Tahiti Bob wrote in news:41a32870$0$30708 $ firstname.lastname@example.org:
You can do it like the Linksys wireless router. It should be very close or the same for the D-Link. You make the device IP of the second router (now a wire/wireless switch) be one of the static IP(s) on the DHCP and gateway router and use the same Subnet mask, the computers can share resources with each other between the two devices.
I bought 2 D-links 624+ routers. I have two networks in 2 different rooms. All devices in one room are wired to the router in that room. What I'd like to do is to connect both networks wirelessly. Turning one of both routers into an access point should do the trick. But I don't know how...I've looked at all available options in the web admin of the router, but found nothing. Isn't possible to say one router receives DHCP settings (ip, gateway, dns...) from the other one (in wireless mode of course)
On 23 Nov 2004, you wrote in alt.internet.wireless:
The problem is that they are *both* access points. To connect wirelessly, you need one to be a client device. I suggest that what you need is an access point with a 'wireless client bridge' mode, or one of the devices sold as a 'gaming bridge', in each case connected to a switch. Connect your wired devices to the switch, and away you go. The key thing is to use a wireless device which will support communication to multiple MAC addresses.
Some of the multi-mode access point products will do the job: the current D-Link product is the DWL-2100 but I've not personally tried it so can't guarantee that it works. Try the DWL-G810 or DWL-G820 - either of these should work. A suitable switch is the DSS-8+ or DES-
1008D or similar.
If you've just bought your kit, you may well be able to exchange one of the DI-624s for something else...
Carefull I stand to be corrected, but it is my understanding that you would need TWO DWL-2100 in that they only act in bridge mode if wirelessly talking to another DWL-2100. m But a single DWL-2100 with a DI-624 will not allow multiple MAC addresses.
I share the frustration that T Bob must feel but it seems difficult to get the answers to the specific questions. When I e-mailed D-Link support, they tended to change my questions to ones which they did have an answer for, but ignored the grist of the question.
The DI-624 is strictly a wireless access point conglomerated with a router in one box. It has no client modes and does not have the necessary protocols to play transparent bridge. Two DI-624 boxes cannot talk to each other.
Think of transparent bridging as a form of Ad-Hoc (peer to peer) networking. Access points are strictly for infrastructure topology and do not do Ad-Hoc.
You can build a transparent bridge out of a pair of DWL-2100 wireless bridges. In order to play bridge, these boxes must have a protocol that distributes the MAC address to bridge port number table between the two ends. Most access points, wireless routers, and client radios lack this protocol. The bridging protocol is generally proprietary making transparent bridges with mixed hardware problematic. The cheap transparent bridges can bridge 32 MAC addresses maximum. The better boxes can do 256 or more. Proxim (Orinico) will do 2048.
The DWL-2100 also has a client mode. This allows it to connect to an access point (such as a DI-624) and bridge exactly one MAC address. This isn't as horrible or useless as it sounds because you can place a router at one end of the link, and use it to deal with multiple computers. The wireless link would not be transparent (appear as one big LAN), but with routeing, most of the common protocols and features can be connected. This is roughly the way many WISP (wireless ISP) do it. I also posted a similar derrangement in this group yesterday.
There's not enough profit in these product to pay for an applications development and customer engineering assistance department. Support generally is limited to questions involving how to get the hardware running. Whether the boxes will do what you want is normally the job of pre-sales support or engineering, which is almost non-existent. Personally, I would be happier with a more technical data sheet that itemizes features, peformance, and limitations, instead of the baby talk and buzzwords found in most data sheets.
Sure. They have a menu of boiler plate answers and a key word search. You could do as well using Google.