Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (
More info?)
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:9clvq0d6630ugl4u53u11mb44vjiist1de@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:47:58 -0600, "Airhead"
> <campbell@alliancecable.net> wrote:
>
> >Here is my experience, which is not that complicated. But, I had 2
wireless
> >routers connected lan port to lan port with dhcp off on router 2
and
> >different ssids on both. I was able to connect gs to router 1 SSID
and Bs to
> >router 2 SSID. This acted as a seemless network. Now, if I took
router 1
> >Lan port and put it into a Wan port on router 2, I had a totally
separate
> >network on different subnets with the same gateway and had Gs on
one and Bs
> >on the other with separate SSIDs
> >.
> >
> >So talk to me..........Am I a disallusionist or just a
dreamer.............
>
> Well, you're also one of them "top posters" that drives me insane.
> Actually, that's not a major accomplishment as I was already insane
> before you started top posting.
>
> You're not dis-illusioned or dreaming. What you describe works.
The
> way I described it, using one router and one access point, you get a
> single network with two ways to get to it via wireless.
>
> Your scheme is two seperate wireless networks. The first wireless
> router, which I arbitrarily call the "g" router, connects to the
> internet and uses NAT to assign a network of 192.168.1.xxx to the
> wireless clients. The 2nd router, which I'll call the "b" router,
> connects its WAN port to the LAN port of the "g" router. The "b"
> router will have a WAN side IP address of perhaps 192.168.1.2, and a
> LAN side IP block of 192.168.123.xxx. Depending on the netmask on
the
> WAN side of the "b" router, neither wireless LAN will be able to see
> the other. I use this for coffee shops, where I don't want the
public
> LAN to see the office computahs.
> If the netmask were the usual 255.255.255.0, then the wireless
clients
> on the "b" router will be able to see the wireless clients on the
"g"
> router, but not the other way around.
At first I thought you were giving me a complement of being a "Top
Poster" ,,,like good answers
Then I realized you dont like me posting on the top of messages. Just
for you, because I admire your knowledge, I will post on the bottom or
somewhere in between.
So, I am not a net mask guru, would you explain the net mask
issue....I might not want my wife on her B network seeing my G stuff.
>
>
>
> >"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
> >news:gt9vq0dkrh41sru3bl3slh8g2s4qkr2fje@4ax.com...
> >> On 2 Dec 2004 15:12:19 -0800, noresponse@mail.com (John) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm trying to set up a mixed wireless system. Router 1 will be
only a
> >> >'g' receiver and router 2 will be only a 'b' receiver. Someone
I was
> >> >talking to says that the modem will not be able to deal with 2
WAN
> >> >connections. All I am trying to do is have a simple setup...no
> >> >firewall before the routers, etc. since I will have these
capabilities
> >> >within the routers.
> >>
> >> Won't work unless you have two routeable IP addresses from your
ISP.
> >> Each router needs a unique IP address on the WAN side.
> >>
> >> However, all is not lost. You can "convert" one of the routers
into
> >> an access point by:
> >> 1. Ignoring the WAN port
> >> 2. disabling the DHCP server.
> >> 3. Assigning an IP address to the LAN side of the access point
> >> that is NOT the same as the other router. For example, if
> >> the "g" router is on 192.168.1.1, then the access point
> >> should be on 192.168.1.2.
> >> Then, just plug the LAN port of the "b" access point, into the
LAN
> >> port of the "g" router. You may need to build or buy an ethernet
> >> crossover cable to do this.
>
>
> --
> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831.336.2558 voice
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> # jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> # 831.421.6491 digital_pager jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram