Range of BEFW11S4 version 1 vs. version 4

Discussion in 'Wireless Internet' started by Bob Alston, May 30, 2005.

  1. Bob Alston

    Bob Alston Guest

    Anyone know if there is any range difference between the original
    version 1 of BEFW11S4 and the final version, version 4?

    MY 4+ year old version 1 with power booster had become increasingly
    unreliable, requiring resetting multiple times a day due to dropped
    connections. Just got a replacement, a version 4. Why not a G model,
    you might ask? The replacement was $4.99 so the price was right. Also
    I have the power output booster if necessary.

    Initially set it up with out the old power booster and it seems to
    provide similar readings on my wife's laptop two rooms and 3 walls away.

    Bob Alston, May 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bob Alston

    Duane ;-\) Guest

    Wait a minute, you mean to tell me that I could have gotten a replacement
    for the 11S4 v1 router that I tossed in the trash?

    Duane :)
    Duane ;-\), May 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dunno. The chipsets are radically difference. Punch in the FCCID
    numbers into the FCCID web site and see what's inside:
    V4 version:
    | https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/...&application_id=524657&fcc_id='PKW-BEFW11S4V4'
    I couldn't find the V1 version.

    I vaguely recall reading one complaint in this newsgroup about a
    version 1 unit that just quit for no obvious reason.
    I have a BEFW11S4v4. $5 is a great price. Try running the router
    exploits test at:
    Mine hangs on 2 of the tests. I forgot which ones.
    I suggest you lose the power booster. The problem is that you've
    built an alligator. That's an access point with a big mouth and small
    ears. The whole neighborhood will hear your transmit signal, while
    your receiver remains essentially unchanged and cannot hear low power
    client radios at the same distances. If you're going to use a power
    amp, you really should have equal power output at both ends of a link
    to insure symmetrical ranges. Otherwise, your power boosted signal is
    just another source of interference.

    Also, going through 3 walls is somewhat of a crap shoot. You will
    probably get a connection, but it probably won't stay reliably
    connected. Perhaps you would be better off with a 2nd access point at
    the other end of the house (with a CAT5 cable in between).
    Jeff Liebermann, May 30, 2005
  4. Whoever wrote these tests has some problems with correctly identifying
    IPs. They're using http which is famous for being a poor method, as it
    won't work if your ISP uses a web proxy or cache.
    Mine can't even be tested, due to the above flaw in the design of the
    Mark McIntyre, May 30, 2005
  5. There's no fix. The way a (SOCKS) proxy server works is that it
    regenerates the connection. That makes everything on the internet
    side appear as if it's coming from the proxy server instead of from
    your home router. Same with web accelerator cache servers and
    The problem is similar to what happens if you install 2 or more NAT
    routers in series. The test server on the internet will only see the
    last router. Incidentally, this is common with WISP (wireless ISP)
    service where the ISP doesn't want to deliver routeable IP's to the
    clients and uses RFC-1918 non-routeable IP's instead. Running the
    test only tests the ISP's firewall, not the clients.

    Incidentally, one the early online web accelerator cache services and
    ran into a problem. When one of their customers abused some other
    system, and ended up on a blacklist, the IP address listed on the
    blacklist was that of the web accelerator proxy server, and not that
    of the customer. Suddenly, everyone using the system found themselves
    banned from that system.
    Jeff Liebermann, May 30, 2005
  6. You're incorrect. Many sites can correctly identify my IP, by not
    using http packets as the detection protocol. What you're missing is
    that web caching / proxying is generally limited to only the web
    Mark McIntyre, May 30, 2005
  7. Naw, I never make mistakes (that I can't cover up).
    Well, the usual method is using the CGI environment variables on the
    web server to disclose the IP address the client. I scribbled some
    scripts 10 years ago to do this while I was engaged in a heroic and
    futile effort to learn web design and programming:

    Y'er right that internet web caches and proxy accelerators are usually
    limited to port 80. However, proxy servers come in all shapes and
    configurations which are normally configured for a set of "allowed"
    ports. These are common in a corporate environment. I've configured
    a few of these and have to install a configuration record for every
    possible outgoing port number that is allowed.

    I can see how one could obtain the IP at the user end using an ActiveX
    control or some program that spys on the local system and returns the
    necessary information. I wasn't aware that it could be done from a
    simple internet web server. Is there some trick I'm missing? Do you
    know a web page that does report the IP address of a client behind a
    proxy server that I can try (and disect)? I'm curious to see how it's
    done. This became an issue many years ago when some of the cable
    companies were sniffing traffic trying to determine how many client
    computahs were hidden behind an NAT firewall or proxy server so they
    could charge for the "extra" clients.
    Jeff Liebermann, May 31, 2005
    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.