WiFi and cable internet

You just described pfSense.

I think most of us would agree that free wireless will not be the equal of your paid wired connection.

You're right that this setup doesn't use multiple connections as one, but if I may pick nits, my client software had no clue about the multiple connections. The config changes were only made on the routing table. Nevertheless, it's an easy way to utilize the total bandwidth available from multiple WAN connections, and that's all I was doing at the time.

Again, I agree. Software like pfSense is wonderful for automagically using multiple links, but even with pfSense single threaded connections can't be helped. There's nothing to balance or share in such cases.

dd-wrt supports multi-WAN, but it's not trivial to set up. Like you say below, pfSense isn't trivial to set up either, but once you do it's pretty darn nice.

I don't know about most people, but I and a few friends were more interested in faster downloads, so the simple routing table method and the pfSense method both worked very well for that purpose.

Totally agree.

Interesting thread. At this point, I hope I'm not hijacking it to ask a simpler, but related (I think), question. I have a simple home network of two desktop computers both ethernet cabled to a (non-wireless) router which is cabled to the cable modem. I'm thinking of replacing that router with a wireless one - but one that has the cabling capacity so that I can still cable the existing computers (but use the Wifi for a SmartPhone in the house).

Question: can this be done so that the desktops are completely insulated from wireless intrusion? I understand about encryption, but I'm wondering if the router can be configured so there's complete isolation of the wired elements from the wireless elements.

Thanks in advance, RonL

"Peter Pan" wrote in news:Rb2dndjSFJIKu5rXnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

If I do decide to actually try it out, I'll look to see what options it gives me.

Right now I'm at the "What hard/software will I need?" stage. This is the first of several stages before I even get to the "Is it worth trying?" stage.

That I can't bridge yet is understood. That's why I didn't yet have any experience doing it yet. :)

"Peter Pan" wrote in news:QbWdnXoqoeOdtprXnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

I can't give you the technical reasons for the improved performance (heck, I don't even know the exact cards they used) - but they were all wired systems running the World of Warcraft client app (connecting to standard WoW servers).

What I now realize is that I do not know whether or not it involved a switch from USB to Ethernet. Seeing as how USB isn't usually called a "network card," and that every computer comes with USB making it likely that the original setup DID use USB... I'm suspecting that it does.

Linwood Boomer wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I suspected something along this line. I've been in computing long enough that I remember hardwired printer switches (where you had to physically turn a knob to change the setting). With the simplest model, that one device would allow you either to hook 2 printers to one computer, or 2 computers to one printer. Cascading them would open up mind boggling possibilities.

The only thing that surprises me about the potential flexibility of a router is that it doesn't come standard this way from the factory.

Linwood Boomer wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I'll definitely check it out, thanks.

The equal? Almost certainly not.

The question is far more subjective than that though. The question, if I get that far, will be "Is paid wired internet worth that much more to me?" Or, to rephrase, "Am I willing to pay over $600 a year for the better service?"

There's no way anyone could possibly answer this question, other than myself. And I can't make an informed decision until I try it.

easily and cheaply, even walmart sells wap/routers cheaply that do that..... oddly enuf, while you can just plug a wap into a router, they usually cost more than just getting a wap/router.....

as for security, most have a network isolation function/feature to keep the wired/wireless seperate

Thanks, I realize there are routers that incorporate both wired and wireless capability.

Guess my question was is this "function/feature" in the hardware and not just a software setting? I know you can switch off the wifi, but I'm wondering if there's a switch designed to *physically* - ie. theoretically - preclude the possibility of hacking from the wireless side into the wired side while both are in use. The router descriptions I'vd read so far are not clear on this point.

I haven't given it much thought, but it could be that opening up additional functionality would cause support costs to spiral exponentially.

both.... it's a hardware function turned on/off by software switch setting (Think wiring to a light, turned on and off by a light switch, or maybe a table lamp controlled by a programmable timer)

Actually most of the routers only isolate the wireless clients from each other, not from the wired segment. This to help prevent one wifi client from sniffing the traffic of others. This does nothing to help protect the wired side from the wireless, or vice versa.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:52:50 -0400, "Bill Kearney" wrote in :

I don't have hard data, but my own take is that "most" don't even have wireless-to-wireless isolation. Regardless, even wireless-to-wireless isolation offers only minimal protection, since wireless traffic can still be sniffed unless WPA Enterprise is used, which is almost never the case.

As for why wireless routers don't provide better protection, which isn't terribly hard, blame the press for not focusing on the issue, most (not all) manufacturers for doing as little as possible, politicians for not making manufacturers liable for risky products, and us consumers for not demanding better.

Belkin and ZyXEL are to be commended for offering products with some real protection; e.g., My Essential G Router ME-1004R (different WPA passphrases for private and guests), ZyXEL G-2000 Plus (wireless router with built-in PEAP server).

A more cynical explanation might be that they don't want to cannibalise sales of their higher end models.

what city - and what provider ?

most of the muni WiFi attempts have failed.... because the business model was flawed... no real revenue.

We have 2 installed & working systems around here that have both gone dark, and the AP's were just left sitting on the lightpoles -

"ps56k" wrote in news:biHOl.29750 $ snipped-for-privacy@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:

Akron, OH. To the best of my knowledge, no decision about the provider has been made yet.

Nothing to do with these?

"Akron Wireless Corridor construction to start in April; network to launch by fall

The Akron Wireless Project is on track for a late summer 2009 launch. OneCommunity is currently completing the design phase, and construction will begin in April. The project will bring wireless connectivity to

LR wrote in news:I8-dnUHO snipped-for-privacy@bt.com:

Yeah, that's it. To project failure at this point is premature. That's not to suggest it's any more likely to succeed here than it did everywhere else, but there will never be success anywhere if no one tries.

I live less than 2 miles from downtown - in a section already identified as being among the first to receive service.

If you'll notice, no ISP was mentioned.

As for the completion date... yeah, right. It's a government project. :)

Surely that is "OneCommunity"

"AKRON, Ohio - Akron City Council unanimously passed an ordinance last night authorizing Akron Mayor Donald L. Plusquellic to enter into an agreement with technology nonprofit OneCommunity to establish a network that will provide wireless Internet connectivity in an 11-square-mile area of Akron."

"OneCommunity connects nearly 1,000 public and nonprofit institutions via its fiber-optic broadband network - one of the largest and fastest in the world"