SMC 2655W in "Access Point Client" mode

Hello,

I hope I didn't end up posting this twice. My apologies if I did.

Anyway, I'm having trouble getting my SMC2655W (v1) AP working in
access point client mode.

My current test setup is like this:

- Netgear MR814v2 connected to DSL modem
- Wireless AP is enabled
- IP: 192.168.0.1
- iMac connected to switch on the MR814v2
- DHCP IP (currently 192.168.0.5)

- SMC2655W configured in access point client mode as client to MR814v2
- Static IP = 192.168.0.110
- SMC firmware 1.4i.1
- Laptop connected via crossover cable to 2655W's ethernet port
- Static IP = 192.168.0.35
- GW = 2655W IP

What works:

- iMac can ping 2655W
- iMac can ping MR814v2
- 2655W appears in the MR814v2's list of connected clients
- Laptop can ping 2655W
- Laptop can configure 2655W using SNMP tools
- Laptop can wirelessly connect to MR814v2 (but I have the wireless
card
disabled while trying to get this working)

What doesn't work:

- iMac cannot ping laptop
- Laptop cannot ping iMac or MR814v2


It seems like the 2655W isn't passing traffic through from
wireless->ethernet and vice versa.

Am I misunderstanding the use of "access point client" mode? I was
under
the impression than an AP in client mode basically just became
"wireless
ethernet adapter" (like an SMC2670W). That I would be able to connect
a
device that just has an ethernet port wirelessly to my main network.
My goal is to wirelessly connect my ReplayTV in the family room to my
main network. I used to have this working with an SMC 2670W, but it
died. I'm trying to replace the 2670W with thw 2655W in client mode.

Is this not working because I'm trying to get SMC and Netgear stuff to
talk
to each other? Would a different firmware solve the problem?

Thanks for any help.

Nate

On 7 Jun 2004 18:53:22 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Nate Drake) wrote:

>Anyway, I'm having trouble getting my SMC2655W (v1) AP working in
>access point client mode.
Did you try it in bridge mode? That is the other mode supported by
the atmel software, which I presume you used to set the mode. Did
you?

I am very interested in what you are doing, I plan on doing that soon
myself. Hopefully someone who knows lots more than we do will
respond!

"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
> On 7 Jun 2004 18:53:22 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Nate Drake) wrote:
>
> >Anyway, I'm having trouble getting my SMC2655W (v1) AP working in
> >access point client mode.
> Did you try it in bridge mode? That is the other mode supported by
> the atmel software, which I presume you used to set the mode. Did
> you?

I didn't play with bridge mode, as I thought both APs would need to be
in bridge mode. I'll mess with it after work. Yeah, I used the atmel
software, the netgear WAP11 SNMP program works as well, but I liked
the atmel better.

I am interesting on this as well. I have tried with a TecNew AP (very
similar to the SMC one) but with no luck at all.

MR814v1 --))((-- TecNew AP --cat5-->SMC7004vbr --cat5-- PC
192.168.0.1 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.100 192.168.0.99
HDCP on 0.2-0.5 **I also tried 192.168.0.50 on AP

Now NONE of any AP Client/Repeater works, bridges certainly won't
because MR814 does not do that I heard. My goal is to have the AP
acts as a Repeater to extend my wireless coverage.

Noted I can see the AP pops up on my wireless card connection screen
with same SSID / Channel(as MR814v1) and certainly with much stronger
signal than the MR814v1, but when I try connect to this AP, it does
but I can not see (PING) on my MR814v1. without able to see the
gateway, nothing works.

Very confused. Is anyone out there willing to show us how exactly to
config a true AP with a wireless router please ?

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:08:29 -0700, "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I am very interested in what you are doing, I plan on doing that soon
>myself. Hopefully someone who knows lots more than we do will
>respond!
As I lamely follow up my own post, let me say what I want to try to
do.

I want to stick a Belkin mini access point in the middle of a corner
reflector, and use power over ethernet to get power to it outside and
to get the data back to my indoor router.

I want to connect to a network that is a couple miles away, line of
sight.

The Belkin Mini AP is really little and the old ones (which I have)
have two little dipole antennas. So I think why not mount it in front
of the reflector and let it go to town? I made a pretty big corner
reflector out of aluminum for testing. Bent it on a brake.

But these modes are confusing. I assume an access point cannot talk
to another access point. But in bridge mode it should. Client mode as
well, like a wifi card.

I have to wonder what the real difference is. I hope someone will be
able to tell us in this thread. Info on these modes is very sketchy.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:16:50 +0100, "John Beeston"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:08:29 -0700, "(E-Mail Removed)"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> I want to stick a Belkin mini access point in the middle of a corner
>> reflector, and use power over ethernet to get power to it outside and
>> to get the data back to my indoor router.
>>
>> I want to connect to a network that is a couple miles away, line of
>> sight.
>>
>> The Belkin Mini AP is really little and the old ones (which I have)
>> have two little dipole antennas. So I think why not mount it in front
>> of the reflector and let it go to town? I made a pretty big corner
>> reflector out of aluminum for testing. Bent it on a brake.
>>
>> But these modes are confusing. I assume an access point cannot talk
>> to another access point. But in bridge mode it should. Client mode as
>> well, like a wifi card.
>>
>> I have to wonder what the real difference is. I hope someone will be
>> able to tell us in this thread. Info on these modes is very sketchy.
>
>In my view .... a client can talk to an access point ... and this should be
>pretty universal ...
So if I can get the Belkin mini access point to work in client mode,
which is one of the modes supported by the atmel software when I used
it to look at the little Belkin it should talk to a remote access
point.
>Any manufacturer's client should talk to any other's Access point...
Yeah, the question is how well the Belkin access point will work in
client mode. Or if it works at all. It might not.
>
>A bridge should only talk to a bridge ... AND it may depend on them both
>being from the same mufacturer...
So a bridge wouldn't let me be a part of the remote network? I thought
that was how that worked. I had never heard in this day and age of
*standards* that would be a problem.

>A repeater can sit between an access point and a client ... and again I am
>not conviced that different manufacturers kit will work together..
But a repeater might just dumbly repeat the signal from the remote
access point, allowing my client card to pick it up. Which would be
OK as well.

>I would be interested to know the distance you manage with your reflector.
It might be a couple blocks, there are *nodes*.

It might be 3 miles. There is a nearly 200' tower at the other end,
BTW. Community WIFI. It's *supposed* to work.

"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:08:29 -0700, "(E-Mail Removed)"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >I am very interested in what you are doing, I plan on doing that soon
> >myself. Hopefully someone who knows lots more than we do will
> >respond!
> As I lamely follow up my own post, let me say what I want to try to
> do.
>
> I want to stick a Belkin mini access point in the middle of a corner
> reflector, and use power over ethernet to get power to it outside and
> to get the data back to my indoor router.
>
> I want to connect to a network that is a couple miles away, line of
> sight.
>
> The Belkin Mini AP is really little and the old ones (which I have)
> have two little dipole antennas. So I think why not mount it in front
> of the reflector and let it go to town? I made a pretty big corner
> reflector out of aluminum for testing. Bent it on a brake.
>
> But these modes are confusing. I assume an access point cannot talk
> to another access point. But in bridge mode it should. Client mode as
> well, like a wifi card.
>
> I have to wonder what the real difference is. I hope someone will be
> able to tell us in this thread. Info on these modes is very sketchy.
>
>


In my view .... a client can talk to an access point ... and this should be
pretty universal ...

Any manufacturer's client should talk to any other's Access point...


A bridge should only talk to a bridge ... AND it may depend on them both
being from the same mufacturer...


A repeater can sit between an access point and a client ... and again I am
not conviced that different manufacturers kit will work together..


I would be interested to know the distance you manage with your reflector.



John


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.705 / Virus Database: 461 - Release Date: 12/06/2004

"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:16:50 +0100, "John Beeston"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:08:29 -0700, "(E-Mail Removed)"
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >> I want to stick a Belkin mini access point in the middle of a corner
> >> reflector, and use power over ethernet to get power to it outside and
> >> to get the data back to my indoor router.
> >>
> >> I want to connect to a network that is a couple miles away, line of
> >> sight.
> >>
> >> The Belkin Mini AP is really little and the old ones (which I have)
> >> have two little dipole antennas. So I think why not mount it in front
> >> of the reflector and let it go to town? I made a pretty big corner
> >> reflector out of aluminum for testing. Bent it on a brake.
> >>
> >> But these modes are confusing. I assume an access point cannot talk
> >> to another access point. But in bridge mode it should. Client mode as
> >> well, like a wifi card.
> >>
> >> I have to wonder what the real difference is. I hope someone will be
> >> able to tell us in this thread. Info on these modes is very sketchy.
> >
> >In my view .... a client can talk to an access point ... and this should
be
> >pretty universal ...
> So if I can get the Belkin mini access point to work in client mode,
> which is one of the modes supported by the atmel software when I used
> it to look at the little Belkin it should talk to a remote access
> point.
> >Any manufacturer's client should talk to any other's Access point...
> Yeah, the question is how well the Belkin access point will work in
> client mode. Or if it works at all. It might not.
> >
> >A bridge should only talk to a bridge ... AND it may depend on them both
> >being from the same mufacturer...
> So a bridge wouldn't let me be a part of the remote network? I thought
> that was how that worked. I had never heard in this day and age of
> *standards* that would be a problem.
>
> >A repeater can sit between an access point and a client ... and again I
am
> >not conviced that different manufacturers kit will work together..
> But a repeater might just dumbly repeat the signal from the remote
> access point, allowing my client card to pick it up. Which would be
> OK as well.
>
> >I would be interested to know the distance you manage with your
reflector.
> It might be a couple blocks, there are *nodes*.
>
> It might be 3 miles. There is a nearly 200' tower at the other end,
> BTW. Community WIFI. It's *supposed* to work.

When you have multiple APs in a network, whether for roaming, bridging, or
repeating, the APs must coordinate with each other. This communication is
called the Distribution System (DS). The DS could communicate over the
wired Ethernet, over the wireless medium (then called the Wireless DS or
WDS), or over some other medium. There isn't yet an approved standard for a
DS. 802.11F is in the works. In the meantime, all DSs are proprietary.
Apparently there is interoperability between some brands, indicating that
some vendors are sharing technology. But I don't think you'll get any
vendor to promise interoperability with any other. So for now, the safe
route is for all you APs to be the same brand.

Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.