Wireless repeater

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:40 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

Nope. The only keeping track of stations is MAC bridging, and "buffering packets to help stations save power" isn't part of the access point definition. If you disagree, post an authoritative citation to back up your claims.

No, it's bridging.

In other words, it's a network bridge.

A wireless access point _is_ a network bridge.

Indeed -- it's a wireless Ethernet (client) bridge.

That's a network bridge.

Filtering packets not addressed to a MAC at the other end.

"A bridge by any other name..." :)

On 26 Dec 2006 16:07:44 -0800, "dave" wrote in :

Yes. The caveat in the last (router) case is that you would probably be running "double NAT", which can be problematic.

Probaly becuase the Distribution system is assumed to be a wired network - certainly thats how Cisco use the term the DS connects the BSS's to form an ESS.

Though Cisco do some nice looking kit (1500's) that uses wifi to provide a meshed 's DS

What part of: "access points perform a number of other functions in the distribution system" do you not understand?

No, the access point is part of the distribution system.

How can the destination MAC address be on "the other side of the bridge"? --when both stations are associated by wireless with the same access point!

A wireless access point is not a network bridge.

The F5D7330 is a bridge/gaming adapter.

The point here is, that the bridge/gaming adapter does pass all the packets. Despite what Jeff Liebermann thinks.

And the point here is still, that the bridge/gaming adapter does send on all packets wirelessly to the access point.

That's wrong. An access point is not a bridge. An access points has a "bridging engine" - but that does not make it "a bridge".

Wrong, again.

Here, I am using the F5D7330 as a bridge/gaming adapter, the same way it is used with an Xbox or PSP. Not as a bridge.

No, as I wrote and you should have taken note of - if you could read - the computers got ip-addresses from the DHCP in the router.

There is no such thing as "multi". That term is non sence.

And you obviously don't know anything about the F5D7330.

Message-ID:

John Navas wrote:

: On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 17:43:44 -0800, Jeff Liebermann : wrote in : : : : > snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) hath wroth: : : >>The F5D7330 (802.11b/g) is one bridge/gaming adapter mentioned on : >>this link and I happen to be using one at the moment as an adapter : >>so I wanted to check up on whether it could handle more that one : >>computer - designated as "multi" (MAC addresses?) on the above link. : >>There's no mention of it being able to do so from the information on : >>the link. : >

: >John Navas didn't test all of the items mentioned. : : Correct. I based my assessment on information I deemed to be : reliable.

You base your mis-information on own assumptions, as your admission here confirms.

It's in the part you snipped.

Double-NAT shouldn't affect the new PCs connections to the internet.

Connecting in to them from the internet for gaming or services would be complicated, maybe not possible.

Connecting in to them for file sharing from PCs on the original AP would require configuration.

The print server should be okay, as it it would only receive connections, and cooperate with NAT.

I would connect a new wireless router to the original AP, and move all devices from the old AP to the new router.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:53:02 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

Not that I could find. Care to clue me in?

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:37:33 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@05.usenet.us.com wrote in :

It's the usability of those connections that can be problematic.

Likewise outbound, because some services depend on making inbound connection(s).

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:53:01 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

All of it. A wireless access point is simply a network bridge.

No such thing. (I suggest you come with a supporting citation _before_ making such a claim.)

Because the wireless access point is a network bridge. You seem to think it mindlessly repeats like a hub. It doesn't. Given station A wired to the wireless access point, and stations B and C connected wirelessly, traffic from B to A is _not_ repeated wirelessly to C. That's because a network bridge, in this case the wireless access point, filters traffic not addressed through a given port.

You're wrong.

According to the manufacturer, it's a "Wireless Ethernet Bridge." As I wrote.

I must have missed that. What real proof do you have?

Again, what real proof do you have for that?

No wonder there are no entries under the subjects: "Wireless Access Points" and "Repeaters". You're under the delusion that everything is bridges.

So, what's your point in having the other two subject headers there?

When that dawns on you, it will be interesting to see what, if anything ever crops up under the subject "Repeaters".

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:16:05 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

Insults are a sure sign of a bankrupt position, and a sure way to end any sort of meaningful discussion. You are of course welcome to think whatever you want, no matter how silly. I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:53:01 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

Insults are a sure sign of a bankrupt position, and a sure way to end any sort of meaningful discussion. You are of course welcome to think whatever you want, no matter how silly. I'm not going to waste any more time on this.