Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (
More info?)
You are 100% correct. Unfortunately a similar issue happens at the network
layer as well. That is, 3rd party firmware and marketing lies... most of
the "wireless routers" are not routers, the are NAT gateways. Only a few
have routing capabilities. The NAT gateway will at best allow a single
computer to be in its DMZ an be seen by the WAN side.
The problem lies in buying consumer grade wifi gear. The manufactures seem
to want to make up their own terminologies that are just plain lies. I
think these manufacturers do their customers and themselves a disservice
with this.
--
Mark Gamache
Certified Security Solutions
http://www.css-security.com
"Brian Wehrle [MSFT]" <bwehrle@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uGyNvlFGFHA.936@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Mark,
>
> I read your post with some interest. I think I understand your point; in
> general bridging is not desirable, but rather subnetting is a better
> solution. Your point is that the access points do not keep an ARP cache
> based on the other links, and therefore do a sub-standard job when
> creating several connected access points using WDS. With subnets and
> routes defined, the link required can be determined, which is operating in
> the network layer.
>
> In particular, the bridging involved (and its quality) would depend on the
> OS that was being run in the 3rd party firmware. This ARP cache would be
> responsible for knowing to which link the packet should go to, because the
> WDS channel is just another interface on the machine.
>
>
> --
> Brian Wehrle
> bwehrle@online.microsoft.com
> Software Test Engineer/Wireless Networking
> Microsoft Corp.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mark Gamache" <mark.gamache@css-security.com> wrote in message
> news:Oi7TuM4EFHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> You need to make sure that both wireless devices support multi-client
>> bridging. Many low end wireless bridges impersonate a single MAC address
>> instead of just passing frames based on the MAC table. Technically
>> calling them bridges is a lie. They do not meet the technical definition
>> of a bridge. Damn marketing people! Its similar to NAT, but takes place
>> on layer 2. This can wreak havoc.
>>
>> Assuming the bridges are true bridges, your setup will work well, barring
>> RF interference or bandwidth issues. Remember, 802.11 B and G are half
>> duplex and there is a lot of protocol overhead.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> Mark Gamache
>> Certified Security Solutions
>>
http://www.css-security.com
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mark" <pyedubois@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uoUNkWwEFHA.4020@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>I have 1 Linksys WRT54g router and am thinking of buying another to
>>>bridge them using WDS. (using 3rd party firmware) Are there any special
>>>problems using this setup on a Win2k domain (authentication, ect.?)
>>>Anyone have any experience connecting 2 wired lans together by bridging
>>>wirelessly? Both lans are on the same subnet, witht a win2k server
>>>running AD and DNS on one segment.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram