Wireless Bridge questions.

I need to extend my network past a 4 hour firewall. A four hour firewall
may not be penetrated.

I believe a solution would be a wireless bridge such as the Linksys WET11.

Can someone who has set up a wireless bridge advise me on this? Can I
just get two WET11's, for example, one one each side of the wall, and
run ethernet cable to each to extend the network?

Thanks.

In article <qQghb.31689$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jerry Park <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:I need to extend my network past a 4 hour firewall. A four hour firewall
:may not be penetrated.

I take it you mean a physical wall that is designed to resist fire
[real fire, flames, burning] for 4 hours -- and not a network security
device.


:I believe a solution would be a wireless bridge such as the Linksys WET11.

:Can someone who has set up a wireless bridge advise me on this? Can I
:just get two WET11's, for example, one one each side of the wall, and
:run ethernet cable to each to extend the network?

Pretty much true. You'd want to configure the two sides of course.
--
Caution: A subset of the statements in this message may be
tautologically true.

Walter Roberson wrote:
> In article <qQghb.31689$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Jerry Park <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :I need to extend my network past a 4 hour firewall. A four hour firewall
> :may not be penetrated.
>
> I take it you mean a physical wall that is designed to resist fire
> [real fire, flames, burning] for 4 hours -- and not a network security
> device.
>
>
> :I believe a solution would be a wireless bridge such as the Linksys WET11.
>
> :Can someone who has set up a wireless bridge advise me on this? Can I
> :just get two WET11's, for example, one one each side of the wall, and
> :run ethernet cable to each to extend the network?
>
> Pretty much true. You'd want to configure the two sides of course.
Yes. I do mean a physical firewall (concrete filled concrete block).

Thanks. I've done a bit of wireless work, but haven't had the need or
opportunity to use a bridge.

> :I need to extend my network past a 4 hour firewall. A four hour firewall
> :may not be penetrated.
>
> I take it you mean a physical wall that is designed to resist fire
> [real fire, flames, burning] for 4 hours -- and not a network security
> device.

LOL

<%System%> wrote in message
news:3f8678ed$0$24184$(E-Mail Removed) .be...
> > :I need to extend my network past a 4 hour firewall. A four hour
firewall
> > :may not be penetrated.
> >
> > I take it you mean a physical wall that is designed to resist fire
> > [real fire, flames, burning] for 4 hours -- and not a network security
> > device.
>
> LOL
>
>

Cheaper alternative then wireless may be a long drill and a piece of cat 5

or

a 4 hour flame and a piece of cat 5.

Jerry Park <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Walter Roberson wrote:
>> In article <qQghb.31689$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Jerry Park <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> :I need to extend my network past a 4 hour firewall. A four hour firewall
>> :may not be penetrated.
>>
>> I take it you mean a physical wall that is designed to resist fire
>> [real fire, flames, burning] for 4 hours -- and not a network security
>> device.
<snip>
> Yes. I do mean a physical firewall (concrete filled concrete block).
>
> Thanks. I've done a bit of wireless work, but haven't had the need or
> opportunity to use a bridge.

Consult your local fire codes/person.
Penetrating the firewall with small diameter cable may be OK.
A 8mm hole with a cat5 cable in should not appreciably alter the fire
resistance.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | private.php?do=newpm&u= | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
"Melchett : Unhappily Blackadder, the Lord High Executioner is dead
Blackadder : Oh woe! Murdered of course.
Melchett : No, oddly enough no. They usually are but this one just got
careless one night and signed his name on the wrong dotted line.
They came for him while he slept." - Blackadder II

Ian Stirling wrote:

> Jerry Park <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Walter Roberson wrote:
>>
>>>In article <qQghb.31689$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>Jerry Park <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>:I need to extend my network past a 4 hour firewall. A four hour firewall
>>>:may not be penetrated.
>>>
>>>I take it you mean a physical wall that is designed to resist fire
>>>[real fire, flames, burning] for 4 hours -- and not a network security
>>>device.
>
> <snip>
>
>>Yes. I do mean a physical firewall (concrete filled concrete block).
>>
>>Thanks. I've done a bit of wireless work, but haven't had the need or
>>opportunity to use a bridge.
>
>
> Consult your local fire codes/person.
> Penetrating the firewall with small diameter cable may be OK.
> A 8mm hole with a cat5 cable in should not appreciably alter the fire
> resistance.
>
Thanks. But fire codes specify NO penetrations in a 4 hour firewall. All
electrical, phone lines, etc. are routed under the slab to prevent
penetration. Unfortunately, the conduit is tightly packed and it would
be very difficult to snake another cable through.

The two wireless bridges are doing a fine job through the wall.

Jerry Park <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<qQghb.31689$(E-Mail Removed) >...
> I need to extend my network past a 4 hour firewall. A four hour firewall
> may not be penetrated.
>
> I believe a solution would be a wireless bridge such as the Linksys WET11.
>
> Can someone who has set up a wireless bridge advise me on this? Can I
> just get two WET11's, for example, one one each side of the wall, and
> run ethernet cable to each to extend the network?
>
> Thanks.

Jerry;

That will work but if it doesn't... add these to your WET-11's ( you
don't need access points just bridges) http://www.freeantennas.com

Michael Erskine wrote:
> Jerry Park <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<qQghb.31689$(E-Mail Removed) >...
>
>>I need to extend my network past a 4 hour firewall. A four hour firewall
>>may not be penetrated.
>>
>>I believe a solution would be a wireless bridge such as the Linksys WET11.
>>
>>Can someone who has set up a wireless bridge advise me on this? Can I
>>just get two WET11's, for example, one one each side of the wall, and
>>run ethernet cable to each to extend the network?
>>
>>Thanks.
>
>
> Jerry;
>
> That will work but if it doesn't... add these to your WET-11's ( you
> don't need access points just bridges) http://www.freeantennas.com
Thanks. It does work with no mods.

I don't fully understand bridges. Apparently, the WET11 can function as
an access point, a bridge, or a wireless device when connected to a
computer.

I had some problem getting the devices to work since I was using
infrastructure mode. Seems they can function as a bridge only in ad hoc
mode.

I had thought that in infrastructure mode, the LAN side would function
as an access point and the other side would function as a wireless
device. I would then have the bridge and an accessible access point.
Didn't work at all. Neither device saw the other and my computer's
wireless device couldn't connect to either.

In ad hoc mode, the documentation states that the device cannot be
contacted by a computer wireless device. However, that is not true. When
I set my computer wireless device (there should be a name for the
devices which connect to an access point) to ad hoc mode, I can connect
to the LAN side WET11 and connect to the Internet through it.

Though I don't really understand it, it is working flawlessly, so I
guess my ignorance is irrelevant ...