Wireless LAN network configuration

I want to deploy a small WLAN. I am thinking in the following
configuration:

Internet<--->Gateway(Linux Machine)<------>AP(Cisco AP
350)<------>Wireless machines

The gateway is doing NAT so I have private IP's in the LAN. So the
configuration i am thinking on is the following:

Linux machine-> 192.168.0.1

AP(ethernet) -> .2 (gateway .1)
AP(wifi) -> .3

Other machines-> .x (gateway .1)

My question is the following: The wireless machines have to
communicate with the AP (infrastructure mode), but their ARP will try
to resolve the MAC adress of the gateway (.1), but this gateway is not
in the WLAN, so the AP has to answer this ARP request, the AP has to
act as a bridge in this case. And my question is if the AP I am
considering to buy, Cisco AP 350, has a bridge mode or something like
this ?

The other option is to put the AP inside the linux box, buying a
wireless card for the linux box, but I see this by now more
complicated.


Thanks a lot !

On 7 Dec 2004 07:04:15 -0800, Daniel Camps wrote:

> I want to deploy a small WLAN. I am thinking in the following
> configuration:
>
> Internet<--->Gateway(Linux Machine)<------>AP(Cisco AP
> 350)<------>Wireless machines
>
> The gateway is doing NAT so I have private IP's in the LAN. So the
> configuration i am thinking on is the following:
>
> Linux machine-> 192.168.0.1
>
> AP(ethernet) -> .2 (gateway .1)
> AP(wifi) -> .3
>
> Other machines-> .x (gateway .1)
>
> My question is the following: The wireless machines have to
> communicate with the AP (infrastructure mode), but their ARP will try
> to resolve the MAC adress of the gateway (.1), but this gateway is not
> in the WLAN, so the AP has to answer this ARP request, the AP has to
> act as a bridge in this case. And my question is if the AP I am
> considering to buy, Cisco AP 350, has a bridge mode or something like
> this ?

The wireless cards will connect to the access point and then access to
the gateway will be available via the ethernet link. I'm not familiar
with the Cisco 350 but I can't imagine a device calling itself an access
point and not supporting this.

Bob T.

On 2004-12-07, Daniel Camps <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> AP(ethernet) -> .2 (gateway .1)
> AP(wifi) -> .3

Most AP are transparent bridge, so they have only one IP address.

> to resolve the MAC adress of the gateway (.1), but this gateway is not
> in the WLAN

But is still in the LAN. So it doesn't matter.
Davide

--
The Microsoft Motto: "We're the leaders, wait for us!"

Daniel Camps wrote:
> I want to deploy a small WLAN. I am thinking in the following
> configuration:
>
> Internet<--->Gateway(Linux Machine)<------>AP(Cisco AP
> 350)<------>Wireless machines
>
> The gateway is doing NAT so I have private IP's in the LAN. So the
> configuration i am thinking on is the following:
>
> Linux machine-> 192.168.0.1
>
> AP(ethernet) -> .2 (gateway .1)
> AP(wifi) -> .3
>
> Other machines-> .x (gateway .1)
>
> My question is the following: The wireless machines have to
> communicate with the AP (infrastructure mode), but their ARP will try
> to resolve the MAC adress of the gateway (.1), but this gateway is not
> in the WLAN, so the AP has to answer this ARP request, the AP has to
> act as a bridge in this case. And my question is if the AP I am
> considering to buy, Cisco AP 350, has a bridge mode or something like
> this ?
>
> The other option is to put the AP inside the linux box, buying a
> wireless card for the linux box, but I see this by now more
> complicated.
>

Access points worth the name can operate as transparent
bridges: they need an own IP address for administration
only, the client IP's from the WLAN are forwarded directly
to the LAN connection and back.

(I'm writing this message via a WLAN and a D-Link AP900+
in transparent bridge mode).

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi