Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624

Discussion in 'Wireless Internet' started by Guest, Jul 19, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624?

    And just to be sure I'm not forgetting to ask a question I perhaps need
    to ask (though I think if the above is YES, these should be as well,
    but I have learned with consumer wireless stuff, presumptions are bad):

    Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports
    be able to communicate with a computer attached to the WGT624 via one
    of its ethernet ports?

    Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports
    be able to communicate with with the broadband internet attached to
    the WGT624?
     
    Guest, Jul 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page:

    Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and
    access points

    That includes the WGT624.
    If properly configured, yes.
    Ditto.
     
    John Navas, Jul 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    | On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, wrote in
    | <>:
    |
    |>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624?
    |
    | According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page:
    |
    | Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and
    | access points
    |
    | That includes the WGT624.
    |
    |>And just to be sure I'm not forgetting to ask a question I perhaps need
    |>to ask (though I think if the above is YES, these should be as well,
    |>but I have learned with consumer wireless stuff, presumptions are bad):
    |>
    |>Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports
    |>be able to communicate with a computer attached to the WGT624 via one
    |>of its ethernet ports?
    |
    | If properly configured, yes.
    |
    |>Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports
    |>be able to communicate with with the broadband internet attached to
    |>the WGT624?
    |
    | Ditto.

    Then this may be the way for me to achieve what I want with one more device,
    which I would expect to buy anyway (through previously was going to get a
    3rd WGT624).

    WGPS606 connected by ethernet to wired switched LAN with my servers and
    desktops. WGT624(1) connected to DSL modem. WGT624(2) at brother's house
    connected to his cable modem (via WAN port) and desktop. I might be able
    to use his cable modem, but he won't be able to use my DSL except via a
    router or proxy I set up.

    Hopefully the following will then also work to reach the printer.

    Add the IP address of the WGT624(1) router (bridge side) to the HP 6980
    printer as default gateway. Add HP 6980's IP address in route table of
    the Linux machines that need to print with gateway being the WGT624(1)
    IP address.

    Although the WGPS606 has 2 USB printer ports and the HP 6980 can also
    work on USB, for other reasons, these need to be a substantial distance
    apart and running a wire is not practical. The HP 6980 sees full signal
    strength at the other end of the house with either WGT624 when I connect
    them on the wired LAN.

    If the above works, then the only remaining issue is the RF path between
    my house and my brother's house across the street. Unfortunately the
    WGPS606 does NOT have the range extender that the WGT624 has, so there
    is less chance of this succeeding.

    The WGT624 has the 108 Mb capability, but it looks like there's no way
    for me to use it. I would have been better off with WGR614's.

    Maybe I would have been better off with some other brand models that can
    attach external antennas and put some gain between the two houses. I did
    see a +9dbi omni and a +18dbi panel on Netgear's web site.
     
    Guest, Jul 21, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    | On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, wrote in
    | <>:
    |
    |>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624?
    |
    | According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page:
    |
    | Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and
    | access points
    |
    | That includes the WGT624.

    I think I need to revise my question:

    Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with TWO different WGT624
    devices at the same time?

    I have found that the nameless bridge I am playing with will only talk to
    ONE of the WGT624's at a time. Whichever WGT624 it find first makes the
    other one unreachable. Maybe this is a limitation of that bridge such as
    no more than one MAC at a time on the wireless side? Or maybe that is
    part of the standard?

    The big question is if the WGPS606 has this limitation.
     
    Guest, Jul 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    What network topology are you expecting with that? The WGPS606 is a
    wireless client bridge and printer server that will attach to only *one*
    wireless access point (WGT624) at a time. You can't mesh these all
    together.
    Why would you do that? With the HP 6980 connected to WGT624(1), it's
    accessible by all clients in that subnet. Assign a static IP address to
    the HP 6980, either by fixed DHCP or manually, and you should be able to
    reach it reliably from any client on that subnet. The HP 6980 shouldn't
    need a gateway address unless it's going to make connections over the
    public Internet.

    When the HP 6980 is connected to WGT624(1), it won't be connected to
    WGT624(2), and so won't be accessible to that subnet. You would have to
    bridge the subnets; e.g., by VPN over the public Internet, or with a
    wireless bridge (other than what you have now).
    How is that an issue? This isn't a mesh; i.e., you can't construct a
    wireless network covering both houses with just this gear.
    Please be more clear and precise on what you're trying to do, including
    the entire network topology. Something like
    <http://i5.tinypic.com/20kujq1.png>.
     
    John Navas, Jul 21, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    No. A Wi-Fi network can only have *one* access point (central
    controller).
    Standard and normal.
    It does. All other Wi-Fi gear does too.

    1. Please, please don't start more threads -- too hard to follow.

    2. Be specific about what you're trying to do in network terms. We can
    tell you what gear you need once we know *exactly* what you're trying to
    do.
     
    John Navas, Jul 21, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    | On 21 Jul 2006 08:18:26 GMT, wrote in
    | <>:
    |
    |>Then this may be the way for me to achieve what I want with one more device,
    |>which I would expect to buy anyway (through previously was going to get a
    |>3rd WGT624).
    |>
    |>WGPS606 connected by ethernet to wired switched LAN with my servers and
    |>desktops. WGT624(1) connected to DSL modem. WGT624(2) at brother's house
    |>connected to his cable modem (via WAN port) and desktop. I might be able
    |>to use his cable modem, but he won't be able to use my DSL except via a
    |>router or proxy I set up.
    |
    | What network topology are you expecting with that? The WGPS606 is a
    | wireless client bridge and printer server that will attach to only *one*
    | wireless access point (WGT624) at a time. You can't mesh these all
    | together.

    What I'm "expecting" is not a specific topology. I would set up some
    topology on top of it. I might expect some default topology to already
    be set up for less sophisticated users to be able to get up and running
    faster. But that "expecting" implied being able to make box A talk to
    box B wirelessly. I can do that with ethernet regardless of what type
    of boxes A and B are. I expected the same from wireless and have seen
    no online documentation that says I should expect for some boxes to NOT
    be able to talk to certain other boxes, even of their own kind.


    |>Hopefully the following will then also work to reach the printer.
    |>
    |>Add the IP address of the WGT624(1) router (bridge side) to the HP 6980
    |>printer as default gateway. Add HP 6980's IP address in route table of
    |>the Linux machines that need to print with gateway being the WGT624(1)
    |>IP address.
    |
    | Why would you do that? With the HP 6980 connected to WGT624(1), it's
    | accessible by all clients in that subnet. Assign a static IP address to
    | the HP 6980, either by fixed DHCP or manually, and you should be able to
    | reach it reliably from any client on that subnet. The HP 6980 shouldn't
    | need a gateway address unless it's going to make connections over the
    | public Internet.

    It has a static IP. Everything is in 169.254.0.0/16. But I cannot reach
    the printer from the computer. I can reach the WGT624, and see that in
    its list of attached devices there is the MAC address of the HP 6980, but
    without an IP address (which I presume is because it has never seen any
    IP type traffic with it). Apparently my ARP broadcasts from the computer
    are not reaching the printer.

    Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> bridge <-Air-> WGT624 <-???-> HP6980

    When I wire up like this, I can print:

    Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> WGT624 <-AIR-> HP6980

    But then I can't reach an isolated (future) DSL connection:

    Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> WGT624(1) <-AIR-> WGT624(2)

    But for the DSL, it seems this might work:

    Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> bridge <-Air-> WGT624 <-CAT5-> DSL

    I also tried this:

    Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> bridge <-Air-> WGT624(1) (future DSL)
    same switch <-CAT5-> WGT624(2) <-AIR-> HP6980

    That did work when the bridge was peered with WGT624(1). However, it
    sometimes peers with WGT624(2) instead, which break things (and gives me
    nice broadcast storms). I presume using different SSIDs will fix that
    but I have not tried it, yet.


    | When the HP 6980 is connected to WGT624(1), it won't be connected to
    | WGT624(2), and so won't be accessible to that subnet. You would have to
    | bridge the subnets; e.g., by VPN over the public Internet, or with a
    | wireless bridge (other than what you have now).

    So this is just a too cheap bridge. Given there is no manufacturer name
    on it at all. The MAC's OUI gives me this, in case you are curious:

    00-02-6F (hex) Senao International Co., Ltd.
    00026F (base 16) Senao International Co., Ltd.
    2F, No. 531, Chung-Cheng Rd.,
    Hsin-Tien City, Taipei County,
    TAIWAN
    TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA


    |>If the above works, then the only remaining issue is the RF path between
    |>my house and my brother's house across the street. Unfortunately the
    |>WGPS606 does NOT have the range extender that the WGT624 has, so there
    |>is less chance of this succeeding.
    |
    | How is that an issue? This isn't a mesh; i.e., you can't construct a
    | wireless network covering both houses with just this gear.

    Apparently not. But what I want to do is figure out WHAT gear I should
    use, and do so by figuring it out from clearly written documentation,
    which I have not yet found. Such documentation would obviously have to
    state exactly what devices (or classes of devices) can, and cannot, talk
    to each other (including of its own kind), and for classes of devices,
    also tell how to determine which commercial devices are of each class,
    despite misleading sales/marketing jargon and puffing.


    |>The WGT624 has the 108 Mb capability, but it looks like there's no way
    |>for me to use it. I would have been better off with WGR614's.
    |
    | True.

    I actually chose those models for their extended range technology, which
    the WGR614 did not have, on the basis that it might increase my chance of
    being able to reach between the houses (I always understood this much was
    never a certainty). So whatever device classes would interconnect the
    two wired LANs, I'd like to have it with that or some other range extend
    technology.

    And it would be a big plus if one of those would ALSO talk wirelessly
    with the WGT624 so I can have ONE wireless device on the wired LAN in
    this house and have it talk wirelessly to both the WGT624 to reach the
    DSL, and whatever is at the other house to reach it's LAN.

    And reaching the printer is important, too. If that has to be through
    a double hop from the wireless device on the LAN to the WGT624 on the
    DSL and back out over air to the printer, that's fine, as the printer
    bandwidth isn't an issue.


    |>Maybe I would have been better off with some other brand models that can
    |>attach external antennas and put some gain between the two houses. I did
    |>see a +9dbi omni and a +18dbi panel on Netgear's web site.
    |
    | Please be more clear and precise on what you're trying to do, including
    | the entire network topology. Something like
    | <http://i5.tinypic.com/20kujq1.png>.

    I can't say what the network topology is, because I don't know which one
    would work in wireless. I've been trying a few I know would work wired.

    The picture you show is one possible way, although incomplete.

    If youw ant to figure out the best topology for me, here are the parts:

    -- my house --

    1. My "computer farm" running on a wired switch. Using wireless PC cards
    here is not an option. 3 ports are available on the switch.

    2. My future DSL connection. It shall not connect to anything by wire.

    3. Wireless printer. It cannot be connected to the computer farm by wire.
    But a wireless print server might be an option for it (though that
    would sure seem silly, and a bit inconvenient).

    4. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
    to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she comes
    over and brings it here.

    -- brother's house --

    5. My brother's Cable modem.

    6. My brother's Windows computer (currently connected directly to the
    cable modem running the cable provided software).

    7. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
    to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she has
    it at her home.

    8. File server I will place in my brother's house in the future. It may
    be possible to use a wireless PC card on this. It will be Linux

    9. My nephew's computer, not networked at all, yet. Probably will be dual
    boot Windows + Linux.


    I need the following reachability, whether by layer 2 or layer 3:

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    1 . Y Y Y - Y - Y N Y = a must
    2 Y . N Y N N N N N! + = a plus
    3 Y N . + N N N N N - = might be useful
    4 Y Y + . N N N N N N = no need for it
    5 - N N N . Y Y + N! N! = I really want to block
    6 Y N N N Y . + + ?
    7 - N N N Y + . + ?
    8 Y N N N + + + . ?
    9 N N N N N ? ? ? .

    Note that if 2 devices cannot reach each other, but both can reach computers
    in the computer farm, I can set up routing for them on a computer there.
    Don't assume same for the file server in by brother's house as that is
    likely a year or so away.

    I want NONE of the connectivity to go through the public internet for
    reasons of utilization. E.g. the idea of having wireless between houses
    is to avoid using the internet for it. Security isn't the issue, but
    racking up bandwidth utilization on either the cable or DSL is. I want
    inter-house communication to work even if DSL and/or cable is down.
     
    Guest, Jul 21, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    | On 21 Jul 2006 17:00:35 GMT, wrote in
    | <>:
    |
    |>| On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, wrote in
    |>| <>:
    |>|
    |>|>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624?
    |>|
    |>| According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page:
    |>|
    |>| Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and
    |>| access points
    |>|
    |>| That includes the WGT624.
    |>
    |>I think I need to revise my question:
    |>
    |>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with TWO different WGT624
    |>devices at the same time?
    |
    | No. A Wi-Fi network can only have *one* access point (central
    | controller).

    The wiki you have says all wireless is bridging. I guess it isn't.


    |>I have found that the nameless bridge I am playing with will only talk to
    |>ONE of the WGT624's at a time. Whichever WGT624 it find first makes the
    |>other one unreachable. Maybe this is a limitation of that bridge such as
    |>no more than one MAC at a time on the wireless side? Or maybe that is
    |>part of the standard?
    |
    | Standard and normal.
    |
    |>The big question is if the WGPS606 has this limitation.
    |
    | It does. All other Wi-Fi gear does too.

    So how do I get more than 2 things to talk to each other? Say maybe in
    a structure like:

    *-*--*-*
    | |
    * *

    where everything is wireless and the "--" is a particularly long path
    that all but the two *'s connected by it cannot necessarily see each
    other.


    | 1. Please, please don't start more threads -- too hard to follow.

    My first thread actually disappeared from my end. Not sure why. Thought
    maybe someone deleted it.


    | 2. Be specific about what you're trying to do in network terms. We can
    | tell you what gear you need once we know *exactly* what you're trying to
    | do.

    I'd rather have documentation that makes it clear to figure this out on
    my own. I want to know that there was something I SHOULD have read to
    have made the correct purchase, ... or that no such thing yet exists.
     
    Guest, Jul 21, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    Again, you're confusing *network* (bridging) with wireless *connection*
    (star).

    Much like a wired Ethernet hub or switch, a WLAN (wireless LAN,
    infrastructure point-to-multipoint) consists of one and only one central
    controller (wireless access point) plus one or more wireless clients.
    That central controller is a network bridge, just as the wiki states..
    The standard WLAN architecture is a star topology, usually connected to
    a wired Ethernet:


    WAP<--Ethernet-->
    /|\
    / | \
    WC WC WC

    Different LANs and WLANs can be interconnected with

    * Wires:

    WAP<--Ethernet-->WAP
    /|\ /|\
    / | \ / | \
    WC WC WC WC WC WC

    * WDS (Wireless Distribution System):

    WAP<--Ethernet-->
    /|\
    / | \
    WC WC WDS
    /|\
    / | \
    WC WC WC

    * Wireless Point-To-Point Bridge (to which WLANs can be connected)

    Read Wikipedia and the wikis below. Lots of helpful links.

    The problem is that you're trying to do something beyond normal consumer
    networking, so it's inevitably going to get complicated if you're not
    willing to pay (or beg) an expert to do it for you.

    You should decide whether you want to (a) debate terminology or (b) get
    your network working. I'm happy to help with (b), but don't really have
    the time for (a).
     
    John Navas, Jul 21, 2006
    #9
  10. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    Do you want to just rant and waste time? Or do you want to get the job
    done? I'm only willing to help with the latter.

    In fact wired Ethernet networking can be quite complex, even more
    complex than WLAN (wireless LAN). I'd point out some of the many ways,
    but I really don't have the time or interest.

    The only way I can help you configure a WLAN is if you tell me exactly
    what you want to do. Exactly what boxes need to talk to what boxes?
    What boxes need to talk to which broadband connections? Give me the
    details, and I'll show you how to do it. Keep them a secret, and
    perhaps someone else can help you.

    A key principle of networking is to carefully plan the network first,
    then implement it. Rushing ahead is a bad idea.
    You should be using one of the RFC 1918 Private IP address blocks,
    typically 192.168/16
    DHCP or manual configuration?
    Of the computer? What IP address? What netmask?
    Of the HP 6980? What IP address? What netmask?
    Gack! Let's please not go there. Just stick to standard networking.
    We need a network topology diagram. If you don't like my first cut, fix
    it up.
    Gack! Each WLAN should have a really unique SSID, at least for
    starters. The only time you want the same SSID is when you want
    wireless clients to roam between them, which is probably not what you
    want even later.
    It's not a bridge between the *two* WLANs -- it's just a bridge for
    *one* WLAN! If you want to bridge the two WLANs, then you'll probably
    need more gear.

    Are you trying to create a big network covering both houses, where
    everything can talk to everything? If so, you're options include:

    1. One WLAN covering both house. Wireless probably won't work, and a
    bitch to use both broadbands.

    2. Master WLAN at one house, with:

    (a) WDS at the other house. Kludge. A bitch to use both broadbands.

    (b) Wireless client bridge and access point at the other house.
    Better. A bitch to use both broadbands.

    3. Each house with its own WLAN, bridged with a point-to-point wireless
    bridge. Best bet, but takes two more wireless boxes.

    4. Bridge with VPN over the public Internet.
    I'm not, but thanks.
    That would be a big book on advanced networking, wired and wireless.
    Your best bet for range is MIMO, but that would take MIMO on *all*
    devices, which isn't going to happen (HP printer), and might not be
    enough in any event. Better to bridge two WLANs with a point-to-point
    wireless bridge.
    Could we please just stay in the world of the possible?
    See above.
    Then please finish it.
    I actually don't want to,
    Forget the layer stuff.
    Here you go -- add a wireless client bridge (WCB), and everything
    connects to everything: <http://i5.tinypic.com/20p7rro.png>
    * Put your WLAN with a unique SSID (Phil's WLAN) on one channel.
    * Put your brother's WLAN with a different SSID (Brother LAN) on a
    different channel.
    * Use channels with minimal overlap (1, 6, 11).
    * Configure DHCP in the two wireless routers (WGT624) for different
    subnets in the same private netblock; e.g.,
    - Your network: 192.168.1/16 Gateway (WGT624): 192.168.1.1
    - Brother's network: 192.168.2/16 Gateway (WGT624): 192.168.2.1
    * Turn off DHCP and configure everything manually.
    * Put the network printer at a fixed address on your network so
    computers on both networks can find it (e.g., 192.168.1.50).
    That way:
    (a) The wireless client bridge will properly bridge traffic back and
    forth between the two networks.
    (b) Both networks will use their own broadband gateways.

    The hassle is having to configure everything manually to ensure that
    both WLANs use their own broadband connections, especially when a
    visitor with wireless laptop drops in. (If you use WGT624 DHCP, it
    would be unpredictable with bridged networks which WGT624 a given client
    would connect to.)
    Forget all that cool computer stuff you know. This is networking.
    I'm not going to assume anything.
    OK.

    Happy networking!
     
    John Navas, Jul 22, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    p.s. Be sure the Wireless Client Bridge can handle multiple devices --
    many of them can only handle a few devices, some only one device. Third
    party firmware in appropriate hardware might be a good way to go.
     
    John Navas, Jul 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    A possible way to avoid that hassle is to substitute a suitable box with
    third-party firmware for WGT624(1), and hack that firmware to block DHCP
    traffic from being sent over the wireless bridge. That way both WLANs
    could use DHCP without risk of connecting to the wrong DHCP server over
    the wireless bridge.
     
    John Navas, Jul 22, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    Or use a suitable box with third-party firmware for the Wireless Client
    Bridge (WCB), with the same kind of firmware hack. Probably a better
    way to do given that you already have the two WGT624 units, and still
    need a WCB.
     
    John Navas, Jul 22, 2006
    #13
  14. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    p.p.s. The WCB can of course use a high-gain directional antenna if
    needed (something that might not be possible with the two wireless
    access points).
     
    John Navas, Jul 22, 2006
    #14
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    | On 21 Jul 2006 21:31:29 GMT, wrote in
    | <>:

    | A key principle of networking is to carefully plan the network first,
    | then implement it. Rushing ahead is a bad idea.

    That's what I did. But it was based on the _assumption_ that wireless
    would not have limitations intentionally built in that it does have.
    Ironically, now that I know such limitations do exist, I was expecting
    to find lots of resources that I didn't look for before that would tell
    me this. I've looked around and found a lot of resourses, none of which
    tell me what I needed to know to do a correct plan.


    |>| Why would you do that? With the HP 6980 connected to WGT624(1), it's
    |>| accessible by all clients in that subnet. Assign a static IP address to
    |>| the HP 6980, either by fixed DHCP or manually, and you should be able to
    |>| reach it reliably from any client on that subnet. The HP 6980 shouldn't
    |>| need a gateway address unless it's going to make connections over the
    |>| public Internet.
    |>
    |>It has a static IP. Everything is in 169.254.0.0/16.
    |
    | You should be using one of the RFC 1918 Private IP address blocks,
    | typically 192.168/16

    I typically use private addresses (RFC1918) for routed subnets. I use
    link local addresses (RFC3330) in auto configuration on most of the
    computers on my LAN, and manually configure such addresses as a back
    door for the rest. I used them on the wireless devices because it was
    a way to be sure I could see what all is reachable from all machines.
    I used to use 10.0.0.0/8 for link local, but that turned out to be a
    bit of a waste, and a couple times even caused problems. So I went
    to genuine link local addresses for the purpose.

    If I need to split things up into subnets, I'll be using RFC1918.



    |>But I cannot reach
    |>the printer from the computer. I can reach the WGT624, and see that in
    |>its list of attached devices there is the MAC address of the HP 6980, but
    |>without an IP address (which I presume is because it has never seen any
    |>IP type traffic with it).
    |
    | DHCP or manual configuration?
    | Of the computer? What IP address? What netmask?
    | Of the HP 6980? What IP address? What netmask?

    If it really matters to know, given I'm going to change over to using
    RFC1918 if any routing/subnetting needs to be done, I have these
    addresses set up currently:

    All addresses are manually configured as static. All netmasks are
    255.255.0.0 since the subnet is 169.254.0.0/16.

    subnet 169.254.0.0/16 10.0.0.0/8 172.16.0.0/16
    WGT624(1) = 169.254.175.166
    WGT624(2) = 169.254.219.166
    Old bridge = 169.254.190.188
    Printer = 169.254.29.222
    Linux(1) = 169.254.38.5 10.142.38.5 172.16.38.5
    Linux(2) = 169.254.38.8 10.142.38.8 172.16.38.8
    Linux(3) = 169.254.122.204 10.65.122.204 172.16.122.204

    The Linux machines also have public IP addresses. The other
    machines are not running right now.


    |>That did work when the bridge was peered with WGT624(1). However, it
    |>sometimes peers with WGT624(2) instead, which break things (and gives me
    |>nice broadcast storms). I presume using different SSIDs will fix that
    |>but I have not tried it, yet.
    |
    | Gack! Each WLAN should have a really unique SSID, at least for
    | starters. The only time you want the same SSID is when you want
    | wireless clients to roam between them, which is probably not what you
    | want even later.

    Except for my sister-in-law's laptop, no roaming is needed.

    My original thinking of this was at the very least everything in my house
    would all be on one WLAN.


    |>| When the HP 6980 is connected to WGT624(1), it won't be connected to
    |>| WGT624(2), and so won't be accessible to that subnet. You would have to
    |>| bridge the subnets; e.g., by VPN over the public Internet, or with a
    |>| wireless bridge (other than what you have now).
    |>
    |>So this is just a too cheap bridge.
    |
    | It's not a bridge between the *two* WLANs -- it's just a bridge for
    | *one* WLAN! If you want to bridge the two WLANs, then you'll probably
    | need more gear.

    If I can make everything in my house be on one WLAN, then I should be
    able to use just one bridge. Right? Of course in that mix will be the
    WGT624 or something like it that can talk PPPoE for the DSL.

    This little old bridge I do have will not talk _directly_ to the
    printer. I would need to have something running that WILL talk to the
    printer. The WGT624 does.


    | Are you trying to create a big network covering both houses, where
    | everything can talk to everything? If so, you're options include:

    I was going to try that. Having it cover just my house alone would
    be an accomplishment, it seems.


    | 1. One WLAN covering both house. Wireless probably won't work, and a
    | bitch to use both broadbands.

    I already have the cross-usage of broadbands figured out. My file server
    in my house has a running Squid proxy. That's a start to get HTTP access.
    If my proxy can reach my DSL, then any machine that can reach my proxy
    can at least do HTTP via my DSL. The file server going into my brother's
    house can have the same thing.

    I don't need to use both broadbands by direct reach to the respective routers.


    | 2. Master WLAN at one house, with:
    |
    | (a) WDS at the other house. Kludge. A bitch to use both broadbands.
    |
    | (b) Wireless client bridge and access point at the other house.
    | Better. A bitch to use both broadbands.
    |
    | 3. Each house with its own WLAN, bridged with a point-to-point wireless
    | bridge. Best bet, but takes two more wireless boxes.

    I'm at best guessing what the full details will be for the above plans.
    For example, I don't know what device I should use to connect my wired
    LAN. If a WDS can be wired to my LAN switch AND talk to the WGT624 to
    get DSL to the LAN, and not break the ability of the WGT624 to talk to
    the printer (or talk to the printer directly itself is OK), then at least
    I have the WLAN in my house working. Next step is my brother's WLAN.
    If the WDS, while talking to WGT624(1) can also talk to WGT624(2), that
    would be great. If not, how about a 2nd WDS talking to the 1st WDS over
    the long distance from house to house.


    |>Apparently not. But what I want to do is figure out WHAT gear I should
    |>use, and do so by figuring it out from clearly written documentation,
    |>which I have not yet found. Such documentation would obviously have to
    |>state exactly what devices (or classes of devices) can, and cannot, talk
    |>to each other (including of its own kind), and for classes of devices,
    |>also tell how to determine which commercial devices are of each class,
    |>despite misleading sales/marketing jargon and puffing.
    |
    | That would be a big book on advanced networking, wired and wireless.

    Maybe its what I would have needed before I made this plan.


    | Your best bet for range is MIMO, but that would take MIMO on *all*
    | devices, which isn't going to happen (HP printer), and might not be
    | enough in any event. Better to bridge two WLANs with a point-to-point
    | wireless bridge.

    So would that be 1 WDS to link the houses together, or 2 WDS boxes?


    |>And it would be a big plus if one of those would ALSO talk wirelessly
    |>with the WGT624 so I can have ONE wireless device on the wired LAN in
    |>this house and have it talk wirelessly to both the WGT624 to reach the
    |>DSL, and whatever is at the other house to reach it's LAN.
    |
    | Could we please just stay in the world of the possible?

    So you're saying I have to have 2 wireless devices on the LAN?


    |>And reaching the printer is important, too. If that has to be through
    |>a double hop from the wireless device on the LAN to the WGT624 on the
    |>DSL and back out over air to the printer, that's fine, as the printer
    |>bandwidth isn't an issue.
    |
    | See above.

    The printer will talk to the WGT624 and I can see the printer from Linux
    provided there is only one WGT624 running. I've figured out from the help
    given here that it is just peering with ONE randomly (whichever is first
    or strongest) picked AP, and sticking with it.


    |>| Please be more clear and precise on what you're trying to do, including
    |>| the entire network topology. Something like
    |>| <http://i5.tinypic.com/20kujq1.png>.
    |>
    |>I can't say what the network topology is, because I don't know which one
    |>would work in wireless. I've been trying a few I know would work wired.
    |>
    |>The picture you show is one possible way, although incomplete.
    |
    | Then please finish it.

    I don't have that drawing tool right now. It needs a dotted path between
    the two houses. The specific points where the dots end in terms of actual
    topology, I can't say.


    |>-- my house --
    |>
    |>1. My "computer farm" running on a wired switch. Using wireless PC cards
    |> here is not an option. 3 ports are available on the switch.
    |>
    |>2. My future DSL connection. It shall not connect to anything by wire.
    |>
    |>3. Wireless printer. It cannot be connected to the computer farm by wire.
    |> But a wireless print server might be an option for it (though that
    |> would sure seem silly, and a bit inconvenient).
    |>
    |>4. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
    |> to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she comes
    |> over and brings it here.
    |>
    |>-- brother's house --
    |>
    |>5. My brother's Cable modem.
    |>
    |>6. My brother's Windows computer (currently connected directly to the
    |> cable modem running the cable provided software).
    |>
    |>7. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
    |> to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she has
    |> it at her home.
    |>
    |>8. File server I will place in my brother's house in the future. It may
    |> be possible to use a wireless PC card on this. It will be Linux
    |>
    |>9. My nephew's computer, not networked at all, yet. Probably will be dual
    |> boot Windows + Linux.
    |>
    |>I need the following reachability, whether by layer 2 or layer 3:
    |
    | Forget the layer stuff.
    |
    |> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    |>1 . Y Y Y - Y - Y N Y = a must
    |>2 Y . N Y N N N N N! + = a plus
    |>3 Y N . + N N N N N - = might be useful
    |>4 Y Y + . N N N N N N = no need for it
    |>5 - N N N . Y Y + N! N! = I really want to block
    |>6 Y N N N Y . + + ?
    |>7 - N N N Y + . + ?
    |>8 Y N N N + + + . ?
    |>9 N N N N N ? ? ? .
    |
    | Here you go -- add a wireless client bridge (WCB), and everything
    | connects to everything: <http://i5.tinypic.com/20p7rro.png>

    That's looks viable. Would a WCB be usable in place of the WGPS606
    even with a WCB at my brother's how?


    | * Put your WLAN with a unique SSID (Phil's WLAN) on one channel.
    | * Put your brother's WLAN with a different SSID (Brother LAN) on a
    | different channel.
    | * Use channels with minimal overlap (1, 6, 11).
    | * Configure DHCP in the two wireless routers (WGT624) for different
    | subnets in the same private netblock; e.g.,
    | - Your network: 192.168.1/16 Gateway (WGT624): 192.168.1.1
    | - Brother's network: 192.168.2/16 Gateway (WGT624): 192.168.2.1
    | * Turn off DHCP and configure everything manually.

    I prefer manual. But either way will work. My bootable CDROMs
    of Linux do use DHCP to get an IP address, so I do have a DHCP
    server running on one of the Linux machines. Things can be turned
    on or off or reconfigured as needed in this regard.


    | * Put the network printer at a fixed address on your network so
    | computers on both networks can find it (e.g., 192.168.1.50).
    | That way:
    | (a) The wireless client bridge will properly bridge traffic back and
    | forth between the two networks.
    | (b) Both networks will use their own broadband gateways.

    | The hassle is having to configure everything manually to ensure that
    | both WLANs use their own broadband connections, especially when a
    | visitor with wireless laptop drops in. (If you use WGT624 DHCP, it
    | would be unpredictable with bridged networks which WGT624 a given client
    | would connect to.)

    I consider manual configuration not a hassle. And I can run DHCP on
    a Linux box just as easily.

    Your diagram shows the WCB at my brother's house, wireless to the WGT624
    in my house, and wired to the WGT624 in his house. Would it be possible
    to reverse that where it would be wired to the WGT624 in my house and
    reach the WGT624 at his house by wireless under his SSID? I'm asking
    that to both understand what this is doing ... AND to be sure the WGPS606
    would not interfere with it.

    Can a WCB be used in lieu of the WGPS606?

    What vendor device models are WCBs to choose from?
     
    Guest, Jul 22, 2006
    #15
  16. Guest

    Guest Guest

    | A possible way to avoid that hassle is to substitute a suitable box with
    | third-party firmware for WGT624(1), and hack that firmware to block DHCP
    | traffic from being sent over the wireless bridge. That way both WLANs
    | could use DHCP without risk of connecting to the wrong DHCP server over
    | the wireless bridge.

    I won't have much need of DHCP. It would be nice for visiting laptops.
    My bootable CDROMs do pause for 10 seconds to wait for a DHCP response,
    but if none, they make an IP from the low order bits of the MAC.

    And it seems this version of WGT624 has the ability to block DHCP:

    http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aiw/2006-07-21/blockdhcp-1.png
    http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aiw/2006-07-21/blockdhcp-2.png
    http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aiw/2006-07-21/blockdhcp-3.png
    http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aiw/2006-07-21/blockdhcp-4.png
     
    Guest, Jul 22, 2006
    #16
  17. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    That's _not_ careful planning. ;)
    It doesn't. It simply has different products just like wired
    networking. You can't use a wired bridge as a wired router, just as you
    can't use a wireless client bridge as a wireless router. You can't hook
    one wired port to more than one other wired port, just as a wireless
    client can be hooked up to more than one access point.
    Yet lots of them do exist, including the wikis below and the wealth of
    links they contain.
    Read what I wrote more carefully. You've already run into a common
    problem caused by non-unique SSIDs.
    That's because the printer is a client that needs an access point
    (WGT624), not another client (little old bridge). Read the resources
    and all the material I've now posted here.
    Actually pretty easy.
    As I wrote, forget all that cool stuff until you finish the network.
    The WGPS606 is a WCB (Wireless Client Bridge), plus a network switch and
    network printer server.
    Running any sort of DHCP on separate bridged networks is asking for
    trouble, as I explained.
    Yes, opposite configuration of the WCB link will work.
    Again, the WGPS606 is a WCB (Wireless Client Bridge), plus a network
    switch and network printer server.
    Lots, including the WGPS606. Sometimes called Wireless Gaming Adapters,
    although beware of those that can only handle a few or even just one
    device. But since you seem to fancy yourself a hacker, I've already
    recommended running third-party firmware in wireless client bridge mode
    on a suitable box (e.g., Linksys WRT54G, which you may be able to find
    for cheap -- just be sure to get a good version). See the wikis for
    more info.
     
    John Navas, Jul 22, 2006
    #17
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    | On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:20:12 GMT, John Navas
    | <>:
    |
    |>On 21 Jul 2006 21:31:29 GMT, wrote in
    |><>:
    |
    |>Here you go -- add a wireless client bridge (WCB), and everything
    |>connects to everything: <http://i5.tinypic.com/20p7rro.png>
    |
    | p.p.s. The WCB can of course use a high-gain directional antenna if
    | needed (something that might not be possible with the two wireless
    | access points).

    It seems the WGT624's have permanently connected antennas. I might
    have gone with another brand had I been aware of this, if another one
    with broadband routing did have a connector for an antenna (TNC or
    SMA ... I doubt they use N for small devices like this).
     
    Guest, Jul 22, 2006
    #18
  19. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    p.s. In case it's not obvious, you already have enough wireless gear to
    at least get started by:

    1. Connecting the WGPS606 by wire to WGT624(1).

    2. Using the WGPS606 to connect by wireless to WGT624(2).

    See <http://i5.tinypic.com/20prcs6.png>
     
    John Navas, Jul 22, 2006
    #19
  20. Guest

    John Navas Guest

    That looks like filtering from the WAN to the LAN, not between wireless
    LAN and wired LAN. For that kind of LAN isolation in a low-end product
    I think you're going to need non-standard firmware.
     
    John Navas, Jul 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.