several of the
questions in the response are mute. And I'm not nearly as new around here
and one might think. I happen to know that leaving out the model number of
a piece of involved equipment is a pet peeve of certain people, and I firmly
believe that Mr L fired up upon seeing my omission and immediately wrote me
off as a moron. From that point forward, the value of my post went into the
gutter and his reading of it got intentionally hyper-critical. Besides, the
model of the Netgear is irrelevant, and it's nothing but a put-off and a
diversion to imply otherwise. Fuck the model number. The much more
important question is the IP address block, which I thought *might* be
deduced from my pointing out that I had fit the WAP into my network range
using 192.168.0.31. Again, I never claimed to be getting it all right the
first time.

For what it's worth, the Netgear is a MR814. There. May I have my answer
now?

I'm a trained teacher with a PhD. I've taught my guts out to 35 students
who couldn't give a shit if I dropped off the face of the earth, and I've
taught in front of people who begged me for more. I've taught mentally and
physically challenged people who couldn't stay still, awake, or in the room.
I've taught all day, into the night, and on weekends. So I don't want to
hear about it being the "third time today" for Mr. L or anyone else. If you
can't teach with patience and a sense of respect for the other person, then
do something else with your time. Mr. L can run circles around me in most
arenas having to do with computers, networks, and the like, but he's not a
pimple on a gnat's ass when it comes to some things I know about, and if he
asked me a legitimate question that missed a few details, I'd spend the rest
of the day leading him to the answer, if need be - all the while making him
feel like I'd rather be helping him than doing anything else.


>>And my standards for common courtesy are too high for you.
>
>>So "kindly" go dump your arrogance, sarcasm, and condescension in someone
>>else's thread.
>
> Yeah, Jeff burns out every once in a while and flames {some poor guy
> who asked a simple question, yet another fool who can't be bothered to
> tell us what he has but wants an answer anyway}. We're not sure what
> the answer is, as the newbies _always_ leave some important details
> out.
>
> Anyway, give Jeff a break and he'll probably give you a break...

Break not needed or desired, although, again, I do appreciate what you're
saying here. Your intention is great, but I think we disagree on the
central point.

jm

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:44:49 GMT, "JM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Your standards for technical specificity in the first presentation of a
>problem are too high for me.

That's fine. There's a short list of things to check (IP address,
block, cable polarity, DHCP server function) that you can do while you
cool off. Also, I can't afford the time to engage in a dialog. My
method is to unload as many possibilities as possible in my first
reply and assume the reader will use it as a checklist for
troubleshooting.

The default IP for the MR814 is 192.168.0.1 so your 192.168.0.31 for
the WAP54G will work just fine without changing the IP block. That
leaves the cable and the DHCP client and DHCP server setup. Good
luck.

>And my standards for common courtesy are too high for you.

Believe it or not, I had no intention of being discourteous or
abusive. I deal with disorganized questions on a regular basis. The
scary part is I do it because I think I'm being helpful. In most
cases, such as this one, the person asking the question doesn't
understand what information is necessary to answer their question.
Omissions such as model numbers, versions, operating systems,
topology, and other useful details that are necessary to figure out
what's broken are often missing. I've given up being tactful and
considerate when this happens. I've tried every possible method of
extracting this information ranging from excessive politeness to
outright abuse. I've found that my mixture of arrogance (required to
establish competence), sarcasm (required to get their attention), and
occasional humor (required to keep their attention) is generally
effective. I do not engage in condescension, humiliation, or
profanity.

If you have a more effective method of convincing people to supply:
1. What problem are you trying to solve?
2. What do you have to work with? (Hardware, software, versions)
3. What have you done so far and what happened? (Error messages)
then I would be greatly interested. If you expect me to take the time
to understand your problem, then kindly make an effort to supply
sufficient information too be able to answer the question.

>So "kindly" go dump your arrogance, sarcasm, and condescension in someone
>else's thread.

If you insist. There are plenty other people with questions that
deserve an answer.

Incidentally, I only have a BSEE and have only taught a 5th grade
class perhaps 25 years ago. I do some techy presentations on occasion
but really have no academic credentials. All I can offer is over
12,000 usenet postings since about 1993, most of which are answers to
technical questions.
| http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...2005&safe=off&
In alt.internet.wireless, Google Groups shows 2,590 posting in about
the last 2 years.

If you have the time and inclination, you might want to try your hand
at answering a few questions in alt.internet.wireless. It really
doesn't take much effort to use Google to find similar problems or
speculate as to the potential causes. What does take the effort is
prying the basic information necessary to answer the question. Try
one or two and see how it works. It's not like teaching in a
classroom because you get no feedback from the students. I often
don't know if my suggestions worked.

--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann
(E-Mail Removed) (E-Mail Removed)

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:57:55 +0000 (UTC),
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>William P.N. Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> JM, please understand that Jeff is our local guru, and probably knows
>> more about WiFi than the rest of us put together.

>He's not local, and guru is an evasive title.
>Jeff is Jeff.

I'm not a guru or an expert. I have some experience in relevant areas
that are deemed useful in answering questions. I make plenty of
mistakes and learn from the corrections and opinions of others.

>He did ask JM the right questions, but went out of his way to bury it in
>insulting diatribes that are sometimes mistaken for knowledge.

I don't think I was being insulting. Well, maybe no more insulting
than usual. Want me to turn on the diplomacy? It's easy enough for
me to do that. It will require at least twice the number of back and
forth questions and answers to pry loose all the necessary
information, but that's fine. I'll just answer half the questions
that I usually attempt. Is that what you want?

(Reminder: you were the one that introduced me to
alt.internet.wireless.)

--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann
(E-Mail Removed) (E-Mail Removed)