Wireless networking question

I have two ADSL connections, each with a router connected (physically
at the moment, with CAT5) to the same subnet. I have one router as
192.168.1.1 and the other is 192.168.1.254. I 'share' the ADSL simply
by making one router the default gateway for one computer on my
network and the other router is the default gateway for the other main
user's computer. It all works OK.

Can I link the two routers by wireless and achieve exactly the same
topology and, at the same time, allow other PCs (and maybe other
devices) to attach by wireless?

My particular question/concern (or lack of knowledge) is whether the
two routers and a number of other devices will be quite happy using
the same channel and security setup. I can see no difference in
principle from hardwiring them all into the same hub but wanted to
check that it would actually work before wasting time actually moving
things around to take advantage of the idea.

--
Chris Green

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4805e417$0$757$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have two ADSL connections, each with a router connected (physically
> at the moment, with CAT5) to the same subnet. I have one router as
> 192.168.1.1 and the other is 192.168.1.254. I 'share' the ADSL simply
> by making one router the default gateway for one computer on my
> network and the other router is the default gateway for the other main
> user's computer. It all works OK.
>
> Can I link the two routers by wireless and achieve exactly the same
> topology and, at the same time, allow other PCs (and maybe other
> devices) to attach by wireless?
>
> My particular question/concern (or lack of knowledge) is whether the
> two routers and a number of other devices will be quite happy using
> the same channel and security setup. I can see no difference in
> principle from hardwiring them all into the same hub but wanted to
> check that it would actually work before wasting time actually moving
> things around to take advantage of the idea.
>
> --
> Chris Green

Hi

What is it you are trying to achieve ?

Do you want to move the routers to different locations in the house that you
can't cable a connection to ?

I *think* the answer to your question is "NO". On my Netgear, for a start,
there's no settings for it being a wireless CLIENT as well as a Wireless
server if you like. There's only settings for it being a wireless
broadcaster/server/device/thing.

All my Wireless Access Points have a wired connection back to the main hub
which is a Netgear 16 port switch (if I remember correctly !).

Why not use a "homeplug" (ethernet over power) to put some distance between
your routers ?

As an aside, having used wireless for my Livingroom computer for a year or
so .. It's a much much better connection now I'm connecting via
EthernetOverPower. Got a couple of those Zyxel homeplug devices.

Cheers.

Happy Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4805e417$0$757$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I have two ADSL connections, each with a router connected (physically
> > at the moment, with CAT5) to the same subnet. I have one router as
> > 192.168.1.1 and the other is 192.168.1.254. I 'share' the ADSL simply
> > by making one router the default gateway for one computer on my
> > network and the other router is the default gateway for the other main
> > user's computer. It all works OK.
> >
> > Can I link the two routers by wireless and achieve exactly the same
> > topology and, at the same time, allow other PCs (and maybe other
> > devices) to attach by wireless?
> >
> > My particular question/concern (or lack of knowledge) is whether the
> > two routers and a number of other devices will be quite happy using
> > the same channel and security setup. I can see no difference in
> > principle from hardwiring them all into the same hub but wanted to
> > check that it would actually work before wasting time actually moving
> > things around to take advantage of the idea.
> >
> > --
> > Chris Green
>
> Hi
>
> What is it you are trying to achieve ?
>
> Do you want to move the routers to different locations in the house that you
> can't cable a connection to ?
>
Yes, basically, house and garage actually. It's only an idea.

> I *think* the answer to your question is "NO". On my Netgear, for a start,
> there's no settings for it being a wireless CLIENT as well as a Wireless
> server if you like. There's only settings for it being a wireless
> broadcaster/server/device/thing.
>
Do ethernet networks have a concept of client and server, I thought
everyone was created equal and talked at the same time.

> All my Wireless Access Points have a wired connection back to the main hub
> which is a Netgear 16 port switch (if I remember correctly !).
>
> Why not use a "homeplug" (ethernet over power) to put some distance between
> your routers ?
>
> As an aside, having used wireless for my Livingroom computer for a year or
> so .. It's a much much better connection now I'm connecting via
> EthernetOverPower. Got a couple of those Zyxel homeplug devices.
>
> Cheers.
>
>

--
Chris Green

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Happy Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:4805e417$0$757$(E-Mail Removed)...
[snip]
> Do ethernet networks have a concept of client and server, I thought
> everyone was created equal and talked at the same time.
>

Depends on the "carrier" - with wireless the set-up is either "bridge"
where two access points *only* talk to each other or access point and
client(s). (AIUI ethernet-over-power devices are like "distributed" hubs
or switches.)

With wired connexions system are nominally equal. Switches allow
"clients" to send and receive in full duplex mode (= at the same time)
and contain store-and-forward buffers to avoid clashes; they also
provide virtual paths that allow, for example, an 8 way switch to
support 4 point-to-point links simultaneously. Hubs, thin ethernet and
thick ethernet all connect clients together and a system *listens*
before and during sending. If there is traffic before transmission
starts, the system waits for it to clear before sending; if at the start
of sending the data corrupts (due to another system also sending) all
systems back off for a "randomised" time and the sequence starts again -
the one with the shortest delay takes priority, unless another device
that hasn't "backed-off" happens to get in. Once a system starts
transmitting, all other systems should wait for cessation of traffic.

--
PeeGee

The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

PeeGee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > Happy Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:4805e417$0$757$(E-Mail Removed)...
> [snip]
> > Do ethernet networks have a concept of client and server, I thought
> > everyone was created equal and talked at the same time.
> >
>
> Depends on the "carrier" - with wireless the set-up is either "bridge"
> where two access points *only* talk to each other or access point and
> client(s). (AIUI ethernet-over-power devices are like "distributed" hubs
> or switches.)
>
Well I guess if I can set up one of my routers as a client it should
do what I want then, I'll have to look at the manuals and on-line help
to see if I can do that.


> With wired connexions system are nominally equal. Switches allow
> "clients" to send and receive in full duplex mode (= at the same time)
> and contain store-and-forward buffers to avoid clashes; they also
> provide virtual paths that allow, for example, an 8 way switch to
> support 4 point-to-point links simultaneously. Hubs, thin ethernet and
> thick ethernet all connect clients together and a system *listens*
> before and during sending. If there is traffic before transmission
> starts, the system waits for it to clear before sending; if at the start
> of sending the data corrupts (due to another system also sending) all
> systems back off for a "randomised" time and the sequence starts again -
> the one with the shortest delay takes priority, unless another device
> that hasn't "backed-off" happens to get in. Once a system starts
> transmitting, all other systems should wait for cessation of traffic.
>
Yes, that's what I thought, "collision detection" and all that stuff.

--
Chris Green

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> PeeGee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> Happy Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:4805e417$0$757$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> [snip]
>>> Do ethernet networks have a concept of client and server, I thought
>>> everyone was created equal and talked at the same time.
>>>
>> Depends on the "carrier" - with wireless the set-up is either "bridge"
>> where two access points *only* talk to each other or access point and
>> client(s). (AIUI ethernet-over-power devices are like "distributed" hubs
>> or switches.)
>>
> Well I guess if I can set up one of my routers as a client it should
> do what I want then, I'll have to look at the manuals and on-line help
> to see if I can do that.
Sorry, didn't make that clear enough :-( Perhaps "access point with
computers etc as clients" would have been better. The basic function of
a router would suggest that no routers will act as a "client" - but
then, the basic function of a mobile 'phone would suggest it would not
take pictures :-)
>
>
>> With wired connexions system are nominally equal. Switches allow
>> "clients" to send and receive in full duplex mode (= at the same time)
>> and contain store-and-forward buffers to avoid clashes; they also
>> provide virtual paths that allow, for example, an 8 way switch to
>> support 4 point-to-point links simultaneously. Hubs, thin ethernet and
>> thick ethernet all connect clients together and a system *listens*
>> before and during sending. If there is traffic before transmission
>> starts, the system waits for it to clear before sending; if at the start
>> of sending the data corrupts (due to another system also sending) all
>> systems back off for a "randomised" time and the sequence starts again -
>> the one with the shortest delay takes priority, unless another device
>> that hasn't "backed-off" happens to get in. Once a system starts
>> transmitting, all other systems should wait for cessation of traffic.
>>
> Yes, that's what I thought, "collision detection" and all that stuff.
>


--
PeeGee

The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4807bec0$0$754$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Happy Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:4805e417$0$757$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I have two ADSL connections, each with a router connected (physically
>> > at the moment, with CAT5) to the same subnet. I have one router as
>> > 192.168.1.1 and the other is 192.168.1.254. I 'share' the ADSL simply
>> > by making one router the default gateway for one computer on my
>> > network and the other router is the default gateway for the other main
>> > user's computer. It all works OK.
>> >
>> > Can I link the two routers by wireless and achieve exactly the same
>> > topology and, at the same time, allow other PCs (and maybe other
>> > devices) to attach by wireless?
>> >
>> > My particular question/concern (or lack of knowledge) is whether the
>> > two routers and a number of other devices will be quite happy using
>> > the same channel and security setup. I can see no difference in
>> > principle from hardwiring them all into the same hub but wanted to
>> > check that it would actually work before wasting time actually moving
>> > things around to take advantage of the idea.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Chris Green
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> What is it you are trying to achieve ?
>>
>> Do you want to move the routers to different locations in the house that
>> you
>> can't cable a connection to ?
>>
> Yes, basically, house and garage actually. It's only an idea.
>
>> I *think* the answer to your question is "NO". On my Netgear, for a
>> start,
>> there's no settings for it being a wireless CLIENT as well as a Wireless
>> server if you like. There's only settings for it being a wireless
>> broadcaster/server/device/thing.
>>
> Do ethernet networks have a concept of client and server, I thought
> everyone was created equal and talked at the same time.
>

Yes, and I didn't mean it in that sense. If you think about connecting a
wireless client to a wireless network, then you have to configure certain
information to allow the client to access the network, stuff about channels
and encryption keys. There's no option certainly on my router to configure
such items such that it could link to another wireless network. So in that
sense, there's no client end on the router so that it can connect to a
wireless network, just an option for it to broadcast (or server) a wireless
network.

Cheers.


>> All my Wireless Access Points have a wired connection back to the main
>> hub
>> which is a Netgear 16 port switch (if I remember correctly !).
>>
>> Why not use a "homeplug" (ethernet over power) to put some distance
>> between
>> your routers ?
>>
>> As an aside, having used wireless for my Livingroom computer for a year
>> or
>> so .. It's a much much better connection now I'm connecting via
>> EthernetOverPower. Got a couple of those Zyxel homeplug devices.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Chris Green

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I have two ADSL connections, each with a router connected (physically
> at the moment, with CAT5) to the same subnet. I have one router as
> 192.168.1.1 and the other is 192.168.1.254. I 'share' the ADSL simply
> by making one router the default gateway for one computer on my
> network and the other router is the default gateway for the other main
> user's computer. It all works OK.
>
> Can I link the two routers by wireless and achieve exactly the same
> topology and, at the same time, allow other PCs (and maybe other
> devices) to attach by wireless?
>
> My particular question/concern (or lack of knowledge) is whether the
> two routers and a number of other devices will be quite happy using
> the same channel and security setup. I can see no difference in
> principle from hardwiring them all into the same hub but wanted to
> check that it would actually work before wasting time actually moving
> things around to take advantage of the idea.
>
You didn't mention the make and models of your modem/routers but some
are capable of WDS Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireles...ibution_System
If they are capable of WDS then they may be able to communicate with
each other. I say "may" because I have had the following problems:-
1. Different manufacturer's eqpt will not work with each other.
2. When they work with each other they don't work with encryption or
they only work with WEP.
3.Not really a problem but a fact of wireless. If one is set for WDS+AP
it is effectively acting as a repeater and your data throughput will be
halved.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4807bec0$0$754$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Happy Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:4805e417$0$757$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I have two ADSL connections, each with a router connected (physically
>> > at the moment, with CAT5) to the same subnet. I have one router as
>> > 192.168.1.1 and the other is 192.168.1.254. I 'share' the ADSL simply
>> > by making one router the default gateway for one computer on my
>> > network and the other router is the default gateway for the other main
>> > user's computer. It all works OK.
>> >
>> > Can I link the two routers by wireless and achieve exactly the same
>> > topology and, at the same time, allow other PCs (and maybe other
>> > devices) to attach by wireless?
>> >
>> > My particular question/concern (or lack of knowledge) is whether the
>> > two routers and a number of other devices will be quite happy using
>> > the same channel and security setup. I can see no difference in
>> > principle from hardwiring them all into the same hub but wanted to
>> > check that it would actually work before wasting time actually moving
>> > things around to take advantage of the idea.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Chris Green
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> What is it you are trying to achieve ?
>>
>> Do you want to move the routers to different locations in the house that
>> you
>> can't cable a connection to ?
>>
> Yes, basically, house and garage actually. It's only an idea.
>

Why do you want to do that, is it so that you can connect from the garage to
your network or from your garden ?

Here's good-ish link about wireless bridging

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials...le.php/1563991

And this would seem to be the up-to-date Linksys product that could do what
you wanted ......

http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...=0367639789B06

Read the manual for it though (downloadable from that link).

Quote
Access Point. The Mode is set to Access Point by default. This connects your
wireless PCs to a wired network.

In most cases, no change is necessary.

AP (Access Point) Client. When set to AP Client mode, the AP Client is able
to talk to one remote access point

within its range. This feature only works with another Wireless-G Access
Point (model number: WAP54G).

This mode allows the AP Client to act as a client of a remote access point.
The AP Client cannot communicate

directly with any wireless clients. A separate network attached to the AP
Client can then be wirelessly bridged to

the remote access point.

To use this mode, select AP Client and enter the LAN MAC address of the
remote access point in the Remote

Access Point's LAN MAC Address field. If you do not know the remote access
point's MAC address, click the Site

Survey button. Select the access point you want to use and click the Close
button. If you do not see the access

point you want, click the Refresh button to search for access points again.

Wireless Repeater. When set to Wireless Repeater mode, the Wireless Repeater
is able to talk to up a remote

access point within its range and retransmit its signal. This feature only
works with the Linksys Wireless-G

Router (model number: WRT54G) or another Wireless-G Access Point (model
number: WAP54G).

END QUOTE from manual.


Netgear WG602 can do it too .....

http://kbserver.netgear.com/pdf/wg60...wer_id=2050392

Nice pretty pictures in the manual !!! Chapter 5.

Doesn't mention "Repeater" as an option in the manual, but on my WG602 v2
(note, above is v3), it does have "repeater" as an option to configure.

Cheers.

PeeGee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > PeeGee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >>> Happy Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>>> news:4805e417$0$757$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> [snip]
> >>> Do ethernet networks have a concept of client and server, I thought
> >>> everyone was created equal and talked at the same time.
> >>>
> >> Depends on the "carrier" - with wireless the set-up is either "bridge"
> >> where two access points *only* talk to each other or access point and
> >> client(s). (AIUI ethernet-over-power devices are like "distributed" hubs
> >> or switches.)
> >>
> > Well I guess if I can set up one of my routers as a client it should
> > do what I want then, I'll have to look at the manuals and on-line help
> > to see if I can do that.
> Sorry, didn't make that clear enough :-( Perhaps "access point with
> computers etc as clients" would have been better. The basic function of
> a router would suggest that no routers will act as a "client" - but
> then, the basic function of a mobile 'phone would suggest it would not
> take pictures :-)

Yes, I realised what you meant, that routers in general wouldn't want
to be wireless clients. That doesn't mean that they can't be switched
to do some such thing if they are very configurable.

--
Chris Green