"Gig" base station

I'm trying to set up a new wireless network.

I'd like a wireless base station in each room, each of which is connected to the server room via a gig ethernet backbone.

Does anyone make a base station with 1000 base-T wired connection port?

Adding $75 to the cost of most APs would price them out of the market.

Not much point in it, as wireless is too slow to put a strain even on

100BaseT. There's a point in combining a Gigabit *switch* with a wireless base station, but the cost of Gigabit will have to fall before that becomes appealing to the home and small office users who would be the target market for such a device.

It sounds like you want to create a "backbone" by daisy-chaining Gigabit switches between two or more computers or workgroups that could actually benefit from the Gigabit speed. The networking experts will probably tell you that's poor topology and that you should try to minimize the number of switches connected in series.

In article , Neill Massello wrote: ;There's a point in combining a Gigabit *switch* with a ;wireless base station, but the cost of Gigabit will have to fall before ;that becomes appealing to the home and small office users who would be ;the target market for such a device.

You haven't been looking at the prices lately, I take it.

5 port gigabit switches are down to something like $US75.

Less than $60, but that's still about what consumer-class wireless routers (with built-in 100BaseT switches) go for these days. We'll probably see Gigabit switches displace 100BaseT over the next year, but it still isn't standard equipment on most desktop PCs.

snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) wrote in news:1goxr6y.1kso95e1ya2j5sN% snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net:

On the contrary.

The 108Mbit is between the wireless device and the base station. A base station can support many simultaneous wireless connections all operating at this speed. If all of those devices are not communicating with each other, but are instead copying large files to/from the server room, the bottleneck will NOT be the 108Mbit of the wireless connection, but the 100Mbit of the

100 base-T ethernet.

No, I hope to have a single swich in the server room, several 100 base-T backbones to separate rooms, and a wireless access point in each of those rooms. It's quite coventional, but requires wireless access points that have 1000 base-T.

I am not concerned by 'consumer' pricing - pro equipment would be acceptable.

That 108Mbps (or 54Mbps or 11Mbps) represents the maximum speed of the wireless *connection* between the access point and any or all of its clients collectively. Clients must share that bandwidth: two clients cannot simultaneously communicate with an access point at that maximum rate.

In addition, the 108 (and 54 and 11) is never achieved in actual practice. Cut it in half for something more like a real world figure. Until the next big improvement in wireless comes along, the bottlenecks will be on the wireless side rather than the 100BaseT links.

I think you mean 1000BaseT backbones, as the speed of any link, assuming proper cabling, is limited by the speed of the slower device at either end of it. In any case, the network you describe doesn't have a true "backbone" but uses a "star" topology, with a switch in the center and an access point at the end of every spoke.

I suspect you'll have a hard time finding any single-radio access points with a Gigabit LAN port. But if money's no problem, why not consult a wireless networking professional?

snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) wrote in news:1gozcbi.1s66sikkb8drgN% snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net:

Thanks for that. You have just disavowed me of a piece of misinformation upon which my whole proposal was based.

I didn't say money was "no problem". But some of the responses refuted the viability of a gig access point on the grounds of "consumer" pricing. I just pointed ouut that I could pay pro pricing if necessary.

And while I am happy to pay when I have to, I prefer not to ;-) The information here was free and helpful.

Many thanks.

Euh, no it can't. The stated speed is shared between all clients. If you don't believe me, read the 802.11b or g specs or empirically test this.

Its a waste of time, unless you have some wired units with 1000base-T cards in.

You are aware there's at least an order of magnitude difference between the two?

Mark McIntyre wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I am, and that is not a problem.

Just because I asked a naive question predicated on incorrect information does not *prove* I'm an idiot. It just gives that impression.