Is there such a device? A friend is moving into a place for a couple months and doesn't want to run wires all over the place. They are using a wireless router for their WAN/LAN, but the router and DSL model are in a room without a PC. They would like to have the printer in a different area of their house where there are no computers other than her wireless laptop and no lan drops.
Basically they would like a wireless print server that can connect to the network and share the printer, but it must be standalone with no ethernet cables required, only wireless.
Did you do a websearch for "wireless print server"?
(by the way, beware - not all printers work with print servers, if its any sort of MFD or printer with fancy drivers (eg ink level monitors) fuggedaboutit) Mark McIntyre
You're not really looking for a "wireless print server". What you really want is a "wireless printer client", where the device acts as a wireless client, and connects to your existing wireless access point or router. It then uses Windoze sharing to allow users to print. Unfortunately, the industry likes to call everything a print server, no matter how it's connected.
For example: |
formatting link
can checkout the setup at: |
formatting link
that the wireless setup is really that of a client, not a server.
There are lots of other such devices around. I just used WPS54G as an example. Almost all of them act as printer clients.
Also, you don't really need a wireless router to make one of these print servers work. It can be used in Ad-Hoc mode, where the wireless laptop connects directly to the print server. This is not the common arrangement, but is possible for simple wireless networks. Since more than one wireless client can connect to the print server, in ad-hoc mode, it really is a server.
Also, if you have a multifunction printer, with scanner, fax, printer, modem, whatever in one box, you will need to verify that the drivers and software for these devices can be shared over a network. The printer will usually work, but the other functions may be a problem.
I clicked on the two links but one was just a picture and didn't quite understand what the second one meant.
From what I understand they could use a 2nd wireless router, that the printer could connect to and share it over their network? They want to have the printer in a separate room from everything else, and don't want cables running in our out of the room.
I apologise for not following you fully here, this is a new area to me.
Eh? He wants a decide he can plug into a printer, connect to the existing wireless network ,and share the printer. Thats a wireless printserver surely?
Ah, I see, you're using personal naming conventions...
Well, its serving print services to clients elsewhere on the network. Its a server as far as I'm concerned.
If you take your naming route, then *every* device is a client, even the router, since its a client of the modem, or of some DHCP server, which is in turn a client of some other device etc etc etc...
And even printers may not work - my lexmark 5150 certainly didn't. Mark McIntyre
Jeff Liebermann wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
I don't follow your point re nomenclature.
IMO and IME these devices *are* print servers. Client PCs logically connect to the print server which delivers a service of managing the printing of data streams to one or more printers. The wireless variety happen to be linked to the rest of the LAN via wireless.
Well, I'll admit that it's hair splitting. If the print box logs into the wireless router, then it's a "wireless print client". If the clients log into the print box, it's a "wireless print server". I probably shouldn't have mentioned it and just called everything a server.
Guilty as charged. I'm into creativity this week.
Ok, I give up. It's a print server. Print client sounds funny anyway.
Yup. If all it did was connect, then that would be true. Where we get into trouble is where the device has two functions. Strictly speaking, it's a "wireless bridge client" in the same box as a "Windoze print sharing server". At least it's not an acronym.
Because the wireless part is a client while the printer sharing part is a server. It's the result of having users buy one of these things, and try to connect directly to it via wireless. When I inform them that they can't do that in infrastructure mode, they usually retort with "but it says it's a server". I had the not-so-great idea of calling it a print client, but apparently created more confusion than clarification.
Jeff Liebermann wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Jeff, I think you're misunderstanding WiFi's role in the layered networking stack. WiFi is the equivalent to Ethernet wired connection, Layers 1 and 2. In an infrastructure-mode WLAN, all wireless end points are 'clients' to an access point.
At the higher protocol layers of the network stack wireless nodes are all simply IP nodes on the network, indistinguishable from wired nodes. IP nodes can *logically* speak directly with other IP nodes irrespective of the underlying Layer 2 configuration. [ignoring IP subnet addressing issues].
Points:
1) Would you consider a file server must be a file client just because of the underlying link layer connection architecture?
2) When I put the IP address into the address field of a web browser, I am connected to the set-up screen for the particular print server.
3) To configure a printer connection, I install a printer port redirector supplied by the server mfr, which [when configured] enables a printer driver on my PC to output to the print server just as if the printer was connected locally. [ink & paper levels excluded in some cases]
BTW: I'm using Belkin USB wireless print servers. Edimax print servers work the same way, except the only do it intermittently - work that is :-)
Correct. More specifically, 802.11 encapsulates 802.3 ethernet packets. The higher layers only see 802.3 ethernet and never see anything from 802.11. It's therefore a rather awkward fit for the OSI
7 layer cake. 802.11 is usually shown to the side of physical and data link layers or sometimes as a small box inside the physical and data link layers.
That also brings up the question of what's a client and what's a server. Kinda reminds me of the X11 server versus client and male and female coax connectors. I won't pretent to totally understand the logic. Similarly, I'm not sure of the exact distinction between a client and a server. Some devices have the characteristics of both. A client initiates a single connection. A server accepts one or more connections. In this case, the print sharing section is most certainly a server. However, the wi-fi part can be a client when used in infrastructure mode. In ad-hoc mode, the convention is to consider all devices to be clients, but my contention is that it's both a client and a server in one box. Maybe the correct term should be: "wireless client print server" Yech.
formatting link
Correct. That's where the encapsulation comes in. If buried in a black box with only ethernet coming out of the box, wireless would look exactly like an ethernet bridge or switch.
Also agreed. I don't see where this is leading.
No. If it initiates a connection, it's a client. If it accepts one or more connections or provides services, it's a server.
Agreed. However, note that when you configure the wireless part of the (alleged) print server, you're actually configuring a wireless client adapter or client bridge, and not a server.
Also agreed. I believe the discussion was on whether this device is a client or a server. I don't see the relevance to this question.
Quiz question: I take an ethernet print server (such as an HP300x or equivalent), and I attach some wireless device to the ethernet port which will allow me to connect it to a wireless LAN. What is the name of this wireless device?
Jeff Liebermann wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Jeff, I was trying to illustrate why IMO the *primary function* of a device should determine whether it is a client or server. In this case, a client PC uses the service provided by a print server. The print server behaves as a client to the wireless network in order to make itself available as a server at the IP level.
The intricacies of the intermediate network connection mechanism is incidental to the user and doesn't need to figure in detail in the description of the device. A "wireless print server" is just fine for me.
At the lowest level it is wireless client. At the next layer up it is an Ethernet bridge, and that is what I would call it.
Incidentally, I believe these devices can operate back-to-back, presumably as ad hoc wireless clients.
I still chuckle at that one - whoever thought it up needed therapy.
Hmmm... good point. If that's the criteria, it's a print server. However, I wonder what one of the wireless routers with built in print servers should be called. The most important function is the router, so is this a "print router" or perhaps a "route printer"? Some companies actually agonize of such naming conventions. For example, the "store and foreward repeater" is often called a "range extender" to comply with your criteria of naming things by function, rather than mine, by how it works.
Well, if we're going to hide how it works and only concentrate on the function, wouldn't "printer cable eliminator" or "wireless print sharing device" be more appropriate?
Trick question. If it's all in one package, it's a "print server". But if it's in two seperate boxes, it's a wireless bridge print sharing device or some such awkward mess.
Yes. That's one mode of operation. The wireless bridge client radio could also login to the central access point in infrastructure mode.
It's the same problem as we're discussing. One group defines client and server based on intended purpose. Another group on how it works or communicates. For X11, the latter group won.
Anyway, I'll conceed the point and promise to call it a print server until marketing invents another metaphor or buzzword.
Then a print server is a server, since it provides print services. I think that as Frazer said, you're muddling the level at which "server" is applied to the hardware.
Sure, and when you configure the wireless part of the (alleged) http server or mailserver, you're actually configuring a wireless client adapter, not a server. Whats your point? is the http server actually an http client?
I still find it hard to see how you could consider it otherwise - would you call a wired ethernet printserver a client ? It is, in exactly the same way that a wireless one is, a client of the router.
How about a router with builtin wireless printserver?
And some agonize over their logo. Such is life.
Yes please, and please also try not to confuse newbies by calling something otherwise than its common name... :-)
Mark McIntyre wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
And the rest...
I periodically meet up with former colleagues who still inhabit the world of corporate networking. They struggle with my ramblings about appliance devices that provide multiple functions in one box for domestic, SoHo and SME users. What I loosely refer to as a 'router', they think of as a classic Cisco device; whereas the devices I'm talking about may include multiple functionality such as:
- TCP/IP router
- Network address translator
- Stateful firewall
- DHCP server
- Wireless access point
- 4-port Ethernet switch
- VPN endpoint server
- Print server
- File server
... and is the size of a VHS tape cassette, with not a Windows or UNIX server or a rack of kit in sight :-)
Its fun isn't it? I have to toggle my brain between "work" and "home" modes. In the former, routers are rackmounted specialist kit from Cisco, running a "proper" OS preconfigured to be useful and dedicated to pretty much one thing. In the latter, routers are throwaway consumer devices running a toy OS preconfigured to be insecure and packed with extras that most people have no clue how to use. Mark McIntyre
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.