Howto get 2 routers to communicate

Sure, but the MAC address is that of the WRT54GS switch port, and up to 4 devices can be connected to the LAN ports, and another to the WAN port, all on the switch.

One thing to keep in mind with the WRT54G(S) routers is that under the hood is a full blown Linux OS.

The versatility and flexibility is all there, though it is hidden fairly well by the HTTP interface that Linksys firmware provides. The various third party firmware packages pretty much do make it available, if in a somewhat convoluted way.

Which is to say that typical configurations are easy to set up with the supplied web interface; but virtually any complex configuration is possible if a little ingenuity is applied to the use of the startup file for boot time configuration.

First update the linksys router.... go to

on the right hand side of the page click "firmware"

you will get a page that says: Firmware Upgrade For

WRT54GS - Wireless-G Broadband Router with SpeedBooster v1.0

Firmware Date : 1/3/2005 Firmware File Size : 3.43MB Firmware Version : 3.37.6 Click here to download the firmware file.

Click here to download the version information.

------------------------------------------------------------------- go there and click on the download firmware file.. an upgrader will be downloaded along with the new firmware....

------------------------------------------- Do the above... Then try it again.... If you still have probs then post again.. But until you have a current version (firmware is 3.37.6, your post said 1.1) it's hard to tell if your problem may not have already been fixed...

Assuming, and this is a very good assumption, that the wired or wireless connection has a higher throughput than the DSL modem. That is almost invariably true...

Same as above, this is almost invariably true.

This is true *only* for the portion of the network that is over the wireless facility... All of what you state below is true of the wireless facility...

And *none* of this has anything to do with "the full bandwidth available on the DSL modem", *unless* the bandwidth of the wireless facility is *less* *than* that of the DSL modem.

And that is somewhat unlikely, eh? At least for typical DSL modem bandwidths that I've heard about.

Lets say you have a 1.5Mb/s DSL modem (probably faster than average), and your wireless network has no WDS link, so you get something like 24Mb/s throughput, max. Fine, except if that traffic is gatewayed to the Internet via the 1.5Mb/s DSL, you don't get more than 1.5Mb/s. And if you use *four* WDS links in series, each of which cuts the throughput in half... the wireless network is still just as fast as that 1.5Mb/s DSL, so the overall bitrate is *still* just 1.5Mb/s!

Therefore, one might expect some degradation if there are *five* WDS links in series! (And given the actual bitrates available for most DSL modems, that's probably more like 7 or 8 WDS links.)

All of which is to say that *if* (and *only if*) there is no local traffic other than that gatewayed to the Internet, using WDS is not going to degrade performance. If the local network actually does have significant traffic, such as for file or process servers, then yes the use of WDS will be significant.

I don't have any real experience with measuring the throughput of such a configuration, but I'd expect it to also have a significant, though less than 50%, reduction in bitrates.

routers generally don't talk to each other wirelessly,,, does one have Client Mode & specs say something about WDS ? Then they might talk but only the one without Client Mode will be the router.

You probably can't do that. Routers normally don't talk to each other. The exception are routers that support WDS (wireless distribution something). The WRT54GS supports WDS using Broadcom idea of the standard. However, I have no clue about the USR 9106. It's apparently a European only product:

can't find anything in the data sheet that mentions WDS. Therefore, methinks you're out of luck on getting them to talk to each other. As a general rule, the chipsets and general model numbers of WDS bridges should be the same.

I'm not sure what you're building, but the fast fix would be to download and install some alternative firmware in the WRT54GS that supports the client mode. However, this will limit the WRT54GS router to only bridging one MAC address. I'm not sure exactly how the router NAT section works in this mode, so some research will be necessary.

(WDS...)

Cool. You win. This MIGHT work. Turn on WDS bridging on both the USR and Linksys boxes, configure the MAC address of the other box in the appropriate place, and see if it will play bridge.

Negative. My client mode suggestion was only if the USR box does not support WDS. As it apprarently does, don't bother with client mode at this time.

What WDS does is simultaneously allow the access points to act as an access point and a wireless bridge. In an access point, each wireless connection will bridge exactly one MAC address. This is the typical client mode found in laptops and most USB radios. There are also "workgroup bridges" and "game adapters" that have some trick so that it will bridge more than one MAC address. However, that's not the issue here. The problem is that there's no provision or specification for the wireless access points to talk to each other. That's where WDS enters the picture. It provides the necessary protocol so that the wireless access points can see and talk to each other.

However, free lunches are often full of worms. I your case, plugging a wired LAN connection, or connecting with a wireless connection to the USB modem/router/wireless box, will give you the full bandwidth available on the DSL modem. If you connect to the USR router with the Linksys using WDS, with a wired LAN connection, you will also get full speed. However, the wireless clients connected to the Linksys will get hit with a 50% speed reduction. That's because the radios can only transmit one at a time. Because each packet is sent twice (once from USR->Linksys, again from Linksys->wireless_client), each transmitter has to wait until the other one shuts up. That cuts the available transmit time in half, and the thruput in half. If you can live with this, WDS is for you. If not, my favored solutions are to either run a CAT5 cable between the LAN ports of the routers and run the Linksys as an access point, or use two back to back radios on different channels, running full duplex, to eliminate the 50% bandwidth hit.

One gotcha here is that there are different implimentations of WDS among different chipsets. Linksys uses Broadcom. I don't know what the USR 9106 uses in the radio section. If it's Broadcom, it will probably work. If something else, you may need a miracle. If the USR

9106 has an FCCID number on the serial number sticker (probably not as it's a EU model only), then look on the FCCID web page for details. It will probably describe the chipset used.

Good luck.

Oops. I goofed and you're correct. The 50% reduction in speed is for the wireless part of the system, not the DSL. (ARGH!)

Also correct. My apologies. Kindly ignore my comments about the reduction in DSL bandwidth. However, the reduction in wireless bandwidth still applies, especially between wireless clients.

Digging back about 18 months and checking my notes...

One back to back pair of DWL-900AP+ bridge radios running at

22Mbits/sec connection speed yield about 10mbits/sec TCP thruput between bridge radios (my laptop plugged into where the access point is normally connected) and about 8.5Mbits/sec with the access point to client radio link enabled. That's about a 15% reduction.

When I setup the same radios with a single DWL-900AP+ acting as a (pre-WDS) repeater, I got about 4Mbits/sec thruput instead of

10Mbits/sec or about a 60% reduction.

These numbers are not terribly accurate because at the time I used a timed file copy instead of a proper traffic measurement tool.

hello,

I have a USRobotics 9106 ADSL 4 port wireless router and a Linksys WRT54GS in another house. I'm trying to get the Linksys to access the internet over the wireless link. But I can't get the 2 routers to communicate.

How do I do this.

Currently I have the ADSL set as 192.168.1.1 and the Linksys as 192.168.2.1 With the gateway as 192.168.1.1. But I'm not sure how to setup the wireless link?

Any pointers appreciated.

regards,

Guy

Thanks for replying.

From

it look like I can purchase firmware that will work with the linksys and provide WDS and client mode.

So this would work yeah? The ADSL router doesn't support WDS or client mode by the looks of it.

regards,

Guy

bumtracks wrote:

hi Jeff,

I've just upgraded the firmware in the USR 9106 and I now have this additional option:

""" This page allows you to configure wireless bridge features of the wireless LAN interface. You can select Wireless Bridge (also known as Wireless Distribution System) to disable access point functionality. Selecting Access Point enables access point functionality. Wireless bridge functionality will still be available and wireless stations will be able to associate to the AP. Selecting Disabled in Bridge Restrict disables wireless bridge restriction; any wireless bridge (including the ones listed in Remote Bridges) will be granted access. Selecting Enabled enables wireless bridge restriction. Only those bridges listed in Remote Bridges will be granted access. Click "Apply" to configure the wireless bridge options. """

So it looks like I can set the USR to be an AP. Or do I need to configure it as a bridge? I don't understand the difference.

Do I still need to upgrade the linksys firmware to allow client mode and WDS?

Thanks for your help.

Regards,

Guy

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I can't find anything in the data sheet that mentions WDS. Therefore,

Thanks for everyones help. I have them working now.

Upgraded the USR9106 to the 2.1 firmware which has the option of the AP/WDS settings. Left WDS only mode off at the moment, so acting as a AP. Specified the MAC address of the Linksys in the allowed bridge settings.-Not sure if strickly necessary. Upgraded to HypeWRT on the Linksys and disabled DHCP.

Worked. Just not with the distances between the houses.

So got to work out the best antenna options now....

Again, thanks for everyones help.

Regards,

Guy

Jeff Liebermann wrote: