WiFi Range Extension

In addition to covering my immediate home, I'd like to also cover a
house located 1 mile from mine, both off my home DSL line.

The range extenders I see advertised on the Web appear aimed at creating
a larger single coverage area, while I need two different coverage
areas. I'm looking for a way to connect my home DSL to both service
areas. It seems unlikely that a directional antenna at my home would do
the trick because the path is obstructed, so I assume I'll need APs in
both areas.

Anyone able to recommend a solution?

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:17:40 GMT, George <gmwemail-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in <EG1kg.44659$(E-Mail Removed)> :

>In addition to covering my immediate home, I'd like to also cover a
>house located 1 mile from mine, both off my home DSL line.
>
>The range extenders I see advertised on the Web appear aimed at creating
>a larger single coverage area, while I need two different coverage
>areas. I'm looking for a way to connect my home DSL to both service
>areas. It seems unlikely that a directional antenna at my home would do
>the trick because the path is obstructed, so I assume I'll need APs in
>both areas.

Obstruction can be a *big* problem. Assume you'll at least need in the
other house both (a) a client bridge with directional antenna wired to
(b) a wireless access point.

>Anyone able to recommend a solution?

First test with the client bridge.

See the links below for more information.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:17:40 GMT, George <gmwemail-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> in <EG1kg.44659$(E-Mail Removed)> :
>
> >In addition to covering my immediate home, I'd like to also cover a
> >house located 1 mile from mine, both off my home DSL line.
> >
> >The range extenders I see advertised on the Web appear aimed at creating
> >a larger single coverage area, while I need two different coverage
> >areas. I'm looking for a way to connect my home DSL to both service
> >areas. It seems unlikely that a directional antenna at my home would do
> >the trick because the path is obstructed, so I assume I'll need APs in
> >both areas.
>
> Obstruction can be a *big* problem. Assume you'll at least need in the
> other house both (a) a client bridge with directional antenna wired to
> (b) a wireless access point.
>
> >Anyone able to recommend a solution?
>
> First test with the client bridge.
>
> See the links below for more information.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why set up a bridge? Why not
set up two wifi box doing mac to mac, and just plug it into the DSL
router. It's not like this guy wants to offer a wifi service in
general, but rather just one to a particular house. I don't know if mac
ot mac is offered in every router, but it is standard on Dlink.

George <gmwemail-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In addition to covering my immediate home, I'd like to also cover a
>house located 1 mile from mine, both off my home DSL line.

>It seems unlikely that a directional antenna at my home would do
>the trick because the path is obstructed

How obstructed is it? Unless you've got a good line of sight, any
2.4GHz gear is very probably going to fail.

On 14 Jun 2006 22:17:47 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed) .com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:17:40 GMT, George <gmwemail-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>> in <EG1kg.44659$(E-Mail Removed)> :
>>
>> >In addition to covering my immediate home, I'd like to also cover a
>> >house located 1 mile from mine, both off my home DSL line.
>> >
>> >The range extenders I see advertised on the Web appear aimed at creating
>> >a larger single coverage area, while I need two different coverage
>> >areas. I'm looking for a way to connect my home DSL to both service
>> >areas. It seems unlikely that a directional antenna at my home would do
>> >the trick because the path is obstructed, so I assume I'll need APs in
>> >both areas.
>>
>> Obstruction can be a *big* problem. Assume you'll at least need in the
>> other house both (a) a client bridge with directional antenna wired to
>> (b) a wireless access point.
>>
>> >Anyone able to recommend a solution?
>>
>> First test with the client bridge.

>Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why set up a bridge? Why not
>set up two wifi box doing mac to mac, and just plug it into the DSL
>router. It's not like this guy wants to offer a wifi service in
>general, but rather just one to a particular house. I don't know if mac
>ot mac is offered in every router, but it is standard on Dlink.

"mac to mac???" Have no idea what you mean. Macintosh to Macintosh?
MAC address filtering? Big Mac to Big Mac? Please elucidate.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2006 22:17:47 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
> <(E-Mail Removed) .com>:
>
> >John Navas wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:17:40 GMT, George <gmwemail-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> >> in <EG1kg.44659$(E-Mail Removed)> :
> >>
> >> >In addition to covering my immediate home, I'd like to also cover a
> >> >house located 1 mile from mine, both off my home DSL line.
> >> >
> >> >The range extenders I see advertised on the Web appear aimed at creating
> >> >a larger single coverage area, while I need two different coverage
> >> >areas. I'm looking for a way to connect my home DSL to both service
> >> >areas. It seems unlikely that a directional antenna at my home would do
> >> >the trick because the path is obstructed, so I assume I'll need APs in
> >> >both areas.
> >>
> >> Obstruction can be a *big* problem. Assume you'll at least need in the
> >> other house both (a) a client bridge with directional antenna wired to
> >> (b) a wireless access point.
> >>
> >> >Anyone able to recommend a solution?
> >>
> >> First test with the client bridge.
>
> >Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why set up a bridge? Why not
> >set up two wifi box doing mac to mac, and just plug it into the DSL
> >router. It's not like this guy wants to offer a wifi service in
> >general, but rather just one to a particular house. I don't know if mac
> >ot mac is offered in every router, but it is standard on Dlink.
>
> "mac to mac???" Have no idea what you mean. Macintosh to Macintosh?
> MAC address filtering? Big Mac to Big Mac? Please elucidate.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

Mac as in the mac address of your router. I forget what it stands for,
but every router has a unique mac address. Dlink has a mode where you
can set them up to only talk to one specific mac address. Here is some
random link on the mac address:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/MAC_address.html

It is quite a pain that mac brings up all these apple links that are
quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. This mac to mac is probably not
found routers, only WAPs. I suppose you could get the equivalent
setting up a WAP and client, then use mac filtering to only allow those
two specific boxes.

On 15 Jun 2006 09:33:30 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed) om>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On 14 Jun 2006 22:17:47 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
>> <(E-Mail Removed) .com>:

>> >Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why set up a bridge? Why not
>> >set up two wifi box doing mac to mac, and just plug it into the DSL
>> >router. It's not like this guy wants to offer a wifi service in
>> >general, but rather just one to a particular house. I don't know if mac
>> >ot mac is offered in every router, but it is standard on Dlink.
>>
>> "mac to mac???" Have no idea what you mean. Macintosh to Macintosh?
>> MAC address filtering? Big Mac to Big Mac? Please elucidate.

>Mac as in the mac address of your router. I forget what it stands for,
>but every router has a unique mac address. Dlink has a mode where you
>can set them up to only talk to one specific mac address. Here is some
>random link on the mac address:
>http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/MAC_address.html
>
>It is quite a pain that mac brings up all these apple links that are
>quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. This mac to mac is probably not
>found routers, only WAPs. I suppose you could get the equivalent
>setting up a WAP and client, then use mac filtering to only allow those
>two specific boxes.

Ah, MAC address filtering. Essentially worthless because it's too
easily spoofed. And WEB is too easily cracked. So only use WPA with a
strong passphrase.

The reason for the client bridge and access point at the remote location
is that the OP wanted wireless coverage at the remote location.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2006 09:33:30 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
> <(E-Mail Removed) om>:
>
> >John Navas wrote:
> >> On 14 Jun 2006 22:17:47 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
> >> <(E-Mail Removed) .com>:
>
> >> >Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why set up a bridge? Why not
> >> >set up two wifi box doing mac to mac, and just plug it into the DSL
> >> >router. It's not like this guy wants to offer a wifi service in
> >> >general, but rather just one to a particular house. I don't know if mac
> >> >ot mac is offered in every router, but it is standard on Dlink.
> >>
> >> "mac to mac???" Have no idea what you mean. Macintosh to Macintosh?
> >> MAC address filtering? Big Mac to Big Mac? Please elucidate.
>
> >Mac as in the mac address of your router. I forget what it stands for,
> >but every router has a unique mac address. Dlink has a mode where you
> >can set them up to only talk to one specific mac address. Here is some
> >random link on the mac address:
> >http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/MAC_address.html
> >
> >It is quite a pain that mac brings up all these apple links that are
> >quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. This mac to mac is probably not
> >found routers, only WAPs. I suppose you could get the equivalent
> >setting up a WAP and client, then use mac filtering to only allow those
> >two specific boxes.
>
> Ah, MAC address filtering. Essentially worthless because it's too
> easily spoofed. And WEB is too easily cracked. So only use WPA with a
> strong passphrase.
>
> The reason for the client bridge and access point at the remote location
> is that the OP wanted wireless coverage at the remote location.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

The way I read it, he wanted coverage at his house and at the remote
location, so the mac to mac would be for the remote location.

On 15 Jun 2006 11:45:45 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed). com>:

>John Navas wrote:

>> Ah, MAC address filtering. Essentially worthless because it's too
>> easily spoofed. And WEB is too easily cracked. So only use WPA with a
>> strong passphrase.
>>
>> The reason for the client bridge and access point at the remote location
>> is that the OP wanted wireless coverage at the remote location.

>The way I read it, he wanted coverage at his house and at the remote
>location, so the mac to mac would be for the remote location.

I must be dense, but that still makes no sense to me -- "mac to mac" is
a term I've never heard and can't find. What exactly is it supposed to
mean? If MAC address filtering, that isn't a way to connect a remote
site -- it's simply a means of security, and an ineffective one at that.
What exactly are you proposing? Doing away with the remote client
bridge? Doing away with the remote access point? How?

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2006 11:45:45 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
> <(E-Mail Removed). com>:
>
> >John Navas wrote:
>
> >> Ah, MAC address filtering. Essentially worthless because it's too
> >> easily spoofed. And WEB is too easily cracked. So only use WPA with a
> >> strong passphrase.
> >>
> >> The reason for the client bridge and access point at the remote location
> >> is that the OP wanted wireless coverage at the remote location.
>
> >The way I read it, he wanted coverage at his house and at the remote
> >location, so the mac to mac would be for the remote location.
>
> I must be dense, but that still makes no sense to me -- "mac to mac" is
> a term I've never heard and can't find. What exactly is it supposed to
> mean? If MAC address filtering, that isn't a way to connect a remote
> site -- it's simply a means of security, and an ineffective one at that.
> What exactly are you proposing? Doing away with the remote client
> bridge? Doing away with the remote access point? How?

Actually, I'm the problem here. Dlink now calls this PTP bridge.
However, in my quite limited experience in networking, when you bridge
a network, it looks like one network, sometimes creating headaches.
When I used this mac to mac (my term), the networks weren't bridged as
far as I know, but rather the wireless network just asked like a piece
of wire.

I just checked the manual, and back then they used the term wireless
bridge. The mac to mac was how I remembered the mode, as you had to
specify the mac address of each device. Sorry to waste your time here
or cause you a headache or two.



>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>