Difference between Linkys WAP54G and WET54G

I'm trying to hookup my son's XBox to the home network. While I'm at it, I also want to connect the DirecTV DVR player (HR-20) to the network as well. There is no hardwire connection between the TV/XBox and the wireless router (WRT54G) upstairs so a wireless solution is sought. For the XBox I could use a gaming adapter (WGA5G) but I've used one before and found them unreliable and I no longer have one anyway or I'd try. Other possible solutions are the WAP54G and the WET54G. I've read the WAP54G (less expensive than the WET) can be used if set in client mode (which I'm assuming must put it in bridge mode). The WET54G is a bridge and is advertised as being XBox compliant so I know it must work as well.

1) What are the differences between the two devices (WAG54G and WET54G)? Will either one allow me to connect an ethernet device (the XBox and the DVR) wirelessly to a remote WRT54G? 2) Both the devices apparently only come with one port. I want to hook up two devices. Can I just use a switch to hook up the XBox and the DVR to the W**54G?

Thanks.

Reply to
jch
Loading thread data ...

You can get the Buffalo wireless client adapter, which also acts as a "gaming adapter", but it has 4 LAN ports. Much cheaper than other ones too, only $54 at Amazon ($70 list).

formatting link

Reply to
Bucky

formatting link

I'm sorry, but I don't give a rat's behind about ads for other equipment at the moment. I'm specifically asking two questions:

1) Will both the Linksys WAP54G and the WET54G both act as a bridge to connect ethernet devices to a wireless network administered by a WRT54G? and, 2) Utilizing a switch, can I connect two ethernet devices to either of these devices and by doing so have them both networked?

Anyone? Thanks.

Reply to
jch

formatting link
>

Not sure why you would want a bridge only, you can pick up a second WRT54G at walmart for about $48.....

Reply to
Peter Pan

"jch" hath wroth:

See below.

Yes, but only if the WAP54G or WET54G support passing more than one MAC address. See below.

That's one of the most common un-answered questions. Most wireless ethernet bridges and game adapters will pass more than one MAC address. Therefore, you can pile on the computers behind the wireless bridge as needed, usually through an added ethernet switch. See the list at:

The one's labelled "multi" will pass multiple MAC addresses.

The problem is that the list is not 100.0% reliable. For example, someone recently found out the hard way that two recent firmware versions for the DWL-2100AP will not pass multiple MAC addresses in client mode. I've had the same problem with combinations of the WAP54G and assorted wireless routers. The manufacturers are of zero help because it's not really a "supported" configuration, which really means that the vendors can sell more client bridges if they don't admit that you don't need one wireless bridge per computah. For the few that will admit that you can bridge more than one MAC address, they won't tell how many MAC's can be bridged. Usually, it's something dismal like 16 or 32 MAC addresses.

Anyway, I've had problems with the WAP54G hanging in point to point bridge applications and would not recommend using it. I haven't tried the WET54G. Since you don't give a "rat's behind" about alternative hardware suggestions, I won't offer any.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Me and the now attentive rat thank you :) I read a past post (possibly from you) on a different subject and saw a table of the max simultaneous connections a list of routers could handle

formatting link
My little WRT54G is working just fine now but I plan to quickly bring on two more computers and of course the 2 devices listed in this post (Xbox and DVR). Since this router maxs out at 8 connections (per the referenced table), I'm thinking I want a new router and am considering the Zyxel X-550 also from that router list. I could go with the WRT54GL but as happy as I've been with Linksys, I wouldn't mind trying something new. In that case, I would use the existing WRT54G ver.5 as an AP and provide connectivity to the XBox and DVR. From your response above, it would appear to be a crap shoot as to if the WAP54G would support multi-MACs.

Thanks again.

Reply to
jch

"jch" hath wroth:

No, no. Totally different issue. The chart reflects the number of clients or connections (or simulated connections) that can connect to a wireless router before something inside the router firmware overflows or blows up. Chances that you would hit one of these limits is fairly small unless you were planning a commercial hot spot or building a public system.

The limit to the number of MAC addresses that can be passed through a single wireless ethernet bridge is quite different. That's limited by implimentation of the 802.11 protocol and has nothing to do with the router running out of table space or horsepower. In the beginning daze of wireless, it was assumed that each wireless client bridge would pass exactly one MAC address and no more. If you wanted more, you setup a transparent bridge, which is usually just point to point, not point to multipoint. Somewhere along the line, someone clever figured out how to connect a transparent bridge to a wireless access point, thus allowing multiple MAC addresses to connect. This was not exactly in the 802.11 standard, but became a highly desireable feature in only some sectors. So, implementation was spotty and little testing was done.

You didn't specify which WRT54G hardware mutation you're using. The v5 and v6 mutations certainly had problems with horsepower and would barely handle 8 connections. The V1 thru V4 versions have no problems with more. I don't have Ixia Chariot, so I can't duplicate the tests in SmallNetBuilder, but I've setup coffee shops where there are far more than 8 simultaneous users and never had a problem. The difference is probably that I use DD-WRT firmware instead of the stock Linksys firmware.

I'm not sure what I would suggest. I'm having decent luck with various Buffalo products including their client bridge. The WRT54G v5 is not my favorite product. When I find them, they get returned or exchanged for something better as I can't do much with them. Try it with whatever wireless bridge you select, but be prepared to change if there are problems.

No. I said that the WAP54G was hanging erratically at 3 different sites. All are used as point to point transparent bridges so it's not exactly an exact prediction of what you'll experience. However, that's not the problem. The problem is that *ALL* the wireless ethernet bridges listed on the shopping list may be suspect because nobody has bothered to test for passing multiple MAC addresses on every conceivable combination of client bridge and wireless access point available. At one point, I posted a list of wireless clients that worked for me. Almost immediately, I started getting email which seemed to indicate that various hardware mutations, and various firmware versions, didn't work with various routers, each with their own assortment of hardware and firmware combinations.

The best I can suggest is to buy it from some place where you can return it or possibly borrow one from someone for testing. Chances are good that anything on the list will work, but there's no guarantee.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

My post wasn't a spam/ad, although I guess in hindsight it does look like one. The main issue is that the bridges with only 1 port usually only support device (at least officially). That's I recommended the Buffalo, because it has 4 LAN ports.

Reply to
Bucky

I understand the multiple MAC addresses issue if hooking up a hub/ switch to a wireless client adapter. But about hooking up a router with NAT to the wireless client adapter? Is the multiple MAC address issue still relevant for that? My thinking is that the wireless client adapter only sees one device, the router w/ NAT.

Reply to
Bucky

Bucky hath wroth:

That always works. There's only one MAC addresses that needs to be sent over the wireless bridge and the added router NAT takes care of the multiple clients. The downside is that you end up with what's called "double NAT", which causes problems for any service that needs to go from the internet, throught two routers, and to the client. Double NAT is not a major problem as most services will work. At worst, one gets to setup port forwarding in BOTH routers for each service.

No.

Correct.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.