Re: suggestions for wireless signal amplifier
 

t wrote:
> We need to boost the wireless signal coming into the office.

> We looked into getting a wireless access point, but it involves more
> cost and is a much longer process.

More cost yes. The 'longer process' must mean the part about figuring
out how to do it.

You need to do the access point + router to create a subnet for your
situation you described a few days ago. Yes it costs more - but you are
trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You have a weak
'outside' signal in your office environment which needs to put about 15
different people onto a wireless subnet off that signal's connectivity.

Locate that access point bridge strategically with a good antenna, even
if it requires power over ethernet to put it somewhere that it can get
the wireless signal from the other wireless network with the Cisco
equipment.

Then your access point is ethernetted to the wireless router which
handles your office's subnet wireless. It is unreasonable to think you
are going to be able to do this networking with just a router.


--
Mike Easter

Re: suggestions for wireless signal amplifier
 

t wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> t wrote:

>>> We looked into getting a wireless access point, but it involves more
>>> cost and is a much longer process.
>>
>> More cost yes. The 'longer process' must mean the part about figuring
>> out how to do it.
>
> Longer process means getting approval for doing it which is done by
> another department.

Ah, so. So this subnet *IS* going to be admin/ed by the larger net
admins. Good for them. I consider 'admin' in this context to include
go or nogo on the ideas for how it is going to be done.

> So, we were suggested since we are getting a wireless signal(though,
> quite weak) it might be worth trying to get an amplifier so that
> the signal can be strong enough for the task.

Why doesn't the network admin who is vetoing the idea of a subnet come
up with an actual solution for your connectivity?

Instead of 'you can't do this/that, think of something else.'

That just sounds like a system of putting you off by not allowing you to
do something that would actually work.

IMO putting some kind of repeater in there isn't a good idea. But, I'm
not a network admin (except for my own home networks) and it sounds like
there is one of those involved who isn't inclined to actually solve your
problem.


--
Mike Easter

Re: suggestions for wireless signal amplifier
 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:26:47 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

> Why doesn't the network admin who is vetoing the idea of a subnet come
> up with an actual solution for your connectivity?

He must be a Republican- says everyone else's ideas are crap but doesn't
come up with any himself.

:-)



--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.

Re: suggestions for wireless signal amplifier
 

Andy <nospam@> writes and having writ moves on.
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> t wrote:
>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>> t wrote:
>>
>>>>> We looked into getting a wireless access point, but it involves more
>>>>> cost and is a much longer process.
>>>>
>>>> More cost yes. The 'longer process' must mean the part about figuring
>>>> out how to do it.
>>>
>>> Longer process means getting approval for doing it which is done by
>>> another department.
>>
>> Ah, so. So this subnet *IS* going to be admin/ed by the larger net
>> admins. Good for them. I consider 'admin' in this context to include
>> go or nogo on the ideas for how it is going to be done.
>>
>>> So, we were suggested since we are getting a wireless signal(though,
>>> quite weak) it might be worth trying to get an amplifier so that
>>> the signal can be strong enough for the task.
>>
>> Why doesn't the network admin who is vetoing the idea of a subnet come
>> up with an actual solution for your connectivity?
>
> Am I the only one that thinks the OP is deliberately trying _not_ to
> involve the network administrator in this? Sounds dodgy to me.
>

My guess is they're trying to do something they won't get
permission for.

Mike "easier to get forgiveness, anyway" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.

Re: suggestions for wireless signal amplifier
 

Mike Yetto wrote:
> Andy
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>> t wrote:

>>>> Longer process means getting approval for doing it which is done by
>>>> another department.
>>> Ah, so. So this subnet *IS* going to be admin/ed by the larger net
>>> admins. Good for them. I consider 'admin' in this context to include
>>> go or nogo on the ideas for how it is going to be done.

>>> Why doesn't the network admin who is vetoing the idea of a subnet come
>>> up with an actual solution for your connectivity?
>> Am I the only one that thinks the OP is deliberately trying _not_ to
>> involve the network administrator in this? Sounds dodgy to me.
>>
>
> My guess is they're trying to do something they won't get
> permission for.

-1- the wrong person is in here asking questions
-2- whoever is going to be approving or paying for any subnetworking
hardware isn't in here asking any questions

--
Mike Easter

Re: suggestions for wireless signal amplifier
 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:30:14 -0400, Mike Yetto writ:

> easier to get forgiveness, anyway

Damn ain't that the truth. Yup. Forgiveness trumps permission. Sometimes.
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
⁂ Beware the 24hoursupport tards:
⁂ http://24hoursupport-tards.info
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯