Re: What's this device called?

In article <YhHhf.3977$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Rob Nicholson <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote:
:We're thinking of going wireless in a new building but don't want to have to
:install wireless cards in all existing PCs. Is there a device that works
:like a little hub/switch but instead of it's uplink being a physical wire,
:uses a wireless connection to an access point? The idea would be to simply
lug the existing PCs in clusters (four per desk) into this "wireless hub".
:And I realise "wireless hub/switch" isn't probably the right name.

There are devices made specifically as "wireless bridge"; if you get
one made for that, then research the device first as some of them will
only bridge to selected mating equipment from the same manufacturer
(and the same manufacturer might have several -incompatible- wireless
bridge protocols.)

There is a more standardized alternative which has been appearing;
unfortunately I do not recall the name of it at the moment.
Some devices on the market are able to be switched between Access Point
and relay functions, and some are able to do both at the same time.

alt.internet.wireless is a good source of information for this kind
of application; I have added it into the newsgroup list as someone
there will be able to name current models easily.
--
Prototypes are supertypes of their clones. -- maplesoft

> Some devices on the market are able to be switched between Access Point
> and relay functions, and some are able to do both at the same time.

It seems that wireless access points can act in the way I was describing in
bridge mode such as this device:

http://tinyurl.com/8epqs

Now whilst this is pretty much bottom of the range, it would, in theory
work. We've got months before the office move so I'm going to buy a couple
of these access points and a couple of switches as well and give it a trial.

> alt.internet.wireless is a good source of information for this kind
> of application; I have added it into the newsgroup list as someone
> there will be able to name current models easily.

Double cross posted then :-)

Cheers, Rob.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:07:23 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

>In article <YhHhf.3977$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>Rob Nicholson <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote:
>:We're thinking of going wireless in a new building but don't want to have to
>:install wireless cards in all existing PCs. Is there a device that works
>:like a little hub/switch but instead of it's uplink being a physical wire,
>:uses a wireless connection to an access point? The idea would be to simply
>lug the existing PCs in clusters (four per desk) into this "wireless hub".
>:And I realise "wireless hub/switch" isn't probably the right name.

>There are devices made specifically as "wireless bridge";

Not really. "Wireless Bridge" is far to general a description to be
useful. There are many types of contrivances that qualify as a
"wireless bridge", especially since *ALL* 802.11 wireless is really
bridging (everything is done on layer 2).

For example, there are:
1. Point to point wireless bridges. (same as transparent bridge)
2. Point to multipoint wireless bridges.
3. Multiple MAC address client adapters.
4. Single MAC address client adapters.
5. Workgroup bridges. (Bridges a limited number of MAC addresses
to an access point).
6. Transparent bridges. (Bridges more than one MAC address).
7. Game adapters. (Bridges an undisclosed number of MAC
addresses).
8. Wireless repeaters. (Yes, these are also bridges).
9. WDS access points. (Act simultaneously as a bridge and as an
access point).
10. Whatever else I forgot.

>if you get
>one made for that, then research the device first as some of them will
>only bridge to selected mating equipment from the same manufacturer
>(and the same manufacturer might have several -incompatible- wireless
>bridge protocols.)

That's generally true for point to point, point to multipoint, and
WDS. However, that's not what he's looking for and none of these will
be useful. He wants a way to connect more than one computah to a
device that bridges to a wireless access point. That would be #5 or
possibly #7. For those, there is no need to maintain manufacturer or
chipset commonality.

>There is a more standardized alternative which has been appearing;
>unfortunately I do not recall the name of it at the moment.

Ummm.... Google is your friend. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).

>Some devices on the market are able to be switched between Access Point
>and relay functions, and some are able to do both at the same time.

That would be #9, the WDS access point or WDS wireless router. WRT54G
with alternative firmware or DI-624. These would also be useful for
the application, but only if all the access points and wireless
routers were the same chipset. The desktops would plug into the
ethernet ports on the remote WDS bridge, which would bridge wirelessly
to the main access points. The coverage of the wireless part of the
network would also be extended to these remote WDS bridge boxes as
wireless laptop clients could connect to the remotes instead of the
central access point. Similarly, other WDS bridges can connect to the
remote, which eventually connect to the central access point.

However, that's not what he wanted and is highly likely to create more
problems than it solves. It rapidly starts to look like a mesh
network, with all it's store-n-forward thruput reduction, mutual
interference, and reliability issues. I'll be lazy and not rant on
the details. While WDS would work, I would not recommend it for this
application.

>alt.internet.wireless is a good source of information for this kind
>of application; I have added it into the newsgroup list as someone
>there will be able to name current models easily.

Yep. 3Scum 3CRWE675075 or older 3CRWE83096A. Cisco AIR-WGB352.
Linksys WET11, WAP54G in client mode, WRT54G with DD-WRT in client
mode.

--
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

> It seems that wireless access points can act in the way I was describing in
> bridge mode such as this device:

FWIW, I've used cheapo Linksys WAP11's, WAP54's and Dlink DWL2000's

I had a couple of offices 80m apart. For the amusement factor, I
invited the guy from British Telecom to come and quote.

His quote: £10,000 for a 10Mbps Lan Extension Circuit

I even managed to keep a straight face.

I had no budget for this job, my solution was a couple of Linksys
WAP54's and a couple of cheap antenna's. Including the guys from the
local TV aerial service to come and mount the antenna's and drill holes,
total cost under £300 for a faster solution.

David.

so plug any old wireless game adapter into an 8 port switch and he's good to
go ... back to any ap or router.


"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:07:23 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
> (Walter Roberson) wrote:
>
>>In article <YhHhf.3977$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>Rob Nicholson <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>:We're thinking of going wireless in a new building but don't want to have
>>to
>>:install wireless cards in all existing PCs. Is there a device that works
>>:like a little hub/switch but instead of it's uplink being a physical
>>wire,
>>:uses a wireless connection to an access point? The idea would be to
>>simply
>>lug the existing PCs in clusters (four per desk) into this "wireless
>>hub".
>>:And I realise "wireless hub/switch" isn't probably the right name.
>
>>There are devices made specifically as "wireless bridge";
>
> Not really. "Wireless Bridge" is far to general a description to be
> useful. There are many types of contrivances that qualify as a
> "wireless bridge", especially since *ALL* 802.11 wireless is really
> bridging (everything is done on layer 2).
>
> For example, there are:
> 1. Point to point wireless bridges. (same as transparent bridge)
> 2. Point to multipoint wireless bridges.
> 3. Multiple MAC address client adapters.
> 4. Single MAC address client adapters.
> 5. Workgroup bridges. (Bridges a limited number of MAC addresses
> to an access point).
> 6. Transparent bridges. (Bridges more than one MAC address).
> 7. Game adapters. (Bridges an undisclosed number of MAC
> addresses).
> 8. Wireless repeaters. (Yes, these are also bridges).
> 9. WDS access points. (Act simultaneously as a bridge and as an
> access point).
> 10. Whatever else I forgot.
>
>>if you get
>>one made for that, then research the device first as some of them will
>>only bridge to selected mating equipment from the same manufacturer
>>(and the same manufacturer might have several -incompatible- wireless
>>bridge protocols.)
>
> That's generally true for point to point, point to multipoint, and
> WDS. However, that's not what he's looking for and none of these will
> be useful. He wants a way to connect more than one computah to a
> device that bridges to a wireless access point. That would be #5 or
> possibly #7. For those, there is no need to maintain manufacturer or
> chipset commonality.
>
>>There is a more standardized alternative which has been appearing;
>>unfortunately I do not recall the name of it at the moment.
>
> Ummm.... Google is your friend. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
>
>>Some devices on the market are able to be switched between Access Point
>>and relay functions, and some are able to do both at the same time.
>
> That would be #9, the WDS access point or WDS wireless router. WRT54G
> with alternative firmware or DI-624. These would also be useful for
> the application, but only if all the access points and wireless
> routers were the same chipset. The desktops would plug into the
> ethernet ports on the remote WDS bridge, which would bridge wirelessly
> to the main access points. The coverage of the wireless part of the
> network would also be extended to these remote WDS bridge boxes as
> wireless laptop clients could connect to the remotes instead of the
> central access point. Similarly, other WDS bridges can connect to the
> remote, which eventually connect to the central access point.
>
> However, that's not what he wanted and is highly likely to create more
> problems than it solves. It rapidly starts to look like a mesh
> network, with all it's store-n-forward thruput reduction, mutual
> interference, and reliability issues. I'll be lazy and not rant on
> the details. While WDS would work, I would not recommend it for this
> application.
>
>>alt.internet.wireless is a good source of information for this kind
>>of application; I have added it into the newsgroup list as someone
>>there will be able to name current models easily.
>
> Yep. 3Scum 3CRWE675075 or older 3CRWE83096A. Cisco AIR-WGB352.
> Linksys WET11, WAP54G in client mode, WRT54G with DD-WRT in client
> mode.
>
> --
> 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 Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:13:24 GMT, "bumtracks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>so plug any old wireless game adapter into an 8 port switch and he's good to
>go ... back to any ap or router.

No, not just "any" wireless game adapter. The problem with this
marketing term is that it's not at all clear as to whether the "game
adapter" can handle more than one MAC address through the bridge. All
of the data sheets I've seen say nothing. Techy support is clueless.
My limited experiments show a trend from older boxes that can handle
32 MAC addressess (Linksys WET11) towards handling only one MAC
address in later models. My guess(tm) is that's because the
manufactories realized that they can sell many more "game adapters" if
they limit this feature. For most gamers, more than one MAC address
is probably a wasted feature because the only real interest is to
connect one Xbox, PlayStation, or GameCube to the internet to play
online games. The number of customers that would want to connect
additional devices through the same wireless link is limited.

Duz anyone have a list of wireless clients, wireless bridges, wireless
game adapters, wireless media adapters, workgroup bridges, and such,
that itemize the number of MAC addresses that can be passed?


--
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

In article <UbZhf.8765$F73.7025@trnddc03>, bumtracks <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>so plug any old wireless game adapter into an 8 port switch and he's good to
>go ... back to any ap or router.

Only if the wireless game adapter is able to handle as many MAC addresses
as the OP needs.
--
Prototypes are supertypes of their clones. -- maplesoft

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:07:23 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
>(Walter Roberson) wrote:

>>In article <YhHhf.3977$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>Rob Nicholson <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>:We're thinking of going wireless in a new building but don't want to have to
>>:install wireless cards in all existing PCs. Is there a device that works
>>:like a little hub/switch but instead of it's uplink being a physical wire,
>>:uses a wireless connection to an access point?

>>There are devices made specifically as "wireless bridge";

>Not really. "Wireless Bridge" is far to general a description to be
>useful.

The Linksys WET11 (which you mentioned at the end) specifically markets
as a "Wireless Bridge".
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...VisitorWrapper

>>if you get
>>one made for that, then research the device first as some of them will
>>only bridge to selected mating equipment from the same manufacturer
>>(and the same manufacturer might have several -incompatible- wireless
>>bridge protocols.)

>That's generally true for point to point, point to multipoint, and
>WDS. However, that's not what he's looking for and none of these will
>be useful. He wants a way to connect more than one computah to a
>device that bridges to a wireless access point. That would be #5 or
>possibly #7. For those, there is no need to maintain manufacturer or
>chipset commonality.

Linksys WAP11 is an example of a bridge that would work for the OP
but is only able to talk to selected equipment. (The OP might have to
install one receiving WAP11 per cluster, but it would work... just
not recommended.)

>>Some devices on the market are able to be switched between Access Point
>>and relay functions, and some are able to do both at the same time.

>That would be #9, the WDS access point or WDS wireless router.

WDS is the term I had forgotten.

>Ummm.... Google is your friend. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).

I couldn't think of the basic keywords, I haven't worked in the
genre for 2 years, and I'm not even in networking these days.


>Yep. 3Scum 3CRWE675075 or older 3CRWE83096A. Cisco AIR-WGB352.
>Linksys WET11, WAP54G in client mode, WRT54G with DD-WRT in client
>mode.

The WET11 is what I use, but it is not spring chicken... I thought
there'd likely be an 802.11g equivilent by now.
--
Okay, buzzwords only. Two syllables, tops. -- Laurie Anderson

In article <dmaa49$i08$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) (Walter Roberson) writes:

| The Linksys WET11 (which you mentioned at the end) specifically markets
| as a "Wireless Bridge".

The WET11 (or at least the last version of it that I tested) is an interesting
device in that it sidesteps the problem of registering multiple MAC addresses
with its host access point by making all its clients appear to share its one
MAC address. This allows the WET11 to be AP-agnostic but forces it to alter
packets in protocol-specific ways. For IP it has to edit (at least) ARP and
DHCP transactions in addition to changing the headers of all packets and
demultiplexing the return traffic based on IP address. I have no idea whether
it supports non-IP protocols or even the less-used IP protocols (e.g., RARP).
Certainly there are some protocols which simply cannot be spoofed in this way.

I think that manufacturers have realized that the only easy way to build a
genuinely transparent "bridge" that does not require special cooperation
from its host access point is to limit it to a single MAC address. In theory
it should be possible to build a bridge that creates a virtual STA for each
of its clients, but I've yet to see any box that takes this approach. I
believe that it would require changes in the radio firmware at a level that
most OEMs do not modify.

| Linksys WAP11 is an example of a bridge that would work for the OP
| but is only able to talk to selected equipment. (The OP might have to
| install one receiving WAP11 per cluster, but it would work... just
| not recommended.)

Early WAP11s in client mode used a very simple scheme with the obvious
(and common) encapsulation in 4-address 802.11 packets. This caused
some confusion because a WAP11 would appear at first to work with,
e.g., an Aironet bridge in AP mode (but not an AP) as its host. Even
though the Aironet device was ignoring the proprietary extensions that
the WAP11 used to request all packets with unknown port destinations
the Aironet device was happy to forward (in the same 4-address format)
traffic for any MAC source address that it had seen from the WAP11...
until the bridge table entry timed out.

| >Yep. 3Scum 3CRWE675075 or older 3CRWE83096A. Cisco AIR-WGB352.
| >Linksys WET11, WAP54G in client mode, WRT54G with DD-WRT in client
| >mode.

The Cisco WGB is basically a cost-reduced, run-from-flash version of the
Aironet UC/MC client with the MAC address limit raised from 1/4 to 8.
Last I checked it also used the 4-address packet format (in addition
to proprietary association extensions) and thus was not AP-agnostic. It
did suffer the same almost-works-right effect as the WAP11 when talking to
some other vendors' products. Interestingly, any of the UC/MC/WGB boxes
can be altered to remove the fixed limit on the number of client MAC
addresses. (The UC/MC boxes--but not the WGB--can even be full bridges.)

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

> His quote: £10,000 for a 10Mbps Lan Extension Circuit
>
> I even managed to keep a straight face.

Some of the telecoms companies still do live in a different world. They
haven't quite twigged on that computer networks and hardware are in a
completely different price bracket.

Cheers, Rob