Bridging to 'remote' LAN--AND accepting wireless notebooks, all with WPA

I'm not sure what you are saying. But if you are trying to get the wireless router with DLS to the other network. You just need a wireless network cars in one on the other wired network and share the connection threw the computer to the wired network,"ICS".

Then you are understanding what I'm saying fairly well. However, "ICS" is not an option, because not all PCs will be on at all times, and my requirement is 1) an "always-on", reliable hardware solution, not a software solution [and DEFINITELY not one based on Windows!], 2) a solution that is transparent to all PCs, and 3) only one layer of NAT.

I do not nor cannot have two layers of NAT. The first NAT layer is at the router connected to the DSL modem, right? The second, by your recomendation, would be at the PC in "ICS" mode acting as a NAT router.

Maybe this "diagram" below might help. These devices do not have to be independent. For example, right now, the [2.router] and [3.WAP...] are one and the same device, but are of course logically two different things. I can and will buy all new gear if necessary to make this work. Seems simple enough, I can't imagine there is no solution out there--that can also do WPA. Below is a logical diagram. Each LOGICAL (not necessarily physical) device is noted inside brackets and with a preceeding number for the sake of identification in discussion. (e.g. "[ID.device]".) The "=" signs represents hardwired ethernet cables.

[1.DSL modem]===[2.router]===[3.*WAP/bridge/some magical device* superG or MIMO]

(magic happens through the air at and/or between points 3 and 4)

[4.*bridge/some magical device* superG or MIMO]===[5.standard ethernet switch]===[6.pc1], [7.pc2], [8.pc3] (individual wires to each PC from switch not shown) [9.notebook1 w/ 802.11b] [10.notebook2 w/ 802.11b]

So you see what I've got? The DSL modem and router and WAP are an isolated cluster. The LAN is another isolated cluster. I need a hardware-based solution that is transparent to the PCs that bridges the two--AND allows the two isolated notebooks to connect inside the firewall wirelessly. This is the main architectural challenge I'm trying to solve and really need help on. WHAT are the devices at points 3 and 4 that will allow this to happen? OR is there some other topology (or is that topography?) that could accomplish the same thing?

I realize this might be a little easier if the ethernet switch for the LAN was also a NAT router--but for interet-to-PC routing purposes, this is prohibitively complex.

(And to potentially complicate matters more, is the fact that I need higher-speed "super-G" or MIMO for the "bridge", and for the WAP to also work simultaneously with 802.11*b* clients. And for everything to use WPA throughout.)

Thanks! Bob

Consider 2 wap's in bridge mode, one to be plugged into the DSL Modem, and the second's output will then look like the dsl output, but bridged to the office area (something like 20-30 ft away), and then one single wap/router in your computer room, wan input from the bridge output (actually the DSL modem with the equivalent of a cable, but wireless since you are bridging wirelessly), replacing the router in your office with a wap/router, but the WAP part allows the laptops to access the wired network, while the router part links your wired to the wireless and creates a two segment network (one wired and one wireless).

Forget the super-g/super high speed wireless 108 rather than 54... Your DSL modem will only run way SLOWER than even 802.11b! The 54 of regular G will be way way more speed than the dsl can provide (maybe 3 or 4 max). Hint.. 54 is a bigger number than 4.

hubcap snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

There are two issues here which are related:

1. How to bridge to a remote Ethernet segment
2. What encryption will work

To create a wireless bridge from an access point to an Ethernet segment requires a transparent bridge which will support multiple MAC addresses. Most devices which can do this are implementations of Wireless Distribution System (WDS), which is described in IEEE

802.11, but not in unambiguous detail. For this reason, WDS implementations can and do differ, not only between manufacturers, but also between devices from the same manufacturer! [Aside: There is however an IEEE task group which will sort this out in due course. IIRC it's 802.11s]

WDS implementations are found in so-called 'gaming bridges' and in multi-mode access points, where WDS is used in Repeater mode and in Wireless Client (AP Client) mode.

To do what I understand you to want, you need either a 'gaming bridge' or a multi-mode access point configured in Wireless Client mode.

While it's entirely possible that a D-Link device will act as a wireless client to your Netgear wireless router, for the reasons above I suggest you stick to Netgear kit.

In a WDS implementation, the MAC frames have four address fields. These are used for:

- Destination Address (DA) - final destination

- Source Address (SA) - original sender

- Receiver Address (RA) - intermediate receiver

- Transmitter Address (TA) - intermediate transmitter

This allows for multiple 'hops' between devices. However, these multiple MAC address fields can cause serious confusion when WPA-PSK is used, since (part of) the key is derived from the MAC address. For this reason, WPA-PSK using TKIP does not (generally) work across WDS links, and you will be limited to WEP.

I said 'generally': I am aware of two WDS implementations which do claim to work with WPA-PSK. These are the Apple Airport Express, and the Linksys WRT54G running third party Sveasoft firmware.

Is anybody doing this? Well, I am - using D-Link DWL-900AP+ devices. I can confirm that WPA-PSK does not work, and that WEP does. If you want to try a higher speed D-Link device, then the DWL-2100AP will also do the job, but I can't guarantee it will work with your Netgear

- you'll have to test it...

An overview of some WDS issues can be found in this article:

Hope this helps

AFAIK, the only products currently capable of doing WDS with WPA are Apple's AirPort base stations (Extreme and Express). They can also handle clients while doing WDS, although this obviously imposes a performance penalty.

If you anticipate heavy network use by several of your five computers at the same time, I suggest you rethink the option of installing an Ethernet cable (or a phone jack near the wired computers) now, before you spend money experimenting with wireless hardware. Wireless is a great convenience, but it often disappoints those who expect it to be a complete substitute for wire.

hi, here's what I'd do: get a coupla access points capable of running in "bridge" mode; Most D-Link APs, Engenius/Senao APs are capable of this. Connect one AP/Bridge to the LAN port of your Netgear wireless router. Connect the other AP/Bridge to one of the ports on your switch (that has the 5 PCs) configure the bridges to talk to each other(enter one's mac address into the other). make sure the 5 PCs are in the same network segment as the LAN side of the Netegear (same IP address range). Enable WEP between the two bridges. I havent seen a bridge do WPA (cos they arent supposed to) with the other. Dont bother with WDS because it involves a massive degradation in throughput.

computers at

before

According to the manual the Zyxel G-402 bridge will do wpa-psk. It will handle multiple macs. About 110.00 each though you might find them cheaper.

applies

paranoid.

Meant G-405

>

"wireless

SMC claims to have the first bridge to support wpa SMC2870W about

75.00

Thanks that seems like a reasonable solution. Sounds like alot of airwave traffic though, but hey, if it works why not.

I'm not real clear on what WDS is. Is there any short explanation of why this would ever be needed and why it degrades performance (I'm otherwise pretty tech savvy so I should 'get' the short story).

Bob

outbackwifi wrote: hi, here's what I'd do: get a coupla access points capable of running in "bridge" mode; Most D-Link APs, Engenius/Senao APs are capable of this. Connect one AP/Bridge to the LAN port of your Netgear wireless router. Connect the other AP/Bridge to one of the ports on your switch (that has the 5 PCs) configure the bridges to talk to each other(enter one's mac address into the other). make sure the 5 PCs are in the same network segment as the LAN side of the Netegear (same IP address range). Enable WEP between the two bridges. I havent seen a bridge do WPA (cos they arent supposed to) with the other. Dont bother with WDS because it involves a massive degradation in throughput.

Never mind on the WDS question--I failed to follow Richard Perkins WDS link. (Thanks for that.)

Why would the super-G stuff be slower than B? I know the actual data rate wouldn't really be "108 mbps". But isn't it still 2 bonded G channels? Why would that be slower than one B channel? Are you thinking that the compression adds extra overhead? Very curious--myself I don't know which is correct.

Also, anyone know if D-Link's "MIMO" G products work in their previous product's "Super-G" mode with compression and frame burst and all that stuff? Their specs don't say, other than to suggest it's 108mbps..

Peter Pan wrote: .... Forget the super-g/super high speed wireless 108 rather than 54... Your DSL modem will only run way SLOWER than even 802.11b! The 54 of regular G will be way way more speed than the dsl can provide (maybe 3 or 4 max). Hint.. 54 is a bigger number than 4.

I meant to say "anyone know if D-Link's "MIMO" G products work *WITH* their previous products in 'Super-G' mode with compression and frame burst and all that stuff?"

You didn't read it very carefully... I said DSL/CABLE is WAY slower than any B/G/SuperG. Why bother with superg at 108 when you are limited to 3 or 4 on the dsl/cable? For that matter G at 54 is way more/faster than 3-4. Even B at 11 is a bigger number than 3-4. You will be limited by the slowest connection/smallest number, so what possible good is having a 108 connection to a 3-4 dsl/cable connection? it will NEVER be more than the slower connection/smallest number. I don't understand why anyone would think that hmmmm I'll get a 108 connection on my dsl/cable if I buy this certain manufacturers product. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY POSITIIVELY FALSE! You can NEVER EVER EVER speed up a cable/dsl connection just because you get something with a bigger number!

absolutely not. Won't work with other manufacturers stuff either.

hubcap snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

I'll answer anyway I think...

1. Wireless networking (including what WDS and other distribution systems are) is explained quite well in IEEE 802.11. Although standards documents are generallypretty heavy going, IEEE 802.11 is well worth skimming through if only for the diagrams in Section 5.2. Get a copy from here:
   formatting link
2. WDS itself doesn't degrade performance: trying to do two things at once when using a single radio does. And consumer class devices have only a single radio. That means that a single-radio repeater must first listen, then re-transmit. It can't do both at once, so the bandwidth is reduced by half.

Note that it's entirely possible - indeed simple - to have a repeater with two radios: simply connect a wireless client back-to-back to an access point.

Hope this helps

Peter Pan, why do you assume I "didn't read carefully"? In fact it is yourself making the some pretty rotten assumptions.

First of all, you don't know what kind of DSL I have--you have clearly just ASSUMED I have regular "consumer"-grade DSL.

Secondly, you have completely disregarded internal network transfers--a big mistake considering I already stated I have three other PCs and two notebooks. I have extremely large media files that I regularly transfer back and forth. I can put up with slow wireless transfers for the few times that I transfer such files that way, but will make whatever investment is required within reason to get the fastest transfer speeds possible over the air.

A few % better or worse won't matter much, but two bonded G channels, to me, sounds like it would be a heck of alot faster than one B channel. Call me crazy (as you essentially already have on false assumptions).

I might also point out that YOU haven't read MY posts very well--to throw your rediculous "accusation" back at you. I already said I know that super-G isn't really "108mbps". But from what I've read on Tom's Networking, they usually get about 40mbps actual data throughput on that stuff. Call me crazy, but that sounds alot better than *3* mbps, which is the best data throughput I have ever personally acheived in reality on single B channel products.

Thanks...Bob

Peter Pan wrote:

connection? it

product. THAT