Can I use two DLink DI-524 wireless routers as a 'repeater'?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by siliconpi@gmail.com, Apr 7, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Sorry for messing up the terminology, but here's my situation. I've got
    one DLink wireless router hooked within my office LAN (with IP address
    192.168.1.100). It works fine - laptops are able to connect to it
    wirelessly.I have an additional router which I want to use to
    wifi-enable my home (which is about 40 feet away - but the concrete
    inbetween doesnt let the signal of the first penetrate).

    Now, can I have the second router configured in a such a way that

    (a) it has no ethernet wires attached to it
    (b) it serves as a 'repeater' of sorts to allow the laptops connecting
    to it to access the office network

    If so, how do I configure my 2nd router?

    Lemme know if my situation isnt that clear...

    Thanks,
    Sid
     
    , Apr 7, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    >one DLink wireless router hooked within my office LAN


    Do you own your office LAN, and/or is the company clear on allowing
    you to use it? There are concerns about security, access, and
    appropriate use of bandwidth that you and they will need to think
    about. [For instance, no 'file sharing' apps allowed, etc]

    >my home (which is about 40 feet away - but the concrete
    >inbetween doesnt let the signal of the first penetrate).


    Concrete is really bad, you are going to need to find a location
    that's line-of-sight to the office LAN and your house to place your
    repeater, and supply power to it.

    >Now, can I have the second router configured in a such a way that
    >
    >(a) it has no ethernet wires attached to it
    >(b) it serves as a 'repeater' of sorts to allow the laptops connecting
    >to it to access the office network


    You can set up many APs in repeater mode, though it'll cut your
    available bandwidth in half. Not all routers will work in repeater
    mode, so you may want to make sure you get a repeater or AP.

    That said, Duh-Link products are notorious for problems, last time I
    tried to set up D-Link repeaters with D-Link APs that they were
    _supposed_ to work with I wasted about a week proving that it was an
    unmitigated disaster and running wires to APs. [And then replacing
    them all with Linksys WAP54Gs with WAPPOE power-over-ethernet, which
    works really well.]
     
    William P.N. Smith, Apr 7, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jimbo Guest

    wrote:
    > Sorry for messing up the terminology, but here's my situation. I've got
    > one DLink wireless router hooked within my office LAN (with IP address
    > 192.168.1.100). It works fine - laptops are able to connect to it
    > wirelessly.I have an additional router which I want to use to
    > wifi-enable my home (which is about 40 feet away - but the concrete
    > inbetween doesnt let the signal of the first penetrate).
    >
    > Now, can I have the second router configured in a such a way that
    >
    > (a) it has no ethernet wires attached to it
    > (b) it serves as a 'repeater' of sorts to allow the laptops connecting
    > to it to access the office network
    >
    > If so, how do I configure my 2nd router?
    >
    > Lemme know if my situation isnt that clear...
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Sid
    >

    If the primary router can't transmitt a signal through the concrete
    wall, how do you expect a second router to do so? Anyway, most routers
    cannot be configured as repeaters or bridges.

    Good luck, jimbo
     
    jimbo, Apr 7, 2006
    #3
  4. Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > wrote:
    > > Sorry for messing up the terminology, but here's my situation. I've got
    > > one DLink wireless router hooked within my office LAN (with IP address
    > > 192.168.1.100). It works fine - laptops are able to connect to it
    > > wirelessly.I have an additional router which I want to use to
    > > wifi-enable my home (which is about 40 feet away - but the concrete
    > > inbetween doesnt let the signal of the first penetrate).
    > >
    > > Now, can I have the second router configured in a such a way that
    > >
    > > (a) it has no ethernet wires attached to it
    > > (b) it serves as a 'repeater' of sorts to allow the laptops connecting
    > > to it to access the office network
    > >
    > > If so, how do I configure my 2nd router?
    > >
    > > Lemme know if my situation isnt that clear...
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Sid
    > >

    > If the primary router can't transmitt a signal through the concrete
    > wall, how do you expect a second router to do so? Anyway, most routers
    > cannot be configured as repeaters or bridges.


    Most quality wireless routers and access points have a "Bridge" mode
    setting, and have for many years. Some require a firmware update, others
    don't.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Apr 7, 2006
    #4
  5. John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on 7 Apr 2006
    04:29:58 -0700, wrote:

    >Sorry for messing up the terminology, but here's my situation. I've got
    >one DLink wireless router hooked within my office LAN (with IP address
    >192.168.1.100). It works fine - laptops are able to connect to it
    >wirelessly.I have an additional router which I want to use to
    >wifi-enable my home (which is about 40 feet away - but the concrete
    >inbetween doesnt let the signal of the first penetrate).
    >
    >Now, can I have the second router configured in a such a way that
    >
    >(a) it has no ethernet wires attached to it
    >(b) it serves as a 'repeater' of sorts to allow the laptops connecting
    >to it to access the office network
    >
    >If so, how do I configure my 2nd router?
    >
    >Lemme know if my situation isnt that clear...


    If your home and office share the same power system, my suggestion is
    powerline Ethernet to connect your home access point to your office network.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>
     
    John Navas, Apr 7, 2006
    #5
  6. jimbo Guest

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Sorry for messing up the terminology, but here's my situation. I've got
    >>>one DLink wireless router hooked within my office LAN (with IP address
    >>>192.168.1.100). It works fine - laptops are able to connect to it
    >>>wirelessly.I have an additional router which I want to use to
    >>>wifi-enable my home (which is about 40 feet away - but the concrete
    >>>inbetween doesnt let the signal of the first penetrate).
    >>>
    >>>Now, can I have the second router configured in a such a way that
    >>>
    >>>(a) it has no ethernet wires attached to it
    >>>(b) it serves as a 'repeater' of sorts to allow the laptops connecting
    >>>to it to access the office network
    >>>
    >>>If so, how do I configure my 2nd router?
    >>>
    >>>Lemme know if my situation isnt that clear...
    >>>
    >>>Thanks,
    >>>Sid
    >>>

    >>
    >> If the primary router can't transmitt a signal through the concrete
    >>wall, how do you expect a second router to do so? Anyway, most routers
    >>cannot be configured as repeaters or bridges.

    >
    >
    > Most quality wireless routers and access points have a "Bridge" mode
    > setting, and have for many years. Some require a firmware update, others
    > don't.
    >

    Many Access Points have a bridge mode. Tell me of a router that has a
    bridge mode.

    jimbo
     
    jimbo, Apr 7, 2006
    #6
  7. John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:55:59 -0600,
    jimbo <> wrote:

    >Leythos wrote:


    >> Most quality wireless routers and access points have a "Bridge" mode
    >> setting, and have for many years. Some require a firmware update, others
    >> don't.
    >>

    >Many Access Points have a bridge mode. Tell me of a router that has a
    >bridge mode.


    Turn off DHCP, and plug everything into the LAN side, leaving the WAN side
    disconnected. Voila! Bridge mode.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>
     
    John Navas, Apr 7, 2006
    #7
  8. jimbo Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:55:59 -0600,
    > jimbo <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Leythos wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>Most quality wireless routers and access points have a "Bridge" mode
    >>>setting, and have for many years. Some require a firmware update, others
    >>>don't.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Many Access Points have a bridge mode. Tell me of a router that has a
    >>bridge mode.

    >
    >
    > Turn off DHCP, and plug everything into the LAN side, leaving the WAN side
    > disconnected. Voila! Bridge mode.
    >


    You get no cigar. All you have done is create an access point, not a
    bridge. And OP said he didn't want any "wires" attached to the second
    router.

    jimbo
     
    jimbo, Apr 8, 2006
    #8
  9. John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:03:57 -0600,
    jimbo <> wrote:

    >John Navas wrote:


    >> Turn off DHCP, and plug everything into the LAN side, leaving the WAN side
    >> disconnected. Voila! Bridge mode.

    >
    >You get no cigar. All you have done is create an access point, not a
    >bridge. And OP said he didn't want any "wires" attached to the second
    >router.


    That's nonetheless a *host* wireless bridge. If the wireless router has a
    client mode, then you have a *client* wireless bridge. Bridging is
    independent of how the wireless works.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>
     
    John Navas, Apr 8, 2006
    #9
  10. jimbo Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:03:57 -0600,
    > jimbo <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>John Navas wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>Turn off DHCP, and plug everything into the LAN side, leaving the WAN side
    >>>disconnected. Voila! Bridge mode.

    >>
    >>You get no cigar. All you have done is create an access point, not a
    >>bridge. And OP said he didn't want any "wires" attached to the second
    >>router.

    >
    >
    > That's nonetheless a *host* wireless bridge. If the wireless router has a
    > client mode, then you have a *client* wireless bridge. Bridging is
    > independent of how the wireless works.
    >

    It's NOT a bridge. Your solution requires an ethernet cable between
    the two routers. All you have with your solution is a second wireless
    Access Point in the existing network.

    jimbo
     
    jimbo, Apr 8, 2006
    #10
  11. John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:22:11
    -0600, jimbo <> wrote:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >>
    >> In <> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:03:57 -0600,
    >> jimbo <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>John Navas wrote:

    >>
    >>>>Turn off DHCP, and plug everything into the LAN side, leaving the WAN side
    >>>>disconnected. Voila! Bridge mode.
    >>>
    >>>You get no cigar. All you have done is create an access point, not a
    >>>bridge. And OP said he didn't want any "wires" attached to the second
    >>>router.

    >>
    >> That's nonetheless a *host* wireless bridge. If the wireless router has a
    >> client mode, then you have a *client* wireless bridge. Bridging is
    >> independent of how the wireless works.
    >>

    >It's NOT a bridge. Your solution requires an ethernet cable between
    >the two routers. All you have with your solution is a second wireless
    >Access Point in the existing network.


    Please stick to what I actually wrote, rather than your own interpretation of
    it. I wasn't giving a "solution" there -- that was in my earlier reply about
    powerline networking -- I was pointing out in response to another reply that
    most low-end routers include a bridge, or switch if you prefer, that can be
    used with the wireless access point. That's because a wireless router is
    essentially a combination of:

    wireless router
    +-------------------------------------------+
    | +---------------------+ |
    | |wireless access point+---< antenna
    | +----------+----------+ |
    | | |
    | +-----------+ +----------+----------+ |
    WAN >--+router +--+ +---<
    | |DHCP server| | switch +---< wired
    | |firewall | | +---< LAN
    | +-----------+ | +---<
    | +---------------------+ |
    +-------------------------------------------+

    Thus if you disable the DHCP server, and leave the WAN port disconnected, you
    have a bridge between wired and wireless network segments. That can be a
    *host* wireless bridge (the most common kind), or if the firmware permits, a
    *client* wireless bridge. The latter could thus be a solution *without* an
    Ethernet cable, but only if there were a wireless signal, which apparently
    isn't the case. Thus some sort of wired solution would seem to be inevitable.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>
     
    John Navas, Apr 8, 2006
    #11
  12. hath wroth:

    >Sorry for messing up the terminology, but here's my situation.


    My list of different types of wireless bridges:
    | http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Bridge
    It's not complete as marketing is always inventing new wireless terms
    as the technology expands. The thing to remember is that *ALL*
    802.11a/g/b wireless is bridging because it operates on ISO Layer 2
    (MAC layer).

    >I've got
    >one DLink wireless router hooked within my office LAN (with IP address
    >192.168.1.100). It works fine - laptops are able to connect to it
    >wirelessly.


    I'll assume that this Dlink is a DI-524 you mentioned in the subject
    line.

    >I have an additional router which I want to use to
    >wifi-enable my home (which is about 40 feet away - but the concrete
    >inbetween doesnt let the signal of the first penetrate).


    That will work if you turn this router into an "access point" by
    disabling the DHCP server and ignoring the router sections.

    >Now, can I have the second router configured in a such a way that
    >(a) it has no ethernet wires attached to it


    No.

    >(b) it serves as a 'repeater' of sorts to allow the laptops connecting
    >to it to access the office network


    No.

    >If so, how do I configure my 2nd router?


    The DI-524 does NOT have have repeater mode. It also does not support
    WDS (wireless distribution service) which is what you would need to
    use to create a repeater, that users could still use to connect.

    However, the choice of hardware is not the real problem. It's the
    concrete wall. It really doesn't matter what wireless contrivance you
    purchase, it's not going to go throught he concrete wall in a reliable
    manner. You might bounce around the wall, of perhaps find some holes,
    but in general, it's no RF is going to go through. Therefore, the
    problem is not how to build a repeater out of a DI-524 (which can't be
    done). It's how to send RF through a concrete wall.

    Basically, your problem is "How do I get wireless to the other side of
    a concrete wall. Here are some possibilities. I've done most of
    these at one point or other and know they work. I can't tell which
    will work best for your situation.

    1. Punch a hole. Run CAT5 through the hole and install an access
    point on the othe side. Use same SSID but different RF channel (1,6,
    or 11). Do NOT borrow a hole from a electrical outlet as shoving
    signal wires through an electrical outlet box is both unsafe and a
    violation of electrical codes.

    2. Borrow some telephone wires, CATV coax cable, or AC power line
    wires to act as a bridge between the sides of the wall. Techniques,
    distance, and equipment vary depending on technology available. I
    don't know what you have available, so I won't go into much detail
    here. Buzzwords and starting links:

    Power line: HomePlug
    http://www.homeplug.org
    http://www.netgear.com/products/details/WGXB102.php

    Phone line: HomePNA
    http://www.homepna.org

    CATV coaxial cable:
    http://www.multilet.com/us/baseband/product_range/product_range.htm

    You can run 10baseT-HDX over telco paired wires quite nicely. Same
    with 10base2 Cheapernet over coax cable. If you have the wires,
    there's usually a way of getting data to run over them.

    3. Punch a hole. Run LMR-240 coaxial cable through the hole. Install
    a 2-way power splitter at the antenna of your DI-524. On port goes to
    the original antenna. The other port goes to the coax, through the
    hole, and to a 2nd antenna. Half your RF goes through the hole.
    http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/signal_splitters_2400_2way.php

    4. If you have metal HVAC ducting, you can use it as a waveguide.
    Install an antenna inside the ducting and hope that something comes
    out the other end. Pay attention to the polarization of the
    grillwork. I've used this when desperate. It works, but is not
    terribly reliable or guaranteed.

    5. If there's a connecting doorway, and the door is NOT made from
    metal, then you can "illuminate" the door with a directional antenna.
    Much of the RF will go through the wooden or fiberglass door. This is
    really a matter of positioning the access point and antenna. I have
    one such installation where the access point ended up hanging
    upside-down from just above the top of the door frame, with the
    vertical antenna projecting into the doorway. Obviously, the door
    opens in the opposite direction. Works nicely but looks a bit funny.
    Sorry, no photos.

    >Lemme know if my situation isnt that clear...


    Not too horrible. The general form of such questions should be:
    1. What are you trying to accomplish?
    2. What do you have to work with?
    3. What have you done so far and what happened?

    --
    Jeff Liebermann -cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Apr 8, 2006
    #12
  13. Toolman Tim Guest

    In news:,
    Jeff Liebermann spewed forth:
    > hath wroth:
    >
    >> Sorry for messing up the terminology, but here's my situation.

    >
    > My list of different types of wireless bridges:
    >>
    >> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless/Wi-Fi#Wireless_Bridge

    > It's not complete as marketing is always inventing new wireless terms
    > as the technology expands. The thing to remember is that *ALL*
    > 802.11a/g/b wireless is bridging because it operates on ISO Layer 2
    > (MAC layer).
    >
    >> I've got
    >> one DLink wireless router hooked within my office LAN (with IP
    >> address 192.168.1.100). It works fine - laptops are able to connect
    >> to it
    >> wirelessly.

    >
    > I'll assume that this Dlink is a DI-524 you mentioned in the subject
    > line.
    >
    >> I have an additional router which I want to use to
    >> wifi-enable my home (which is about 40 feet away - but the concrete
    >> inbetween doesnt let the signal of the first penetrate).

    >
    > That will work if you turn this router into an "access point" by
    > disabling the DHCP server and ignoring the router sections.
    >
    >> Now, can I have the second router configured in a such a way that
    >> (a) it has no ethernet wires attached to it

    >
    > No.
    >
    >> (b) it serves as a 'repeater' of sorts to allow the laptops
    >> connecting
    >> to it to access the office network

    >
    > No.
    >
    >> If so, how do I configure my 2nd router?

    >
    > The DI-524 does NOT have have repeater mode. It also does not support
    > WDS (wireless distribution service) which is what you would need to
    > use to create a repeater, that users could still use to connect.
    >
    > However, the choice of hardware is not the real problem. It's the
    > concrete wall. It really doesn't matter what wireless contrivance you
    > purchase, it's not going to go throught he concrete wall in a reliable
    > manner. You might bounce around the wall, of perhaps find some holes,
    > but in general, it's no RF is going to go through. Therefore, the
    > problem is not how to build a repeater out of a DI-524 (which can't be
    > done). It's how to send RF through a concrete wall.
    >
    > Basically, your problem is "How do I get wireless to the other side of
    > a concrete wall. Here are some possibilities. I've done most of
    > these at one point or other and know they work. I can't tell which
    > will work best for your situation.
    >
    > 1. Punch a hole. Run CAT5 through the hole and install an access
    > point on the othe side. Use same SSID but different RF channel (1,6,
    > or 11). Do NOT borrow a hole from a electrical outlet as shoving
    > signal wires through an electrical outlet box is both unsafe and a
    > violation of electrical codes.
    >
    > 2. Borrow some telephone wires, CATV coax cable, or AC power line
    > wires to act as a bridge between the sides of the wall. Techniques,
    > distance, and equipment vary depending on technology available. I
    > don't know what you have available, so I won't go into much detail
    > here. Buzzwords and starting links:
    >
    > Power line: HomePlug
    > http://www.homeplug.org
    > http://www.netgear.com/products/details/WGXB102.php
    >
    > Phone line: HomePNA
    > http://www.homepna.org
    >
    > CATV coaxial cable:
    > http://www.multilet.com/us/baseband/product_range/product_range.htm
    >
    > You can run 10baseT-HDX over telco paired wires quite nicely. Same
    > with 10base2 Cheapernet over coax cable. If you have the wires,
    > there's usually a way of getting data to run over them.
    >
    > 3. Punch a hole. Run LMR-240 coaxial cable through the hole. Install
    > a 2-way power splitter at the antenna of your DI-524. On port goes to
    > the original antenna. The other port goes to the coax, through the
    > hole, and to a 2nd antenna. Half your RF goes through the hole.
    > http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/signal_splitters_2400_2way.php
    >
    > 4. If you have metal HVAC ducting, you can use it as a waveguide.
    > Install an antenna inside the ducting and hope that something comes
    > out the other end. Pay attention to the polarization of the
    > grillwork. I've used this when desperate. It works, but is not
    > terribly reliable or guaranteed.
    >
    > 5. If there's a connecting doorway, and the door is NOT made from
    > metal, then you can "illuminate" the door with a directional antenna.
    > Much of the RF will go through the wooden or fiberglass door. This is
    > really a matter of positioning the access point and antenna. I have
    > one such installation where the access point ended up hanging
    > upside-down from just above the top of the door frame, with the
    > vertical antenna projecting into the doorway. Obviously, the door
    > opens in the opposite direction. Works nicely but looks a bit funny.
    > Sorry, no photos.
    >
    >> Lemme know if my situation isnt that clear...

    >
    > Not too horrible. The general form of such questions should be:
    > 1. What are you trying to accomplish?
    > 2. What do you have to work with?
    > 3. What have you done so far and what happened?


    Excellent reply, Jeff. I'd have never thought of the ductwork "RF Tube" :)

    --
    My wife and I divorced over religious differences. She thought she was
    God and I didn't.
     
    Toolman Tim, Apr 8, 2006
    #13
  14. jimbo Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:22:11
    > -0600, jimbo <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>John Navas wrote:
    >>
    >>>In <> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:03:57 -0600,
    >>>jimbo <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>John Navas wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>Turn off DHCP, and plug everything into the LAN side, leaving the WAN side
    >>>>>disconnected. Voila! Bridge mode.
    >>>>
    >>>>You get no cigar. All you have done is create an access point, not a
    >>>>bridge. And OP said he didn't want any "wires" attached to the second
    >>>>router.
    >>>
    >>>That's nonetheless a *host* wireless bridge. If the wireless router has a
    >>>client mode, then you have a *client* wireless bridge. Bridging is
    >>>independent of how the wireless works.
    >>>

    >>
    >>It's NOT a bridge. Your solution requires an ethernet cable between
    >>the two routers. All you have with your solution is a second wireless
    >>Access Point in the existing network.

    >
    >
    > Please stick to what I actually wrote, rather than your own interpretation of
    > it. I wasn't giving a "solution" there -- that was in my earlier reply about
    > powerline networking -- I was pointing out in response to another reply that
    > most low-end routers include a bridge, or switch if you prefer, that can be
    > used with the wireless access point. That's because a wireless router is
    > essentially a combination of:
    >
    > wireless router
    > +-------------------------------------------+
    > | +---------------------+ |
    > | |wireless access point+---< antenna
    > | +----------+----------+ |
    > | | |
    > | +-----------+ +----------+----------+ |
    > WAN >--+router +--+ +---<
    > | |DHCP server| | switch +---< wired
    > | |firewall | | +---< LAN
    > | +-----------+ | +---<
    > | +---------------------+ |
    > +-------------------------------------------+
    >
    > Thus if you disable the DHCP server, and leave the WAN port disconnected, you
    > have a bridge between wired and wireless network segments. That can be a
    > *host* wireless bridge (the most common kind), or if the firmware permits, a
    > *client* wireless bridge. The latter could thus be a solution *without* an
    > Ethernet cable, but only if there were a wireless signal, which apparently
    > isn't the case. Thus some sort of wired solution would seem to be inevitable.
    >

    I guess you are deliberately obfuscating. You have not answered any
    question or proposed any solution to the original question. You
    stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that your "bridge" is worthless for
    the OPs problem. Calling the connection between wired and wireless
    sections of a router a bridge is stretching definitions to the limit
    just to avoid admitting that you don't know what you are talking about.

    jimbo
     
    jimbo, Apr 8, 2006
    #14
  15. If one frequents these newsgroups, one notices there are always several
    deliberate obfuscaters in each group, who have developed the "angels on
    the head of a pin" discussions to a fine art.

    jimbo wrote:

    > I guess you are deliberately obfuscating. You have not answered any
    > question or proposed any solution to the original question. You
    > stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that your "bridge" is worthless for the
    > OPs problem. Calling the connection between wired and wireless sections
    > of a router a bridge is stretching definitions to the limit just to
    > avoid admitting that you don't know what you are talking about.
    >
    > jimbo
     
    Airman Thunderbird, Apr 9, 2006
    #15
  16. Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:22:11
    > -0600, jimbo <> wrote:
    >
    > >John Navas wrote:
    > >>
    > >> In <> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:03:57 -0600,
    > >> jimbo <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>John Navas wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>>Turn off DHCP, and plug everything into the LAN side, leaving the WAN side
    > >>>>disconnected. Voila! Bridge mode.
    > >>>
    > >>>You get no cigar. All you have done is create an access point, not a
    > >>>bridge. And OP said he didn't want any "wires" attached to the second
    > >>>router.
    > >>
    > >> That's nonetheless a *host* wireless bridge. If the wireless router has a
    > >> client mode, then you have a *client* wireless bridge. Bridging is
    > >> independent of how the wireless works.
    > >>

    > >It's NOT a bridge. Your solution requires an ethernet cable between
    > >the two routers. All you have with your solution is a second wireless
    > >Access Point in the existing network.

    >
    > Please stick to what I actually wrote, rather than your own interpretation of
    > it. I wasn't giving a "solution" there -- that was in my earlier reply about
    > powerline networking -- I was pointing out in response to another reply that
    > most low-end routers include a bridge, or switch if you prefer, that can be
    > used with the wireless access point. That's because a wireless router is
    > essentially a combination of:
    >
    > wireless router
    > +-------------------------------------------+
    > | +---------------------+ |
    > | |wireless access point+---< antenna
    > | +----------+----------+ |
    > | | |
    > | +-----------+ +----------+----------+ |
    > WAN >--+router +--+ +---<
    > | |DHCP server| | switch +---< wired
    > | |firewall | | +---< LAN
    > | +-----------+ | +---<
    > | +---------------------+ |
    > +-------------------------------------------+
    >
    > Thus if you disable the DHCP server, and leave the WAN port disconnected, you
    > have a bridge between wired and wireless network segments. That can be a
    > *host* wireless bridge (the most common kind), or if the firmware permits, a
    > *client* wireless bridge. The latter could thus be a solution *without* an
    > Ethernet cable, but only if there were a wireless signal, which apparently
    > isn't the case. Thus some sort of wired solution would seem to be inevitable.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
    > John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>



    what is the diff between a host bridge and a client bridge?

    I never herd of client mode or host mode
     
    , Apr 9, 2006
    #16
  17. John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on 8 Apr 2006
    22:43:14 -0700, "" <> wrote:

    >John Navas wrote [regarding common wireless routers]:


    >> Thus if you disable the DHCP server, and leave the WAN port disconnected, you
    >> have a bridge between wired and wireless network segments. That can be a
    >> *host* wireless bridge (the most common kind), or if the firmware permits, a
    >> *client* wireless bridge. The latter could thus be a solution *without* an
    >> Ethernet cable, but only if there were a wireless signal, which apparently
    >> isn't the case. Thus some sort of wired solution would seem to be inevitable.


    >what is the diff between a host bridge and a client bridge?
    >
    >I never herd of client mode or host mode


    When bridging over wireless, one bridge is in host mode (typically a wireless
    access point) and the other bridge is in client mode (e.g., so-called wireless
    game adapter). The host controls the wireless channel and security. The
    client must be configured for the same security. Note that both the host and
    (more likely) the client may have a limit on how many devices the wireless
    bridge will support.

    One common application for wireless bridging is on a sailboat. A client
    wireless bridge (with antenna) is installed at the top of the mast, with an
    Ethernet cable running down the mast for both networking and power. Multiple
    computers can then be attached to the wired Ethernet network on the boat.
    Case in point: SENAO CB3 Plus Long Range Wireless Client Bridge / Access Point
    <http://www.idockusa.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=4>

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>
     
    John Navas, Apr 12, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Greg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,448
  2. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    11,324
    flowstarr
    Feb 5, 2008
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    473
  4. Jack \(MVP-Networking\).

    Re: No Wireless or LAN Connectivity on Dlink DI-524 Router

    Jack \(MVP-Networking\)., Dec 28, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    923
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\).
    Dec 28, 2006
  5. David Hettel

    Re: No Wireless or LAN Connectivity on Dlink DI-524 Router

    David Hettel, Dec 28, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    705
    David Hettel
    Dec 28, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page