On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:20:12 GMT John Navas wrote: | On 21 Jul 2006 21:31:29 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in | :
| A key principle of networking is to carefully plan the network first, | then implement it. Rushing ahead is a bad idea.
That's what I did. But it was based on the _assumption_ that wireless would not have limitations intentionally built in that it does have. Ironically, now that I know such limitations do exist, I was expecting to find lots of resources that I didn't look for before that would tell me this. I've looked around and found a lot of resourses, none of which tell me what I needed to know to do a correct plan.
|>| Why would you do that? With the HP 6980 connected to WGT624(1), it's |>| accessible by all clients in that subnet. Assign a static IP address to |>| the HP 6980, either by fixed DHCP or manually, and you should be able to |>| reach it reliably from any client on that subnet. The HP 6980 shouldn't |>| need a gateway address unless it's going to make connections over the |>| public Internet. |>
|>It has a static IP. Everything is in 169.254.0.0/16. | | You should be using one of the RFC 1918 Private IP address blocks, | typically 192.168/16
I typically use private addresses (RFC1918) for routed subnets. I use link local addresses (RFC3330) in auto configuration on most of the computers on my LAN, and manually configure such addresses as a back door for the rest. I used them on the wireless devices because it was a way to be sure I could see what all is reachable from all machines. I used to use 10.0.0.0/8 for link local, but that turned out to be a bit of a waste, and a couple times even caused problems. So I went to genuine link local addresses for the purpose.
If I need to split things up into subnets, I'll be using RFC1918.
|>But I cannot reach |>the printer from the computer. I can reach the WGT624, and see that in |>its list of attached devices there is the MAC address of the HP 6980, but |>without an IP address (which I presume is because it has never seen any |>IP type traffic with it). | | DHCP or manual configuration? | Of the computer? What IP address? What netmask? | Of the HP 6980? What IP address? What netmask?
If it really matters to know, given I'm going to change over to using RFC1918 if any routing/subnetting needs to be done, I have these addresses set up currently:
All addresses are manually configured as static. All netmasks are
255.255.0.0 since the subnet is 169.254.0.0/16.
subnet 169.254.0.0/16 10.0.0.0/8 172.16.0.0/16 WGT624(1) = 169.254.175.166 WGT624(2) = 169.254.219.166 Old bridge = 169.254.190.188 Printer = 169.254.29.222 Linux(1) = 169.254.38.5 10.142.38.5 172.16.38.5 Linux(2) = 169.254.38.8 10.142.38.8 172.16.38.8 Linux(3) = 169.254.122.204 10.65.122.204 172.16.122.204
The Linux machines also have public IP addresses. The other machines are not running right now.
|>That did work when the bridge was peered with WGT624(1). However, it |>sometimes peers with WGT624(2) instead, which break things (and gives me |>nice broadcast storms). I presume using different SSIDs will fix that |>but I have not tried it, yet. | | Gack! Each WLAN should have a really unique SSID, at least for | starters. The only time you want the same SSID is when you want | wireless clients to roam between them, which is probably not what you | want even later.
Except for my sister-in-law's laptop, no roaming is needed.
My original thinking of this was at the very least everything in my house would all be on one WLAN.
|>| When the HP 6980 is connected to WGT624(1), it won't be connected to |>| WGT624(2), and so won't be accessible to that subnet. You would have to |>| bridge the subnets; e.g., by VPN over the public Internet, or with a |>| wireless bridge (other than what you have now). |>
|>So this is just a too cheap bridge. | | It's not a bridge between the *two* WLANs -- it's just a bridge for | *one* WLAN! If you want to bridge the two WLANs, then you'll probably | need more gear.
If I can make everything in my house be on one WLAN, then I should be able to use just one bridge. Right? Of course in that mix will be the WGT624 or something like it that can talk PPPoE for the DSL.
This little old bridge I do have will not talk _directly_ to the printer. I would need to have something running that WILL talk to the printer. The WGT624 does.
| Are you trying to create a big network covering both houses, where | everything can talk to everything? If so, you're options include:
I was going to try that. Having it cover just my house alone would be an accomplishment, it seems.
| 1. One WLAN covering both house. Wireless probably won't work, and a | bitch to use both broadbands.
I already have the cross-usage of broadbands figured out. My file server in my house has a running Squid proxy. That's a start to get HTTP access. If my proxy can reach my DSL, then any machine that can reach my proxy can at least do HTTP via my DSL. The file server going into my brother's house can have the same thing.
I don't need to use both broadbands by direct reach to the respective routers.
| 2. Master WLAN at one house, with: | | (a) WDS at the other house. Kludge. A bitch to use both broadbands. | | (b) Wireless client bridge and access point at the other house. | Better. A bitch to use both broadbands. | | 3. Each house with its own WLAN, bridged with a point-to-point wireless | bridge. Best bet, but takes two more wireless boxes.
I'm at best guessing what the full details will be for the above plans. For example, I don't know what device I should use to connect my wired LAN. If a WDS can be wired to my LAN switch AND talk to the WGT624 to get DSL to the LAN, and not break the ability of the WGT624 to talk to the printer (or talk to the printer directly itself is OK), then at least I have the WLAN in my house working. Next step is my brother's WLAN. If the WDS, while talking to WGT624(1) can also talk to WGT624(2), that would be great. If not, how about a 2nd WDS talking to the 1st WDS over the long distance from house to house.
|>Apparently not. But what I want to do is figure out WHAT gear I should |>use, and do so by figuring it out from clearly written documentation, |>which I have not yet found. Such documentation would obviously have to |>state exactly what devices (or classes of devices) can, and cannot, talk |>to each other (including of its own kind), and for classes of devices, |>also tell how to determine which commercial devices are of each class, |>despite misleading sales/marketing jargon and puffing. | | That would be a big book on advanced networking, wired and wireless.
Maybe its what I would have needed before I made this plan.
| Your best bet for range is MIMO, but that would take MIMO on *all* | devices, which isn't going to happen (HP printer), and might not be | enough in any event. Better to bridge two WLANs with a point-to-point | wireless bridge.
So would that be 1 WDS to link the houses together, or 2 WDS boxes?
|>And it would be a big plus if one of those would ALSO talk wirelessly |>with the WGT624 so I can have ONE wireless device on the wired LAN in |>this house and have it talk wirelessly to both the WGT624 to reach the |>DSL, and whatever is at the other house to reach it's LAN. | | Could we please just stay in the world of the possible?
So you're saying I have to have 2 wireless devices on the LAN?
|>And reaching the printer is important, too. If that has to be through |>a double hop from the wireless device on the LAN to the WGT624 on the |>DSL and back out over air to the printer, that's fine, as the printer |>bandwidth isn't an issue. | | See above.
The printer will talk to the WGT624 and I can see the printer from Linux provided there is only one WGT624 running. I've figured out from the help given here that it is just peering with ONE randomly (whichever is first or strongest) picked AP, and sticking with it.
|>| Please be more clear and precise on what you're trying to do, including |>| the entire network topology. Something like |>| . |>
|>I can't say what the network topology is, because I don't know which one |>would work in wireless. I've been trying a few I know would work wired. |>
|>The picture you show is one possible way, although incomplete. | | Then please finish it.
I don't have that drawing tool right now. It needs a dotted path between the two houses. The specific points where the dots end in terms of actual topology, I can't say.
|>-- my house -- |>
|>1. My "computer farm" running on a wired switch. Using wireless PC cards |> here is not an option. 3 ports are available on the switch. |>
|>2. My future DSL connection. It shall not connect to anything by wire. |>
|>3. Wireless printer. It cannot be connected to the computer farm by wire. |> But a wireless print server might be an option for it (though that |> would sure seem silly, and a bit inconvenient). |>
|>4. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected |> to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she comes |> over and brings it here. |>
|>-- brother's house -- |>
|>5. My brother's Cable modem. |>
|>6. My brother's Windows computer (currently connected directly to the |> cable modem running the cable provided software). |>
|>7. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected |> to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she has |> it at her home. |>
|>8. File server I will place in my brother's house in the future. It may |> be possible to use a wireless PC card on this. It will be Linux |>
|>9. My nephew's computer, not networked at all, yet. Probably will be dual |> boot Windows + Linux. |>
|>I need the following reachability, whether by layer 2 or layer 3: | | Forget the layer stuff. | |> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |>1 . Y Y Y - Y - Y N Y = a must |>2 Y . N Y N N N N N! + = a plus |>3 Y N . + N N N N N - = might be useful |>4 Y Y + . N N N N N N = no need for it |>5 - N N N . Y Y + N! N! = I really want to block |>6 Y N N N Y . + + ? |>7 - N N N Y + . + ? |>8 Y N N N + + + . ? |>9 N N N N N ? ? ? . | | Here you go -- add a wireless client bridge (WCB), and everything | connects to everything:
That's looks viable. Would a WCB be usable in place of the WGPS606 even with a WCB at my brother's how?
| * Put your WLAN with a unique SSID (Phil's WLAN) on one channel. | * Put your brother's WLAN with a different SSID (Brother LAN) on a | different channel. | * Use channels with minimal overlap (1, 6, 11). | * Configure DHCP in the two wireless routers (WGT624) for different | subnets in the same private netblock; e.g., | - Your network: 192.168.1/16 Gateway (WGT624): 192.168.1.1 | - Brother's network: 192.168.2/16 Gateway (WGT624): 192.168.2.1 | * Turn off DHCP and configure everything manually.
I prefer manual. But either way will work. My bootable CDROMs of Linux do use DHCP to get an IP address, so I do have a DHCP server running on one of the Linux machines. Things can be turned on or off or reconfigured as needed in this regard.
| * Put the network printer at a fixed address on your network so | computers on both networks can find it (e.g., 192.168.1.50). | That way: | (a) The wireless client bridge will properly bridge traffic back and | forth between the two networks. | (b) Both networks will use their own broadband gateways.
| The hassle is having to configure everything manually to ensure that | both WLANs use their own broadband connections, especially when a | visitor with wireless laptop drops in. (If you use WGT624 DHCP, it | would be unpredictable with bridged networks which WGT624 a given client | would connect to.)
I consider manual configuration not a hassle. And I can run DHCP on a Linux box just as easily.
Your diagram shows the WCB at my brother's house, wireless to the WGT624 in my house, and wired to the WGT624 in his house. Would it be possible to reverse that where it would be wired to the WGT624 in my house and reach the WGT624 at his house by wireless under his SSID? I'm asking that to both understand what this is doing ... AND to be sure the WGPS606 would not interfere with it.
Can a WCB be used in lieu of the WGPS606?
What vendor device models are WCBs to choose from?