Re: device to wirelessly simulate Ethernet?

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> I have a Linksys wireless router, model no. WRT54GS, v.7.
> I have a desktop, a laptop, and a printer connected to the router
> via cat 5 cables running10Mb Ethernet. The router, in turn, connects
> to a cable modem via cat 6 cable running 10Mb Ethernet. I want
> to move the router, desktop, laptop, and printer upstairs in my condo,
> but the cable modem must remain downstairs where the coaxial cable
> enters the condo because of difficulties in running a cable upstairs.
> (Please just believe me.) The problem is how to link the cable modem
> downstairs to the router upstairs by wirelessly simulating an Ethernet
> connection. Is there a device (or devices) that can do this?

Kind of wirelessly, you can use powerline ethernet adapters. Though
you're using wires here, they aren't cat5 cables, but your home's
internal electrical grid. Examples are the D-link DHP-301, or Netgear
HDX 101.

D-Link DHP-301 PowerLine HD Network Starter Kit
http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=533

Powerline HD Ethernet Adapter
http://www.netgear.com/Products/Powe...rs/HDX101.aspx

Here's an old review of products available back then:

Powerline Ethernet Adapter Adapters/NIC reviews - CNET Reviews
http://reviews.cnet.com/adapters-nic...-30485690.html

Yousuf Khan

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> DSL is looking increasingly attractive right now... :-)


Or you can just have your cable company put a jack up closer to where
you actually want the modem to be.

Yousuf Khan

On Jan 22, 1:38*am, "Timothy Daniels" <SpamBuc...@NoSpamPlease.biz>
wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" opined:
>
> > * *Powerline ethernet adaptors would probably work well for my
> > * *situation. *The problem is that I'd need two of them, and they
> > * *are not cheap, even on Ebay. *I think that there are more
> > * *affordable alternatives - a Wireless Bridge using the Linksys
> > * *WAP54G, for example (Ebay is rife with them), especially if
> > * *I switched to Earthlink for cable Internet service and took
> > * *advantage of their 6-month introductory rate of $30/month,
>
> * * Ooops. *I just saw that the WAP54G has only one ethernet port,
> * * and it would need a switch or router to connect to the desktop,
> * * laptop, and printer. *A firmware flash to a WRT54GS wireless
> * * router using the firmware atwww.dd-WRT.comand using its
> * * Repeater Bridge mode might work, but I don't know how reliable
> * * and how fast the result would be. *

The WAP still requires a connection through ethernet to the main
router. That's what the single ethernet port on the WAP is for, it's
for it's own connection to the router, not as an alternate connection
to a client. It only connects to clients through the wireless
interface. So in order to get an ethernet connection to a remote WAP,
you'd still need a powerline ethernet (or a regular ethernet snaked
through the house ducts).

If you really want to use a WAP still, then it's cheaper to buy a
second wireless router and just turn off its routing functions. You'll
also get multiple ethernet connections in addition to the wireless.

Yousuf Khan

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> "YKhan" wrote:
> ----------------------------------
> The WAP still requires a connection through ethernet to the main
> router. [............]
> If you really want to use a WAP still, then it's cheaper to buy a
> second wireless router and just turn off its routing functions. You'll
> also get multiple ethernet connections in addition to the wireless.
>
> Yousuf Khan
> ----------------------------------
>
> What would be the topology of such a setup? Is the "second
> wireless router" to act as a WAP or to act as a switch for the
> WAP?

The second router is supposed to act as the WAP. You would connect the
2nd router through one of its *LAN* ports via ethernet, to the primary
router. You must use a LAN port on the 2nd router, *not* its WAN port
(aka Internet or Broadband port). Of course that means you still need to
get an ethernet connection to the second router from the first router,
via full CAT5 or powerline ethernet. At the first router, you would
connect the other end of the ethernet to one of its LAN ports too. So
the two routers will connect to each other via LAN ethernet ports only.

On the secondary router, you will be disabling all of its routing and
DHCP functions. This can be a pretty simple one-step process in some of
the newer routers, which have a single-click function to disable all of
them properly. But even if you have an older router which doesn't have
this convenience, you can simply leave the 2nd router's WAN port
disconnected, set it's IP to a static 0.0.0.0 or something, and then
disable its client DHCP services.

If you have two wireless routers, it's still not a problem, you can keep
both router's wireless function enabled, and you'd have the ability load
balance your wireless computers over each router. Likely each machine
would connect to its closest router. So it would be useful if the
routers covered different parts of the house, with a bit of overlapping
in the signals. In the past, I've even given both routers identical
SSID's, and identical wireless passwords, and the computers just
connected to the router with the strongest signal at boot time. Then if
one of the routers were to go down for, then the wireless devices would
automatically reconnect to the other router seemlessly.

Yousuf Khan

On Jan 23, 6:21*pm, "Timothy Daniels" <SpamBuc...@NoSpamPlease.biz>
wrote:
> Which is the "first router" and which is the "second router"?
> Remember that you have a clear picture in your mind, but
> I can only see the picture through your words. *How about
> using "modem-connected" router and "device-connected"
> router.
>
> *TimDaniels*

The first router, or primary, would be the "modem-connected" router.
The second router, or secondary, rides off of the first one for most
of its functions, such as DHCP and routing. The secondary at this
point is basically just functionally a bridge, but not a router
anymore. The primary is the only real router in functional terms.

I would assume all of the routers would be "device-connected",
regardless of their primacy. I assume some devices will connect to the
first and some to the second. Or did I not understand your question?

Yousuf Khan

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> Originally, I had planned to have theWRT54GS wireless router
> upstairs as the "secondary" router with wired connections to the
> end devices, i.e. the desktop, laptop, and printer, with the laptop
> connecting occasionally via Wi-Fi. Connected via wire to the
> modem downstairs would be "link", perhaps a WAP54G
> wireless access point talking to another WAP54G upstairs
> which would be wired to the WRT54GS wireless router.
> But that would require purchase of 2 WAP54G access points
> to provide the downstaire-upstairs link. This, I believe, is the
> most expensive of the solutions.
>
> Another solution would be to put the WRT54GS wireless router
> downstairs and put a WAP54G access point upstairs connected
> via wire to an ethernet switch which is connected via wire to the
> end devices. The laptop upstairs could connect to the WRT54GS
> wireless router downstairs when a wireless connection is desired,
> but I don't know if it would allow file transfers between the laptop
> and the other end devices. In any event, this solution would require
> purchase of a WAP54G access point and an ethernet switch.

I think there is a misunderstanding of how a WAP works on your part. Two
WAPs won't connect to each other wirelessly. They will not form an
ad-hoc wireless network from the upstairs to the downstairs. WAPs do not
form ad-hoc networks (i.e. peer-to-peer), they only form infrastructure
connections (i.e. the WAP acts as a server, while everything else works
as a client). Two WAPs won't talk to each other. This solution will not
work the way you think it will.

> Another solution would be to purchase 2 powerline ethernet
> adapters, one connected to the modem downstairs, the other
> connected to the WRT54GS wireless router upstairs, and the
> in-wall electrical wiring would provide the connectivity between
> the 2 ethernet adapters.

Powerline ethernet is the only thing that will do what you're thinking here.

> The latter 2 solutions could be the cheapest, depending on one's
> luck on Ebay. They are equal in speed for Internet downloads,
> the wireless solution being the fastest for file transfers on the LAN,
> and the powerline solution being the most secure (as I see it).

Actually no, the powerline solution would also be the fastest. Even
though they say Wifi-G operates at 54 Mbps, it's barely 50% efficient
most of the time, and they are very peaky in their speed. The powerline
devices are much more efficient and consistent in speed. For example, I
use it at my place to stream Divx and Xvid AVI files from my computer to
my Xbox360 which I use to watch them on my tv. If I were to use WiFi for
this, then I would get a lot of stuttering. Now WiFi-N might be better
suited to video streaming than WiFi-G was, so this may no longer be
applicable, but at least upto 802.11G, WiFi is not good enough for video
streaming.

> Surprisingly (to me), the simple solution of running a coaxial cable
> upstairs is the most expensive, given the condo situation, the asbestos
> in the ceilings, the wood veneer on the livingroom wall, and either
> the cost of attachment tools for compression-fit connectors or the
> cost of labor for a professional installation. Eventually, I would want
> to use coaxial cabling to carry TV signals as well, but that would be
> when I had more money to spend. For now, I believe the AP/switch
> or powerline adapters are the way to go, and I'm prowling Ebay for
> bargains in used equipment.
>
> *TimDaniels*

BTW, you might want to check out Ebay item # 280305561710, if you get to
it in time, you might be able to get them at a reasonable price.

Yousuf Khan

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> I had been thinking of connecting two of them as an Access Point
> and an Access Client, as in:
> http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...p?p_faqid=4202
> This combination of two WAP54G's and an ethernet switch would
> give wired connectivity to end devices upstairs, and it would allow
> the laptop upstairs to connect wirelessly to the WAP54G downstairs.
> All devices could share files and connect to the Internet. The WAP54G
> downstairs would be connected directly to the modem instead of to
> an intermediary router that is shown in the diagram.

Okay, so it looks like Linksys has added some kind of additional
functionality to their WAPs, making them a bit more than WAPs. It looks
like it only works between two identical Linksys WAPs though.

> Thanks for sharing your experience with powerline ethernet adapters.
> The Ebay price (if it holds) for the 4 Netgear units is quite nice. I'm
> actually watching Ebay for the equivalent Linksys adapters because
> of the 128-bit encryption available on the Linksys units.


I'm not sure it's really all that necessary to have encryption on the
powerline ethernet adapters, as the signals between these things won't
go outside of your circuit breaker box anyways. In fact, if you have
added an extension to your house which has its own circuit breaker, you
won't be able to connect these things if they are on different main
breakers.

Yousuf Khan

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> Yousuf, if I interpret the sparse product descriptions correctly,
> I'd be able to add just a single device - a wireless ethernet bridge,
> such as the Linksys WET54GS5 - to move my end devices
> upstairs. Downstairs, I'd have the cable modem connecting to
> the existing WRT54GS wireless router. Upstairs, I'd have a
> WET54GS5 wireless ethernet bridge wired to the end devices
> (desktop, laptop, printer) and connected wirelessly to the
> WRT54GS wireless router downstairs. If I wanted to use the
> laptop wirelessly, it would connect to the WRT54GS wireless
> router downstairs. What to you think? Would this work for
> sharing both Internet access and for file sharing among the end
> devices?

Yes, sounds like it will work that way. The laptop with its own wireless
connection will connect directly to the wireless router from most
anywhere in the house. But the remote ethernet devices will connect to
the wireless ethernet bridge.

Yousuf Khan

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> I live in a condo building and I'm paranoid about emails getting
> snooped. The powerline bridge has a much lower probability of
> being seen and decrypted, but the 14Mbps units would crowd the
> download speed, so I've been looking for 85Mbps and 100Mbps
> powerline units on eBay. Yikes! They're expensive even at half-price.

There's about as much chance that the powerline ethernet can be snooped
from outside as there is for a CAT5 cable to be snooped from outside --
nearly impossible. The encryption is basically for keeping data
transmissions between multiple adapters within the powerline network
private from each other. In other words it's to prevent internal
snooping. If you have only two powerline adapters, then there won't be
another adapter which can snoop on those two.

Most condos and apartments have individual main breakers in each unit,
afterall you don't want a neighbor's hairdryer shutting down the whole
floor or the whole building.

The 14 Mbps units are known as HomePlug 1.0 adapters. 85 & 100 Mbps
powerline units are known as HomePlug 1.0 Turbo adapters, which is an
unofficial standard. And the 200 Mbps units are known as Homeplug AV.
Most of the units I've seen on Ebay are HP 1.0 turbo units.

>
> I've found a way to get a cable from downstairs to upstairs by
> going through a chimney's outer wall to bypass the supporting beam
> for the stud plates (I checked with a building inspector), but it would
> be uuuuggleeeee getting up to the fireplace's hood and penetrating it.
> I will probably go with DSL if it can provide the download speed,
> or I will cough up the money for powerline.

There's ugly and then there's practical. I suppose if you weren't
worried about the look, you could even take a CAT5 cable from upstairs
to downstairs via two outside windows.

Yousuf Khan

In message <4986a4b8$(E-Mail Removed)> Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
was claimed to have wrote:

>There's about as much chance that the powerline ethernet can be snooped
>from outside as there is for a CAT5 cable to be snooped from outside --
>nearly impossible. The encryption is basically for keeping data
>transmissions between multiple adapters within the powerline network
>private from each other. In other words it's to prevent internal
>snooping. If you have only two powerline adapters, then there won't be
>another adapter which can snoop on those two.
>
>Most condos and apartments have individual main breakers in each unit,
>afterall you don't want a neighbor's hairdryer shutting down the whole
>floor or the whole building.

Can't powerline ethernet solutions cross breakers? If not, that should
severely limit their usefulness as even in my very first apartment we
had multiple breakers for different rooms, my current condo has at least
a dozen different breakers.

(Okay, half of those are probably for specific appliances, kitchen, etc,
but even in my office I've got at least two different circuits available
to me)