Short distance point-to-point connection between homes

I want to setup a wireless network with a friend between our houses to share
large files. There's a few questions I want to get resolved before I do
this, first off, here's the setup.

Bandwidth is a necessity so I'm looking at the 108Mbps equipment,
particularly the Dlink DI-624. I want to get 2 of them, one for each house.
Other than the edges of some trees, there are two windows we can use that
give direct LOS between the houses. I was hoping that because of this, I
can mount the antennas inside. These will be the only devices on the
wireless network, everything else will be wired.


1.) Is the glass gonna be a big problem in getting the 2 router's to sync?
(Note: Distance between antennas is no more than 200 feet).

2.) The routers seem to be cheaper than the AP's, as long as I disable the
DHCP server and don't use the WAN port for anything, will these basically
function like AP's?

3.) One of the antennas I am looking at is a 14 dBi gain patch panel
antenna:
http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/hg2414p.php

Is this enough gain for this short distance to achieve a connection at
108Mbps, or do I need to look at something in the 20+ dBi range? Will
higher gain improve my speed, or is it, "you either sync at 108 and get that
speed, or you don't."

4.) The DI-624 comes with WPA encryption protection. This is the good stuff
that doesn't have the flaws of WEP, correct?


I appreciate any feedback, thanks.

Xprotocol wrote:

> I want to setup a wireless network with a friend between our houses to share
> large files. There's a few questions I want to get resolved before I do
> this, first off, here's the setup.
>
> Bandwidth is a necessity so I'm looking at the 108Mbps equipment,
> particularly the Dlink DI-624. I want to get 2 of them, one for each house.
> Other than the edges of some trees, there are two windows we can use that
> give direct LOS between the houses. I was hoping that because of this, I
> can mount the antennas inside. These will be the only devices on the
> wireless network, everything else will be wired.
>
>
> 1.) Is the glass gonna be a big problem in getting the 2 router's to sync?
> (Note: Distance between antennas is no more than 200 feet).

Glass normally doesn't attenuate signal much unless it's some of the
metal-coated low-g stuff. Add some metal blinds and you're sunk.

> 2.) The routers seem to be cheaper than the AP's, as long as I disable the
> DHCP server and don't use the WAN port for anything, will these basically
> function like AP's?
>
> 3.) One of the antennas I am looking at is a 14 dBi gain patch panel
> antenna:
> http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/hg2414p.php

Probably more than enough. One on just one end would probably be enough.

> Is this enough gain for this short distance to achieve a connection at
> 108Mbps, or do I need to look at something in the 20+ dBi range? Will
> higher gain improve my speed, or is it, "you either sync at 108 and get that
> speed, or you don't."

Lower link strength and quality equal lower connection speeds.

> 4.) The DI-624 comes with WPA encryption protection. This is the good stuff
> that doesn't have the flaws of WEP, correct?

Mostly

> I appreciate any feedback, thanks.

200' of direct burial ethernet cable would cost less than one of the
wireless devices you're discussing. You wouldn't need antennas, signal
strength, WPA or any of that other crap. Use a flat blade shovel to poke
into the ground about five or six inches, pry back the dirt enough to
push the cable in, push the dirt back into place with your foot. Voila,
gigabit capable connection.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rôgêr" <(E-Mail Removed)>
Newsgroups: alt.internet.wireless
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: Short distance point-to-point connection between homes


> Probably more than enough. One on just one end would probably be enough.
>
>
> Lower link strength and quality equal lower connection speeds.
>
> 200' of direct burial ethernet cable would cost less than one of the
> wireless devices you're discussing. You wouldn't need antennas, signal
> strength, WPA or any of that other crap. Use a flat blade shovel to poke
> into the ground about five or six inches, pry back the dirt enough to
> push the cable in, push the dirt back into place with your foot. Voila,
> gigabit capable connection.
>

Unfortunately there are public roads seperating the houses so line burial
isn't really an option.

Why would an antenna on only one side work? I could see it would help that
person out but what if the other side wants to send stuff at high speed? It
will still work just with the default omni antenna?

> Unfortunately there are public roads seperating the houses so line burial
> isn't really an option.
>
> Why would an antenna on only one side work? I could see it would help
that
> person out but what if the other side wants to send stuff at high speed?
It
> will still work just with the default omni antenna?

Why not try it with the default antennas, if they don't cut it, try a home
made or modified one at little or no cost and if that doesn't work, look at
commercial antennas.

Xprotocol wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rôgêr" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> Newsgroups: alt.internet.wireless
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Short distance point-to-point connection between homes
>
>
>
>>Probably more than enough. One on just one end would probably be enough.
>>
>>
>>Lower link strength and quality equal lower connection speeds.
>>
>>200' of direct burial ethernet cable would cost less than one of the
>>wireless devices you're discussing. You wouldn't need antennas, signal
>>strength, WPA or any of that other crap. Use a flat blade shovel to poke
>>into the ground about five or six inches, pry back the dirt enough to
>>push the cable in, push the dirt back into place with your foot. Voila,
>>gigabit capable connection.
>>
>
>
> Unfortunately there are public roads seperating the houses so line burial
> isn't really an option.
>
> Why would an antenna on only one side work? I could see it would help that
> person out but what if the other side wants to send stuff at high speed? It
> will still work just with the default omni antenna?
>
>

A better antenna on even one side may help because it increases transmit
power *and* increases receive sensitivity. {I'm not claiming that any
antenna will improve both, so turn off your flamethrowers.}
--
Cheers, Bob

Are the Routers really cheaper than the AP's there? The routers her
(eg. DI-624) are about double that of the AP's (DWL-2000).

Also, are you planning to go wireless only between the AP's/Routers o
are you planning to have wireless to the pc's aswell

--
nuf

nuf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Are the Routers really cheaper than the AP's there? The routers here
> (eg. DI-624) are about double that of the AP's (DWL-2000).
>

Yes, Routers are usually cheaper but lack the flexibility of some APs. Also
if you want to configure a router as a pure AP sometimes it takes a bit of
fudging with the settings.

--
Lucas Tam ((E-Mail Removed))
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

> > 200' of direct burial ethernet cable would cost less than one of the
> > wireless devices you're discussing. You wouldn't need antennas, signal
> > strength, WPA or any of that other crap. Use a flat blade shovel to poke
> > into the ground about five or six inches, pry back the dirt enough to
> > push the cable in, push the dirt back into place with your foot. Voila,
> > gigabit capable connection.
> >

Interesting proposal ... is ethernet cable OK in such circumstances ?
Doesn't it have to be armoured / heavy duty weatherised or something ...

And I think you may introduce some earthing issues... the behaviour of such
a setup in an electrical storm may be interesting.

John


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.713 / Virus Database: 469 - Release Date: 30/06/2004

> Interesting proposal ... is ethernet cable OK in such circumstances ?
> Doesn't it have to be armoured / heavy duty weatherised or something ...

Guess it's like many things, if you run it along the wall where you're
not going to dig then it may be ok, otherwise might as well lay it at
ground level where possible in conduit. That's what I did for some
satellite cable a few years ago.

If a pro were doing this, they likely wouldn't be interested in doing it
that way but if it's for own use then rules get bent.

David.

"John Beeston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<i%aFc.1574$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Interesting proposal ... is ethernet cable OK in such circumstances ?
> Doesn't it have to be armoured / heavy duty weatherised or something ...
>
> And I think you may introduce some earthing issues... the behaviour of such
> a setup in an electrical storm may be interesting.

Or just use 200' or so of fiber optic cable, direct burial
or in a plastic conduit, with media converters on both ends.