Client Bridge Mode

Thnx for your answer, Jens.

The problem is not configuring a device in client mode (or bridging mode), but the problem is connecting more than one device to such a bridge.

I do not want to buy one bridge per computer, but would like to connect several computers (via a switch of hub) to one bridge.

Regards, Peter

Hi Peter,

I am working for an institute which gives internet to students by wireless lan. For usual people are using the Client-Mode, to make their brigde connected to our accesspoint. By this way, all connected network devices are brigded into our network.

If u just want to add some wireless to a wired network, just choose the ap-mode. Think, this would be usual.

So, where is the problem exactly? For usual it is not to hard, to do some wireless...

best regards,

Jens

Peter Boosten wrote:

No. The client mode will deliver exactly one MAC address to the access point. The problem is semantic, not technical. ALL these wireless contraptions are bridges under the acronyms. Every company calls their client side devices bridge, game adapter, remote client, or whatever. They're all bridges. The conventional ethernet client adapter bridge (whatever) is stuck with a single MAC address per wireless link. What you'll probably find is that the first computer you plug into the wireless client hub will connect just fine, but the others will fail.

Some (not all) of the "game adapters" will do multiple MAC addresses, by some unknown method (juggling MAC's or simulating multiple clients?). The only one I have experience with that works is the Linksys WET11 (30 MAC addresses). Others may work, but the manufactories seem hesitant to mention this use as it would impact sales of additional wireless clients.

Oke, back to basics: I'll explain my network in detail:

My @home-cable internet connection is terminated by a hardware firewall. This firewall is on the LAN-site connected to a 5-ports switch. My 3Com OfficeConnect 11g AP is connected to this switch as well.

I have several clients, with their own wireless NIC:

My laptop with a 3Com PCMCIA-NIC; A desktop with a Belkin 802.11a-NIC; Even my iPaq has its own wireless NIC

Works perfectly.

Then I decided to put my sons' PlayStation on the net as well (without having to drill for cables) and bought this cute thingy:

It's a ethernet-to-wireless bridge, which gives devices without wireless support the opportunity to enter the 'wireless world', via a crosslink UTP-cable.

Then I thought: why not change the crosslink for a normal UTP-cable, put in a HUB, and connect other devices as well (to that one sitecomm-thing). This however doesn't work. So I suspected the low speed of that wl-024 (11Mb) to be the bad guy.

But I read other people putting more than one device behind a bridge having troubles as well.

What bridge does allow this kind of setup (as I can imagine that AP-manufacturers would like to sell as many as possible, one for each device).

Regards, Peter

Hmm, for usual I have no problems with wirless. I used two WAP54G to connect my wired network to my friend's. Behind every AP there were several switches and hubs. I just got access to a command-line on my friends computer and was able to ping different computers in my network.

Of course, no wireless clients can connect to the APs in brigde mode, but therefore I have the wireless router. The WAPs were limited to make connections to four other brigdes (enter mac) whith the meanwhile unknown firmware I used...

Even If you would like to want to connect all stations via radio to the brigde, u should just put one AP to the wired network the brigde is connected with.

Ok, maybe it was a hard night, maybe there was a lack of sleep and I still have no coffee - but I think, I am not too wrong. Or am I, maybe I missunderstood your question at the main point - sorry for the results of beeing a creature of the night in a society of day-active human beeings;)

regards,

Jens

ps: @ ng : excuse my bad english, its years ago I had some experience with this language...but I read, that skills can be trained - hope so:)

You have been (justifiably) confused by the excessive and inconsistent use of the term "bridge", which ought to be reserved for something that connects two physical *networks* together. Connecting a single *device* to a network is done by an *adapter*.

That cute thingy you bought was an Ethernet-to-wireless adapter. To connect multiple wired devices to an existing wireless network you need a thingy that can do what is now generally called a Wireless Distribution System (WDS). The function of WDS is essentially that of an uplink between two switches (or hubs), passing packets from a device connected to one switch to a device connected to the other switch.

WDS capability found in many recent wireless access points and routers. Unfortunately, WDS is not yet standardized across the wireless networking industry, so it usually doesn't work between different makes of APs or routers. To complicate things further, some devices that can do WDS cannot service wireless clients at the same time or cannot connect via WDS to more than one other AP/router.

For the greatest flexibility in using WDS, I recommend the Broadcom-based products such as Buffalo's or Apple's . (Note that, except for Apple's base stations, you are currently restricted to WEP encryption when using WDS.)

Hi Peter,

today a work I asked arround a bit. One answer I got says, that their are some brigdes which dont allow to handle more than one device connected... If I read the text describing the the wl-024, I have the feeling, u got such a thing. Of course, I dont know exactly. Think, the most easy way ist to write an email to the support to know exactly about the features of that brigde.

When I have to support some students who wants to connect many pcs to our network, I tell them to get the dlink dwl 810+ . This brigde allows to connect many pcs through that brigde to one of our APs. 9 of 10 are working properly (and I have to say, most of the students have really no imagination about what a network is and how they can connect).

Because we need to integrate the 802.1X Protokoll, we are experimenting with the linksys wrt54g(s) after flashed it with openwrt (openwrt.org). It`s very nice to have a bash on an AP :) No Fear, even a Webinterface can be used and is in development. And at all, even this linksys is working properly with many firmwares from thirdparty-distributors and also with the original firmware.

I just make a good experience with the two products.

So maybe u just have the wrong Product? "My" students also have problems with some other wireless2ethernet-products...

Hope this will help you a bit to find out whats wrong. Maybe the others have some experiences with this at all. I am sure;)

with best regards,

Jens

Thanks Jens, for your answer. I'm going to look around for such a device.

Regards, Peter

Thanks Neill, I'm going to have a look at those products.

Regards, Peter

Thank u Neill, for giving that information and taking it to the point:) I hope, people who creating network devices will work a bit more together instead of praising the top features of their products which are not compatible (what isnt printed on the box) to products from other people...

regards,

Jens

I hadn't seen this post before I replied to your later post in this thread.

A device referred to as a "workgroup bridge" can join a wireless network as a client on its wireless side and provide connections to multiple devices on its wired side. There is a brief description of this at the bottom of Wi-Fi Planet's "Understanding Wireless LAN Bridges" page . A device of this type would not need to use WDS to link Ethernet devices to an existing wireless network. One such is 3Com's 3CRWE675075. From reading manufacturer's data sheets and posts such as Jeff Liebermann's , I gather that most of the devices described as wireless "bridges" only work with a single Ethernet device. I suspect this also describes the DynaLink WL-024 and your 3Com access point, which is why they don't work with two computers connected to them. What 3Com calls "Client Bridge Mode" is simply called "Client Mode" by most other manufacturers.

The 3CRWE675075 will handle a maximum of 16 MAC addresses. That at least better than the previous incantation 3CRWE83096A which would only handle 4 MAC addresses. There's no reason these could not handle hundreds of MAC addresses except that they would undercut the sales of higher end (and more expensive) boxes.

Sorta. It's a muddle. I tried to describe it in:

forgot to include workgroup bridge. In my never humble opinion, it's a transparent bridge that is intentionally crippled as to the number of MAC addresses it will pass. In effect, it's the same as a game adapter.

I also made a mistake on my game adapter description. At the time, all the game adapters would pass multiple MAC addresses. Typical was

1. Now, I'm finding new game adapters that pass only 1 or 2. I only had a little time to do testing so I may have screwed up here. In any case, methinks the term game adapter does not absolutely guarantee passing a number of MAC addresses.

If you're confused, you're in good company. I'm also somewhat confused. The terminology is muddled and definitions overlap. If you read my drivel, you'll probably notice that I change my terminology almost at random. Sometimes it's a bridge, sometimes a radio, sometimes an "access point in bridge more", and sometimes a "game adapter". I guess I'm part of the problem instead of the solution. If I have the time (and inspiration) I'll make a cleaned up rescribble of my definitions, send it to some friends for proof reading, and post it somewhere. It's a very common question and a source of much confusion.

Again, they are ALL bridges. Under the marketing speak, every single last individual 802.11 wireless device is a bridge. The bridge does not impart any special characteristics or protocols to the devices. It's like Chevy, Ford, and VW. They're all vehicles. Adding the terms Chevy vehicle, Ford vehicle, and VW vehicle, adds nothing to the description.

Yup, that's my experience.

This is what I was looking for. Thanks.

Regards, Peter

Thanks for this info.

Regards, Peter

I know nothing: