Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624

On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in :

According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page:

Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and access points

That includes the WGT624.

If properly configured, yes.

Ditto.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:42:16 GMT John Navas wrote: | On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in | : | |>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624? | | According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page: | | Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and | access points | | That includes the WGT624. | |>And just to be sure I'm not forgetting to ask a question I perhaps need |>to ask (though I think if the above is YES, these should be as well, |>but I have learned with consumer wireless stuff, presumptions are bad): |>

|>Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports |>be able to communicate with a computer attached to the WGT624 via one |>of its ethernet ports? | | If properly configured, yes. | |>Will a computer attached to the WGPS606 via one of its ethernet ports |>be able to communicate with with the broadband internet attached to |>the WGT624? | | Ditto.

Then this may be the way for me to achieve what I want with one more device, which I would expect to buy anyway (through previously was going to get a

3rd WGT624).

WGPS606 connected by ethernet to wired switched LAN with my servers and desktops. WGT624(1) connected to DSL modem. WGT624(2) at brother's house connected to his cable modem (via WAN port) and desktop. I might be able to use his cable modem, but he won't be able to use my DSL except via a router or proxy I set up.

Hopefully the following will then also work to reach the printer.

Add the IP address of the WGT624(1) router (bridge side) to the HP 6980 printer as default gateway. Add HP 6980's IP address in route table of the Linux machines that need to print with gateway being the WGT624(1) IP address.

Although the WGPS606 has 2 USB printer ports and the HP 6980 can also work on USB, for other reasons, these need to be a substantial distance apart and running a wire is not practical. The HP 6980 sees full signal strength at the other end of the house with either WGT624 when I connect them on the wired LAN.

If the above works, then the only remaining issue is the RF path between my house and my brother's house across the street. Unfortunately the WGPS606 does NOT have the range extender that the WGT624 has, so there is less chance of this succeeding.

The WGT624 has the 108 Mb capability, but it looks like there's no way for me to use it. I would have been better off with WGR614's.

Maybe I would have been better off with some other brand models that can attach external antennas and put some gain between the two houses. I did see a +9dbi omni and a +18dbi panel on Netgear's web site.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:42:16 GMT John Navas wrote: | On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in | : | |>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624? | | According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page: | | Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and | access points | | That includes the WGT624.

I think I need to revise my question:

Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with TWO different WGT624 devices at the same time?

I have found that the nameless bridge I am playing with will only talk to ONE of the WGT624's at a time. Whichever WGT624 it find first makes the other one unreachable. Maybe this is a limitation of that bridge such as no more than one MAC at a time on the wireless side? Or maybe that is part of the standard?

The big question is if the WGPS606 has this limitation.

On 21 Jul 2006 08:18:26 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in :

What network topology are you expecting with that? The WGPS606 is a wireless client bridge and printer server that will attach to only *one* wireless access point (WGT624) at a time. You can't mesh these all together.

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.

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).

How is that an issue? This isn't a mesh; i.e., you can't construct a wireless network covering both houses with just this gear.

True.

Please be more clear and precise on what you're trying to do, including the entire network topology. Something like .

On 21 Jul 2006 17:00:35 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in :

No. A Wi-Fi network can only have *one* access point (central controller).

Standard and normal.

It does. All other Wi-Fi gear does too.

1. Please, please don't start more threads -- too hard to follow.
2. Be specific about what you're trying to do in network terms. We can tell you what gear you need once we know *exactly* what you're trying to do.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:05:28 GMT John Navas wrote: | On 21 Jul 2006 08:18:26 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in | : | |>Then this may be the way for me to achieve what I want with one more device, |>which I would expect to buy anyway (through previously was going to get a |>3rd WGT624). |>

|>WGPS606 connected by ethernet to wired switched LAN with my servers and |>desktops. WGT624(1) connected to DSL modem. WGT624(2) at brother's house |>connected to his cable modem (via WAN port) and desktop. I might be able |>to use his cable modem, but he won't be able to use my DSL except via a |>router or proxy I set up. | | What network topology are you expecting with that? The WGPS606 is a | wireless client bridge and printer server that will attach to only *one* | wireless access point (WGT624) at a time. You can't mesh these all | together.

What I'm "expecting" is not a specific topology. I would set up some topology on top of it. I might expect some default topology to already be set up for less sophisticated users to be able to get up and running faster. But that "expecting" implied being able to make box A talk to box B wirelessly. I can do that with ethernet regardless of what type of boxes A and B are. I expected the same from wireless and have seen no online documentation that says I should expect for some boxes to NOT be able to talk to certain other boxes, even of their own kind.

|>Hopefully the following will then also work to reach the printer. |>

|>Add the IP address of the WGT624(1) router (bridge side) to the HP 6980 |>printer as default gateway. Add HP 6980's IP address in route table of |>the Linux machines that need to print with gateway being the WGT624(1) |>IP address. | | 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. 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). Apparently my ARP broadcasts from the computer are not reaching the printer.

Linux wire switch bridge WGT624 HP6980

When I wire up like this, I can print:

Linux wire switch WGT624 HP6980

But then I can't reach an isolated (future) DSL connection:

Linux wire switch WGT624(1) WGT624(2)

But for the DSL, it seems this might work:

Linux wire switch bridge WGT624 DSL

I also tried this:

Linux wire switch bridge WGT624(1) (future DSL) same switch WGT624(2) HP6980

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.

| 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. Given there is no manufacturer name on it at all. The MAC's OUI gives me this, in case you are curious:

00-02-6F (hex) Senao International Co., Ltd. 00026F (base 16) Senao International Co., Ltd. 2F, No. 531, Chung-Cheng Rd., Hsin-Tien City, Taipei County, TAIWAN TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA

|>If the above works, then the only remaining issue is the RF path between |>my house and my brother's house across the street. Unfortunately the |>WGPS606 does NOT have the range extender that the WGT624 has, so there |>is less chance of this succeeding. | | How is that an issue? This isn't a mesh; i.e., you can't construct a | wireless network covering both houses with just this gear.

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.

|>The WGT624 has the 108 Mb capability, but it looks like there's no way |>for me to use it. I would have been better off with WGR614's. | | True.

I actually chose those models for their extended range technology, which the WGR614 did not have, on the basis that it might increase my chance of being able to reach between the houses (I always understood this much was never a certainty). So whatever device classes would interconnect the two wired LANs, I'd like to have it with that or some other range extend technology.

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.

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.

|>Maybe I would have been better off with some other brand models that can |>attach external antennas and put some gain between the two houses. I did |>see a +9dbi omni and a +18dbi panel on Netgear's web site. | | 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.

If youw ant to figure out the best topology for me, here are the parts:

-- 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.

1. My future DSL connection. It shall not connect to anything by wire.

2. 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).

1. 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 --

1. My brother's Cable modem.

1. My brother's Windows computer (currently connected directly to the cable modem running the cable provided software).

2. 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.

1. 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

2. 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:

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 ? ? ? .

Note that if 2 devices cannot reach each other, but both can reach computers in the computer farm, I can set up routing for them on a computer there. Don't assume same for the file server in by brother's house as that is likely a year or so away.

I want NONE of the connectivity to go through the public internet for reasons of utilization. E.g. the idea of having wireless between houses is to avoid using the internet for it. Security isn't the issue, but racking up bandwidth utilization on either the cable or DSL is. I want inter-house communication to work even if DSL and/or cable is down.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:18:27 GMT John Navas wrote: | On 21 Jul 2006 17:00:35 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in | : | |>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:42:16 GMT John Navas wrote: |>| On 19 Jul 2006 18:10:07 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in |>| : |>| |>|>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with the Netgear WGT624? |>| |>| According to the Netgear WGPS606 web page: |>| |>| Works with all standard 802.11g and 802.1b wireless routers and |>| access points |>| |>| That includes the WGT624. |>

|>I think I need to revise my question: |>

|>Will the Netgear WGPS606 communicate wirelessly with TWO different WGT624 |>devices at the same time? | | No. A Wi-Fi network can only have *one* access point (central | controller).

The wiki you have says all wireless is bridging. I guess it isn't.

|>I have found that the nameless bridge I am playing with will only talk to |>ONE of the WGT624's at a time. Whichever WGT624 it find first makes the |>other one unreachable. Maybe this is a limitation of that bridge such as |>no more than one MAC at a time on the wireless side? Or maybe that is |>part of the standard? | | Standard and normal. | |>The big question is if the WGPS606 has this limitation. | | It does. All other Wi-Fi gear does too.

So how do I get more than 2 things to talk to each other? Say maybe in a structure like:

*-*--*-* | | * *

where everything is wireless and the "--" is a particularly long path that all but the two *'s connected by it cannot necessarily see each other.

| 1. Please, please don't start more threads -- too hard to follow.

My first thread actually disappeared from my end. Not sure why. Thought maybe someone deleted it.

| 2. Be specific about what you're trying to do in network terms. We can | tell you what gear you need once we know *exactly* what you're trying to | do.

I'd rather have documentation that makes it clear to figure this out on my own. I want to know that there was something I SHOULD have read to have made the correct purchase, ... or that no such thing yet exists.

On 21 Jul 2006 21:38:09 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in :

Again, you're confusing *network* (bridging) with wireless *connection* (star).

Much like a wired Ethernet hub or switch, a WLAN (wireless LAN, infrastructure point-to-multipoint) consists of one and only one central controller (wireless access point) plus one or more wireless clients. That central controller is a network bridge, just as the wiki states..

The standard WLAN architecture is a star topology, usually connected to a wired Ethernet:

WAP /|\\ / | \\ WC WC WC

Different LANs and WLANs can be interconnected with

• Wires:

WAPWAP /|\\ /|\\ / | \\ / | \\ WC WC WC WC WC WC

• WDS (Wireless Distribution System):

WAP /|\\ / | \\ WC WC WDS /|\\ / | \\ WC WC WC

• Wireless Point-To-Point Bridge (to which WLANs can be connected)

EthernetWPTPB----------WPTPBEthernet

Read Wikipedia and the wikis below. Lots of helpful links.

The problem is that you're trying to do something beyond normal consumer networking, so it's inevitably going to get complicated if you're not willing to pay (or beg) an expert to do it for you.

You should decide whether you want to (a) debate terminology or (b) get your network working. I'm happy to help with (b), but don't really have the time for (a).

On 21 Jul 2006 21:31:29 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in :

Do you want to just rant and waste time? Or do you want to get the job done? I'm only willing to help with the latter.

In fact wired Ethernet networking can be quite complex, even more complex than WLAN (wireless LAN). I'd point out some of the many ways, but I really don't have the time or interest.

The only way I can help you configure a WLAN is if you tell me exactly what you want to do. Exactly what boxes need to talk to what boxes? What boxes need to talk to which broadband connections? Give me the details, and I'll show you how to do it. Keep them a secret, and perhaps someone else can help you.

A key principle of networking is to carefully plan the network first, then implement it. Rushing ahead is a bad idea.

You should be using one of the RFC 1918 Private IP address blocks, typically 192.168/16

DHCP or manual configuration? Of the computer? What IP address? What netmask? Of the HP 6980? What IP address? What netmask?

Gack! Let's please not go there. Just stick to standard networking. We need a network topology diagram. If you don't like my first cut, fix it up.

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.

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.

Are you trying to create a big network covering both houses, where everything can talk to everything? If so, you're options include:

1. One WLAN covering both house. Wireless probably won't work, and a bitch to use both broadbands.
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.

1. Each house with its own WLAN, bridged with a point-to-point wireless bridge. Best bet, but takes two more wireless boxes.

1. Bridge with VPN over the public Internet.

I'm not, but thanks.

That would be a big book on advanced networking, wired and wireless.

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.

Could we please just stay in the world of the possible?

See above.

Then please finish it.

I actually don't want to,

Forget the layer stuff.

Here you go -- add a wireless client bridge (WCB), and everything connects to everything:

• 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.

• 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.)

Forget all that cool computer stuff you know. This is networking.

I'm not going to assume anything.

OK.

Happy networking!

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:20:12 GMT, John Navas wrote in :

p.s. Be sure the Wireless Client Bridge can handle multiple devices -- many of them can only handle a few devices, some only one device. Third party firmware in appropriate hardware might be a good way to go.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:20:12 GMT, John Navas wrote in :

A possible way to avoid that hassle is to substitute a suitable box with third-party firmware for WGT624(1), and hack that firmware to block DHCP traffic from being sent over the wireless bridge. That way both WLANs could use DHCP without risk of connecting to the wrong DHCP server over the wireless bridge.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:49:29 GMT, John Navas wrote in :

Or use a suitable box with third-party firmware for the Wireless Client Bridge (WCB), with the same kind of firmware hack. Probably a better way to do given that you already have the two WGT624 units, and still need a WCB.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:20:12 GMT, John Navas wrote in :

p.p.s. The WCB can of course use a high-gain directional antenna if needed (something that might not be possible with the two wireless access points).

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?

| A possible way to avoid that hassle is to substitute a suitable box with | third-party firmware for WGT624(1), and hack that firmware to block DHCP | traffic from being sent over the wireless bridge. That way both WLANs | could use DHCP without risk of connecting to the wrong DHCP server over | the wireless bridge.

I won't have much need of DHCP. It would be nice for visiting laptops. My bootable CDROMs do pause for 10 seconds to wait for a DHCP response, but if none, they make an IP from the low order bits of the MAC.

And it seems this version of WGT624 has the ability to block DHCP:

On 22 Jul 2006 02:53:51 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in :

That's _not_ careful planning. ;)

It doesn't. It simply has different products just like wired networking. You can't use a wired bridge as a wired router, just as you can't use a wireless client bridge as a wireless router. You can't hook one wired port to more than one other wired port, just as a wireless client can be hooked up to more than one access point.

Yet lots of them do exist, including the wikis below and the wealth of links they contain.

Read what I wrote more carefully. You've already run into a common problem caused by non-unique SSIDs.

That's because the printer is a client that needs an access point (WGT624), not another client (little old bridge). Read the resources and all the material I've now posted here.

Actually pretty easy.

As I wrote, forget all that cool stuff until you finish the network.

The WGPS606 is a WCB (Wireless Client Bridge), plus a network switch and network printer server.

Running any sort of DHCP on separate bridged networks is asking for trouble, as I explained.

Yes, opposite configuration of the WCB link will work.

Again, the WGPS606 is a WCB (Wireless Client Bridge), plus a network switch and network printer server.

Lots, including the WGPS606. Sometimes called Wireless Gaming Adapters, although beware of those that can only handle a few or even just one device. But since you seem to fancy yourself a hacker, I've already recommended running third-party firmware in wireless client bridge mode on a suitable box (e.g., Linksys WRT54G, which you may be able to find for cheap -- just be sure to get a good version). See the wikis for more info.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:59:01 GMT John Navas wrote: | On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:20:12 GMT, John Navas | wrote in | : | |>On 21 Jul 2006 21:31:29 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in |>: | |>Here you go -- add a wireless client bridge (WCB), and everything |>connects to everything: | | p.p.s. The WCB can of course use a high-gain directional antenna if | needed (something that might not be possible with the two wireless | access points).

It seems the WGT624's have permanently connected antennas. I might have gone with another brand had I been aware of this, if another one with broadband routing did have a connector for an antenna (TNC or SMA ... I doubt they use N for small devices like this).

On 22 Jul 2006 02:53:51 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in :

p.s. In case it's not obvious, you already have enough wireless gear to at least get started by:

1. Connecting the WGPS606 by wire to WGT624(1).

1. Using the WGPS606 to connect by wireless to WGT624(2).

See

On 22 Jul 2006 03:34:35 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in :

That looks like filtering from the WAN to the LAN, not between wireless LAN and wired LAN. For that kind of LAN isolation in a low-end product I think you're going to need non-standard firmware.