Wireless internet access through LAN

Current setup
-------------

My company operates a LAN for about 40 PCs and above. There is a rack
of hubs/switches, to which PCs are connected; a Linux Fedora server is
one of them.

Internet access is provided through the server, to which an ADSL modem
is connected (Lucent CellPipe); in other words, internet traffic is
routed through the server (it has 2 network cards).

The company now wants to replace the modem with a wireless broadband
modem (with iBurst technology); ie PCs go through LAN, through the
server, to the wireless modem for internet access.


Questions
---------
1. Using the current setup, how do go about changing the driver,
settings to configuring the server ? (I am next to nothing about Linux
system, except aome basic commands; I got to access the server barely
2 days ago).

2. Can I connect the wireless modem to one of the hubs/switches
instead (may be through a router) of the the server ?

Thanks.

(E-Mail Removed) writes:

>Current setup
>-------------

>My company operates a LAN for about 40 PCs and above. There is a rack
>of hubs/switches, to which PCs are connected; a Linux Fedora server is
>one of them.

>Internet access is provided through the server, to which an ADSL modem
>is connected (Lucent CellPipe); in other words, internet traffic is
>routed through the server (it has 2 network cards).

>The company now wants to replace the modem with a wireless broadband
>modem (with iBurst technology); ie PCs go through LAN, through the
>server, to the wireless modem for internet access.

No it means that the PCs with wireless cards go directly to the modem and
the internet. they do not go through the server.




>Questions
>---------
>1. Using the current setup, how do go about changing the driver,
>settings to configuring the server ? (I am next to nothing about Linux
>system, except aome basic commands; I got to access the server barely
>2 days ago).

Changing what? There is nothing that needs to be changed, unless somehow
the modem does things completely differently.



>2. Can I connect the wireless modem to one of the hubs/switches
>instead (may be through a router) of the the server ?

You could if it were a wireless router. But the modem MUST be connected to
the ADSL line. It is what translates ethernet into ADSL.

So what you could do it to buy another wireless router and connect it to
the ethernet, and leave your current ADSL non-wirless modem alone. Why is
the modem being changed? Did someone decide that wireless was something
people needed without checking as to the security implications?

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:35:46 -0700, sb5309 wrote:

> Current setup
> -------------
> My company operates a LAN for about 40 PCs and above. There is a rack of
> hubs/switches, to which PCs are connected; a Linux Fedora server is one
> of them.
>
> Internet access is provided through the server, to which an ADSL modem
> is connected (Lucent CellPipe); in other words, internet traffic is
> routed through the server (it has 2 network cards).
>
> The company now wants to replace the modem with a wireless broadband
> modem (with iBurst technology); ie PCs go through LAN, through the
> server, to the wireless modem for internet access.
>
>
> Questions
> ---------
> 1. Using the current setup, how do go about changing the driver,
> settings to configuring the server ? (I am next to nothing about Linux
> system, except aome basic commands; I got to access the server barely 2
> days ago).
>
> 2. Can I connect the wireless modem to one of the hubs/switches instead
> (may be through a router) of the the server ?

IMO, the best way is to keep your existing ADSL modem setup, and instead
purchase an inexpensive wireless access point (AP); we use a Netgear
WG302 here, because of its bridging capabilities and extremely cheap
price.

Plug the AP into one of the switches, define the access control for it
through its web interface (we only allow MAC address access here, and
syslog all access to a "syslogd -r" somewhere on the LAN), and set its
gateway to be the inboard ethx on your "server" which acts as a router.

That way, *you* have control over what happens with the access and
traffic, instead of depending on some third-party security in the
proposed wireless modem.

Now, in the server through which all your traffic will continue to pass
just as before, you have full use of iptables, squid, tcpdump and all the
other tools that are freely available to a competent administrator, and
no special configuration is required to achieve it -- it's just a
continuation of what you had before, although now you have wireless
access also passing through it..

On Apr 3, 7:13*pm, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
> No it means that the PCs with wireless cards go directly to the modem and
> the internet. they do not go through the server.
>

Sorry that I have not written clearly.

The wireless modem only allows access through LAN connection, ie RJ45
cable. The wireless portion is for accessing the internet, not
wireless local area networking (may the use of the word ADSL is
wrong).

Name of product is iZZipro. Check http://www.izzi.com.my

Thanks.

(E-Mail Removed) writes:

>On Apr 3, 7:13=A0pm, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>
>> No it means that the PCs with wireless cards go directly to the modem and
>> the internet. they do not go through the server.
>>

>Sorry that I have not written clearly.

>The wireless modem only allows access through LAN connection, ie RJ45
>cable. The wireless portion is for accessing the internet, not
>wireless local area networking (may the use of the word ADSL is
>wrong).

And you would want to do this why? Wired connections are (almost) always
faster and cleaner. I cannot get into that site because of incompetent
flash programming. But unless your office in in a trailer that drives along
the road, why would you want to do this?



>Name of product is iZZipro. Check http://www.izzi.com.my

>Thanks.

I am sorry that I don't know why the boss wants to do this way; it
could be the cost of higher speed fixed line here.

Currently the wired line internet connection is 448 kbps (heard from a
colleague, not too sure). The new device is said to go to 1M bps.

>
> >Sorry that I have not written clearly.
>
> >The wireless modem only allows access through LAN connection, ie RJ45
> >cable. The wireless portion is for accessing the internet, not
> >wireless local area networking (may the use of the word ADSL is
> >wrong).
>
> And you would want to do this why? Wired connections are (almost) always
> faster and cleaner. I cannot get into that site because of incompetent
> flash programming. But unless your office in in a trailer that drives along
> the road, why would you want to do this?
>
>
>
> >Name of product is iZZipro. Check http://www.izzi.com.my
>
> >Thanks.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Current setup
> -------------
>
> My company operates a LAN for about 40 PCs and above. There is a rack
> of hubs/switches, to which PCs are connected; a Linux Fedora server is
> one of them.
>
> Internet access is provided through the server, to which an ADSL modem
> is connected (Lucent CellPipe); in other words, internet traffic is
> routed through the server (it has 2 network cards).
>
> The company now wants to replace the modem with a wireless broadband
> modem (with iBurst technology); ie PCs go through LAN, through the
> server, to the wireless modem for internet access.
>
>
> Questions
> ---------
> 1. Using the current setup, how do go about changing the driver,
> settings to configuring the server ? (I am next to nothing about Linux
> system, except aome basic commands; I got to access the server barely
> 2 days ago).
>
> 2. Can I connect the wireless modem to one of the hubs/switches
> instead (may be through a router) of the the server ?
>
> Thanks.

I'm not entirely sure if I understand your question correctly, But if
your server provides the ADSL access, this is either done through a DMZ
or through a PPP connection from the server, right?

In case of the DMZ, using the Wifi is not that much of a problem, but it
will probably only be able to connect to the internet through the modem,
and not to the network, unless you open up your DMZ, but probably not a
good idea.

In case of the PPP connection, you won't have any connectivity through
the wireless part of the modem. (since it's outside the network.)
You could fix this by using custom routing on the modem itself, if it
support it.

But the best option, as stated by someone else, just by an wireless AP.
It costs less than what you cost by making it work. And it's probably a
bit cleaner and better maintainable.

-R-

(E-Mail Removed) writes:

>I am sorry that I don't know why the boss wants to do this way; it
>could be the cost of higher speed fixed line here.

>Currently the wired line internet connection is 448 kbps (heard from a
>colleague, not too sure). The new device is said to go to 1M bps.

While it may "go to" 1Mbps, the chances are very high that youwill not get
that. That is under ideal conditions ( you being right under the access
point, etc). You will probably find just as bad, or worse conditions than
now.

Anyway, that was not your question. Assuming this wireless "modem" has an
ethernet port, your system should work the same as it does now. Ie, it
should make no difference. I am assuming that it is te modem that does the
negotiation with the AP for the right to associate (ppp? bridged?...)
You might also find that your address of that modem keeps changing which
means you would have to keep updating the info on your machine. But that
depends on how it is set up.

Fixed line is almost always more reliable than wireless. (eg everytime it rains
you might find your speed dropping to 50Mbps)



>>
>> >Sorry that I have not written clearly.
>>
>> >The wireless modem only allows access through LAN connection, ie RJ45
>> >cable. The wireless portion is for accessing the internet, not
>> >wireless local area networking (may the use of the word ADSL is
>> >wrong).
>>
>> And you would want to do this why? Wired connections are (almost) always
>> faster and cleaner. I cannot get into that site because of incompetent
>> flash programming. But unless your office in in a trailer that drives along
>> the road, why would you want to do this?
>>
>>
>>
>> >Name of product is iZZipro. Check http://www.izzi.com.my
>>
>> >Thanks.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:42:07 +0000, Unruh wrote:

> Fixed line is almost always more reliable than wireless. (eg everytime
> it rains you might find your speed dropping to 50Mbps)

I wish ours would "drop" to that rate! sed -e 's/M/K/'

Greg Russell <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:42:07 +0000, Unruh wrote:

>> Fixed line is almost always more reliable than wireless. (eg everytime
>> it rains you might find your speed dropping to 50Mbps)

>I wish ours would "drop" to that rate! sed -e 's/M/K/'

Yeah, me too. I of course meant 50Kbps.