WiFi Range Extension

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:17:40 GMT, George wrote in :

Obstruction can be a *big* problem. Assume you'll at least need in the other house both (a) a client bridge with directional antenna wired to (b) a wireless access point.

First test with the client bridge.

See the links below for more information.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why set up a bridge? Why not set up two wifi box doing mac to mac, and just plug it into the DSL router. It's not like this guy wants to offer a wifi service in general, but rather just one to a particular house. I don't know if mac ot mac is offered in every router, but it is standard on Dlink.

How obstructed is it? Unless you've got a good line of sight, any

2.4GHz gear is very probably going to fail.

On 14 Jun 2006 22:17:47 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@sushi.com wrote in :

"mac to mac???" Have no idea what you mean. Macintosh to Macintosh? MAC address filtering? Big Mac to Big Mac? Please elucidate.

Mac as in the mac address of your router. I forget what it stands for, but every router has a unique mac address. Dlink has a mode where you can set them up to only talk to one specific mac address. Here is some random link on the mac address:

It is quite a pain that mac brings up all these apple links that are quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. This mac to mac is probably not found routers, only WAPs. I suppose you could get the equivalent setting up a WAP and client, then use mac filtering to only allow those two specific boxes.

On 15 Jun 2006 09:33:30 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@sushi.com wrote in :

Ah, MAC address filtering. Essentially worthless because it's too easily spoofed. And WEB is too easily cracked. So only use WPA with a strong passphrase.

The reason for the client bridge and access point at the remote location is that the OP wanted wireless coverage at the remote location.

The way I read it, he wanted coverage at his house and at the remote location, so the mac to mac would be for the remote location.

On 15 Jun 2006 11:45:45 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@sushi.com wrote in :

I must be dense, but that still makes no sense to me -- "mac to mac" is a term I've never heard and can't find. What exactly is it supposed to mean? If MAC address filtering, that isn't a way to connect a remote site -- it's simply a means of security, and an ineffective one at that. What exactly are you proposing? Doing away with the remote client bridge? Doing away with the remote access point? How?

Actually, I'm the problem here. Dlink now calls this PTP bridge. However, in my quite limited experience in networking, when you bridge a network, it looks like one network, sometimes creating headaches. When I used this mac to mac (my term), the networks weren't bridged as far as I know, but rather the wireless network just asked like a piece of wire.

I just checked the manual, and back then they used the term wireless bridge. The mac to mac was how I remembered the mode, as you had to specify the mac address of each device. Sorry to waste your time here or cause you a headache or two.

snipped-for-privacy@sushi.com hath wroth:

That's the correct term. Point to Point bridge. There's also Point to Multipoint bridging which is actually a wireless switch. (A switch is a bridge with more than 2 ports).

Ummm... the whole idea behind connecting two networks with a bridge is to make it look like one big network, while offering some control over the traffic at the bridge. With two networks, you wouldn't want ALL the traffic to cross over the bridge. Just the packets that need to cross.

Wrong. Wireless bridges are the same as wired bridges. Only packets with a destination MAC address that's across the bridge, go across the bridge. Packets with no destination address (i.e. broadcasts) go across anyway. If you plug an access point into an existing network, with LOTS of traffic, and connect to it with an ordinary wireless client (or wireless bridge client), you would not want to get innundated with all the traffic on the network. The access point and client work together to act exactly as a wired bridge and only pass traffic with destination MAC addresses on the other side of the bridge. If it were to act like your "piece of wire" it would pass everything.

Never heard of MAC to MAC. Please don't invent any new terms. There are plenty of confusing bridge types to chose from.

Now Jeff, really, was this comment called for? Geez. Chill.

There

On 16 Jun 2006 10:07:40 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@sushi.com wrote in :

Speaking only for myself, it's frustrating to needlessly waste time trying to figure out what some invented term is supposed to mean, thus taking time away from more productive exercises. That's part of why correct terminology is so important, and why Jeff was so right on.

snipped-for-privacy@sushi.com hath wroth:

Yep, I think it was appropriate. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not into diplomacy.

Google does not show anything for "MAC to MAC". I've never heard of the term. It does sorta make sense, but "point to point" bridging is already adquate. If you want to defend the term, please cite a situation where it would uniquely describe the topology. Otherwise, please use one of the existing terms.

What I'm trying to avoid is something like a: "wireless workgroup bridge client game station infrastructure ethernet adapter" which is the result of yet another company adding their contrived term (station) to an existing definition. I also made an attempt to untangle the various terms for wireless bridging in the FAQ, to try to undo some of the damage. Yes, I think my comment is justified if for no better reason than it makes more work for me.

Oh, by the way, you're welcome.

Yes. I noticed. Well, it gains Ann Coulter so much respent, so you go girl.

He would have been right on if I didn't apologize and post both the old and new term that Dlink was using. Given my mea culpa, right on is not a phrase I would use for his antics.

On 16 Jun 2006 14:38:55 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@sushi.com wrote in :

With all due respect, I found your further explanation to be pretty much unintelligible. In fact I still don't know what you meant in your original response, in part because you didn't answer my follow-up questions. It's been a frustrating waste of time. No offense intended.

I replied to each of your posts. Perhaps you need to be more specific regarding your questions.

On 17 Jun 2006 18:59:36 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@sushi.com wrote in :

As I wrote, and with all due respect, I found (and still find) your further explanation to be pretty much unintelligible.