Betsy wrote:
>> You seem to be making things much more difficult than they need to be.
>> Why don't you just cascade the two switches by connecting the uplink
>> port of one to one of the open ports on the other?
>>
>> Also, I don't understand how you want to have "the 2 computers that have
>> wired ethernet only to be able to route thru the WAP." How do you
>> expect these wired computers to connect to the WAP?
>
> I'm not trying to make this difficult, I original wanted to cascade the
> switches but because of the location in the house, the wiring would be
> exposed and not look appealing. I thought since I had the wireless+wired in
> some computers that I could use this to avoid running wires that woudl be
> exposed thru the house. I really just want the 2 "wired only" to be able to
> communicate with the other computers in the house without having to run
> additional cabling. I thought bridging or internet connection sharing might
> allow this.
Sorry to be dense. It's the difficulty of communicating something in
writing that would be obvious in 30 seconds of looking.
As Jack said, a wireless bridge will do what you want. An inexpensive
way to accomplish this is to buy an old (version 4 or earlier) Linksys
WRT54G router on eBay and then download and flash DD-WRT firmware.
Alternatively, creating a bridge in XP *should* have worked. Try first
with only one of the wired/wireless boxes and bridge its wired and
wireless NICs as shown here:
http://practicallynetworked.com/shar...workbridge.htm
What happens when you try this? If it doesn't work, supply ipconfig /all
information for the 3 "remote" computers.
--
Lem -- MS-MVP - Networking
To the moon and back with 4KB of RAM and 72KB of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm