Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Extending a wireless network

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 9:42:23 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Hi guys

I currently have cable broadband shared around the house with a
wireless 802.11g router. It is fine in most of the house, but my
daughter's bedroom is at the furthest reach from the router and the
connection to it is patchy (keeps losing her MSN connection!)

I was wondering whether it would be possible to get an extra USB
802.11g adapter for my PC in my bedroom and then use that in point to
point mode to connect to my daughters, and then bridge the connection
to my good quality link to the router. So basically my daughter would
access the Internet through two hops, one to my PC and one from there
to the router.

Would this work? If so, can anyone give any tips about how to set it
up on the two PCs. We are both running XP Home SP2. Would we use a
network bridge or Internet Connection Sharing?

Any help much appreciated.

Sue
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 4:56:47 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

suswaze@hotmail.com wrote:
> I currently have cable broadband shared around the house with a
> wireless 802.11g router. It is fine in most of the house, but my
> daughter's bedroom is at the furthest reach from the router and the
> connection to it is patchy (keeps losing her MSN connection!)

If you have a low signal, a reflector will likely fix the problem.

http://www.freeantennas.com EZ-12, printed on photo paper for thick stock,
with aluminum foil glued to the sail, provides a substantial boost in
signal. http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/EZ12-windsurfer.jpg

You could put one on the router, and anotheron the PC, if it has a stick
antenna. You didn't say what was in your daughter's room.

On one PCI card, I added a "Hawking HAI6SDA Directional 6dBi 2.4GHz Antenna"
http://www.hawkingtech.com/prodSpec.php?ProdID=143

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 3:05:15 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Why not think about using WDS ( Wireless Distribution Services ) ?
Specifically for scenarios like yours.
Scenario:

Internal PCs ( x However many ) <-----> Internal Router <-----> External
Router <-----> Cable Modem

The Internal Router acts as a bridge to the external.
You need to make sure both routers are from the same manufacturer.
Your thoughts re Network Bridging/ICS are also viable options.

The reason I prefer using WDS for this is that it's alot easier to move a
router from place to place rather than a PC. If you move house for example,
you can figure out where to strategically place your
routers rather than being forced to make sure PC1 is in "firing range" of
PC2.
It also scales well, you want/need more distance, just buy another router
and add it to the chain.
WDS is supported on even the cheapest routers these days.

Rgds, S

<dold@XReXXExten.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:D gqb4f$sh9$2@blue.rahul.net...
> suswaze@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I currently have cable broadband shared around the house with a
>> wireless 802.11g router. It is fine in most of the house, but my
>> daughter's bedroom is at the furthest reach from the router and the
>> connection to it is patchy (keeps losing her MSN connection!)
>
> If you have a low signal, a reflector will likely fix the problem.
>
> http://www.freeantennas.com EZ-12, printed on photo paper for thick
> stock,
> with aluminum foil glued to the sail, provides a substantial boost in
> signal. http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/EZ12-windsurfer.jpg
>
> You could put one on the router, and anotheron the PC, if it has a stick
> antenna. You didn't say what was in your daughter's room.
>
> On one PCI card, I added a "Hawking HAI6SDA Directional 6dBi 2.4GHz
> Antenna"
> http://www.hawkingtech.com/prodSpec.php?ProdID=143
>
> --
> ---
> Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
>
Related resources
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 3:05:16 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:05:15 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reachnet@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Why not think about using WDS ( Wireless Distribution Services ) ?

Reasons why NOT to use WDS.
1. It only works with compatible chipsets and preferably identical
model access points. Note that the original poster did not specify
their equipment list and therefore may also need to replace their
existing router with a WDS compatible router.
2. The extra access point or router costs more than a better antenna.
The added reflector types are almost free.
3. I cuts the maximum throughput in half (which is usually not a
problem with DSL intenet access but does cause trouble with client to
client file transfers).
4. Since everything has to be on the same SSID and channel, the extra
radio just creates that much extra interference.
5. It's apparently not very good in the presence of interefence.
Lose one packet and each WDS access point has to repeat it twice,
which really cuts down on the available air time.
6. WDS repeaters tend to require omni antennas located at midpoint.
Omnis are somewhat more sensitive to multipath and reflections than
directional antennas.
7. Some buggy implimentations of WDS interfere with the use of WPA.
This is finally being fixed on current firmware releases.
8. Setup is a bit complex, but not overwhelming.

http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=...


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 8:53:11 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Thanks guys for all your help. As a single mum I am struggling a bit
with all this, but hopefully I now have some ideas to look into and
come up with a solution.

Sue
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:50:35 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Jeff,

Inline..

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:ai13j1916ok1hm8hncmj61pi0l3mqhos0a@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:05:15 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reachnet@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Why not think about using WDS ( Wireless Distribution Services ) ?
>
> Reasons why NOT to use WDS.
> 1. It only works with compatible chipsets and preferably identical
> model access points. Note that the original poster did not specify
> their equipment list and therefore may also need to replace their
> existing router with a WDS compatible router.

May or may not - but not giving them the option to make an informed opinion
is wrong.
Neither you nor I know what he has.Why do you make the assumption he
shouldn't be infomed as neither of us know ?

> 2. The extra access point or router costs more than a better antenna.
> The added reflector types are almost free.

Here in the UK, you can easily get routers that cost roughly 30 quid which
support WDS.
If he can't afford that he's free to come back and say so - it's not for you
or I to tell him
what is/isn't right for him. That's *HIS* choice.
Yeah it does cost more but can give you more flexibility - just depends how
you want to look at it.

> 3. I cuts the maximum throughput in half (which is usually not a
> problem with DSL intenet access but does cause trouble with client to
> client file transfers).

True - but if you're being rate limited by your ISP, that *MAY* be
irrelevant.
e.g. 2 * 54Mbps routers - cut connection rate in half- if you're still only
being fed
data by your ISP at 10Mbps ( which is the max NTL here support/will support
in the perceivable future) even if the rate is being halved by WDS, that
will be irrelevant.
What do you mean causes trouble with client to client file transfers ?

> 4. Since everything has to be on the same SSID and channel, the extra
> radio just creates that much extra interference.

True again - but usually not to the extent that it interfers with much else.
WDS is an IETF/IEEE derived standard. Why should it cause any more problems
than normal radio broadcast signals, assuming the Vendors have implemented
it correctly ?

I've used WDS succesfully in the past, and am currently doing so with no
problems at all (based on what I need it to do).

> 5. It's apparently not very good in the presence of interefence.
> Lose one packet and each WDS access point has to repeat it twice,
> which really cuts down on the available air time.

I think we're going over the score here - the scenario was for a home user.
Most home users won't give a monkey's chuff about whether the TCP/IP stack
has to do resends,
so long as performance isn't impaired to an unnacceptable level..If this was
a business scenario then I'd agree with you.

> 6. WDS repeaters tend to require omni antennas located at midpoint.
> Omnis are somewhat more sensitive to multipath and reflections than
> directional antennas.

Yeah and ??? Does that mean WDS doesn't work then ??

> 7. Some buggy implimentations of WDS interfere with the use of WPA.
> This is finally being fixed on current firmware releases.

Fair point.

> 8. Setup is a bit complex, but not overwhelming.

Hmm.. Not too bad if you research it enough.

>
> http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=...
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:50:36 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:50:35 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reachnet@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> Reasons why NOT to use WDS.
>> 1. It only works with compatible chipsets and preferably identical
>> model access points. Note that the original poster did not specify
>> their equipment list and therefore may also need to replace their
>> existing router with a WDS compatible router.

>May or may not - but not giving them the option to make an informed opinion
>is wrong.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has offered to send me money and
make their purchasing decisions for them. I only supply the facts,
numbers, technology, and detail. Users make their own decisions.

>Neither you nor I know what he has.Why do you make the assumption he
>shouldn't be infomed as neither of us know ?

Nope. I supplied far more information about the relative merits of
WDS than you did. You supplies a one line suggestion without the
slightest substantiation and without explaining the limitations and
potential problems with WDS.

>> 2. The extra access point or router costs more than a better antenna.
>> The added reflector types are almost free.

>Here in the UK, you can easily get routers that cost roughly 30 quid which
>support WDS.
>If he can't afford that he's free to come back and say so - it's not for you
>or I to tell him
>what is/isn't right for him. That's *HIS* choice.

Agreed. Could you cite the exact line in my posting where I hinted,
told, demanded, or otherwise suggested what's "right"?

>Yeah it does cost more but can give you more flexibility - just depends how
>you want to look at it.

That's true. I didn't list the advantages of WDS because I thought
you would supply the necessary detail. After all, it is your
suggestion.

>> 3. I cuts the maximum throughput in half (which is usually not a
>> problem with DSL intenet access but does cause trouble with client to
>> client file transfers).

>True - but if you're being rate limited by your ISP, that *MAY* be
>irrelevant.
>e.g. 2 * 54Mbps routers - cut connection rate in half- if you're still only
>being fed
>data by your ISP at 10Mbps ( which is the max NTL here support/will support
>in the perceivable future) even if the rate is being halved by WDS, that
>will be irrelevant.

I believe I said that but thanks for the details. Generally, the
802.11g wireless network runs faster than the typical US broadband
connections. It seems the UK cable broadband is considerably faster,
so it might still be a problem.

>What do you mean causes trouble with client to client file transfers ?

Client to client transfers are not rate capped like broadband
connections. They should go at the full speed of the wireless
devices. For example, a 54Mbit/sec connection to an access point will
run at about 20-25Mbits/sec thruput when run through a single access
point (or wireless router).

However, when you add a WDS store and forward repeater, only one of
the two access points can transmit at a time (i.e. simplex operation),
thereby cutting the maximum bandwidth in half. The same 54Mbit/sec
connection at the end points of a WDS system will only have about
10-12Mbits/sec at best. My measurement with two WRT54G routers and
Sveasoft Alchemy can only do about 8Mbits/sec. I'm not sure why and
unfortunately don't have the time to investigate.

More commonly, the client radios cannot maintain a 54Mbit/sec
connection and connect at lower speed. This would be expected as WDS
repeaters are rarely deployed in situations where there is an adequate
signal or clear path. So, the thruput can be even less than
10-12Mbits/sec or less. This may be adequate for many users, but I've
seen a few complaints where users were expecting much faster client to
client performance through WDS.

You might want to spend some time reading:
http://www.smallworks.com/archives/00000072.htm
It's on the scaleability of mesh networks but the same principles
apply to WDS networks. I don't agree with everything on the page, but
the analysis and references are good enough to cover the major points.

>> 4. Since everything has to be on the same SSID and channel, the extra
>> radio just creates that much extra interference.

>True again - but usually not to the extent that it interfers with much else.

Huh? There are at least 3 radios on the same channel in the same
airspace. Two access points connected with WDS and a client radio.
Interference between these is exactly the same as if you had placed a
non-WDS access point on the same channel in the vicinity. The FCC
does not allow synchronous operation between access points or clients
so the interference is always there. I typically see about 10-20%
resends at the MAC (radio) level using the "wl" command on the WRT54G
radios. That's not too horrible but it's also not that good.

>WDS is an IETF/IEEE derived standard.

WDS is not clearly defined in IEEE 802.11b/g specs. I can cite
chapter and verse if you're interested. WDS in it's current
implimentation was thrown together by Broadcom, using their best guess
as to what the IEEE was thinking. Atheros did the same with less
success. That's why it only works with compatible chipsets. Please
note that http://www.wi-fi.org does not certify Wi-Fi devices for WDS
compliance.
http://certifications.wi-fi.org/wbcs_certified_products...

>Why should it cause any more problems
>than normal radio broadcast signals, assuming the Vendors have implemented
>it correctly ?

See above. The interference problem has nothing to do with the WDS
implimentation. It's the increased number of active transmitters on
the channel in a given airspace that causes problems.

>I've used WDS succesfully in the past, and am currently doing so with no
>problems at all (based on what I need it to do).

Any benchmarks?

>> 5. It's apparently not very good in the presence of interefence.
>> Lose one packet and each WDS access point has to repeat it twice,
>> which really cuts down on the available air time.

>I think we're going over the score here - the scenario was for a home user.
>Most home users won't give a monkey's chuff about whether the TCP/IP stack
>has to do resends,
>so long as performance isn't impaired to an unnacceptable level..If this was
>a business scenario then I'd agree with you.

I could write quite a bit about what home and business users really
want. Initially, they all want fabulous performance and copious
features. That lasts about a month or so. When I arrive, they are
more than happy to dump all the goodies and garbage for a major
improvement in reliability. Flakey wireless connectivity is the
surest way to screw up reliability.

>> 6. WDS repeaters tend to require omni antennas located at midpoint.
>> Omnis are somewhat more sensitive to multipath and reflections than
>> directional antennas.

>Yeah and ??? Does that mean WDS doesn't work then ??

Read what I wrote. I said that they are "somewhat more sensitive..."
not that they would totally fail to operate.

>> 7. Some buggy implimentations of WDS interfere with the use of WPA.
>> This is finally being fixed on current firmware releases.
>
>Fair point.
>
>> 8. Setup is a bit complex, but not overwhelming.
>
>Hmm.. Not too bad if you research it enough.

I did. That's why I included the URL below so she could see what she
would be dealing with.

>> http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=...

Any more questions or comments?


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 4:02:51 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

suswaze@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> I currently have cable broadband shared around the house with a
> wireless 802.11g router. It is fine in most of the house, but my
> daughter's bedroom is at the furthest reach from the router and the
> connection to it is patchy (keeps losing her MSN connection!)
>
> I was wondering whether it would be possible to get an extra USB
> 802.11g adapter for my PC in my bedroom and then use that in point to
> point mode to connect to my daughters, and then bridge the connection
> to my good quality link to the router. So basically my daughter would
> access the Internet through two hops, one to my PC and one from there
> to the router.
>
> Would this work? If so, can anyone give any tips about how to set it
> up on the two PCs. We are both running XP Home SP2. Would we use a
> network bridge or Internet Connection Sharing?
>
> Any help much appreciated.

Is the connection in your daughter's PC currently a USB adapter, or a
PCI card?

With a USB adapter, and a long cable, you should be able to position the
access point for a better signal than you get with the antenna from a
PCI card. You could also try a directional antenna if the USB adapter
has a connection for one (some do, many do not).
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 6:09:27 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mf94j1t1leldb317d18h2mpogm4eh3jqp5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:50:35 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reachnet@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Reasons why NOT to use WDS.
>>> 1. It only works with compatible chipsets and preferably identical
>>> model access points. Note that the original poster did not specify
>>> their equipment list and therefore may also need to replace their
>>> existing router with a WDS compatible router.
>
>>May or may not - but not giving them the option to make an informed
>>opinion
>>is wrong.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, nobody has offered to send me money and
> make their purchasing decisions for them. I only supply the facts,
> numbers, technology, and detail. Users make their own decisions.
>

Yes they do. For me though that's about informed choice/opinion.
The reason I mentioned WDS is that personally I've found it more
reliable/efficient/inexpensive than using
bridging/ICS- taking the load off the CPU and it scales alot better. Like
any technology, it does have its downsides,
but you as a user evaluate those downsides against what you need it to
do/it's suitability for the task.

>>Neither you nor I know what he has.Why do you make the assumption he
>>shouldn't be infomed as neither of us know ?
>
> Nope. I supplied far more information about the relative merits of
> WDS than you did. You supplies a one line suggestion without the
> slightest substantiation and without explaining the limitations and
> potential problems with WDS.

Yes - but why is the "Bull in a China Shop" approach - bombarding users with
tech information you're not sure they'll even understand beter
than taking it slower and trying to ascertain what level of knowledge is
actually going to be valuable to them ?
If you notice, the poster was a single mum - I doubt she's ever heard of
WDS, so what would be the point in hitting that user with info
about Omin-directional antennas if they don't understand what the **** that
is ?

>
>>> 2. The extra access point or router costs more than a better antenna.
>>> The added reflector types are almost free.

Ok. True.

>
>>Here in the UK, you can easily get routers that cost roughly 30 quid which
>>support WDS.
>>If he can't afford that he's free to come back and say so - it's not for
>>you
>>or I to tell him
>>what is/isn't right for him. That's *HIS* choice.
>
> Agreed. Could you cite the exact line in my posting where I hinted,
> told, demanded, or otherwise suggested what's "right"?

The "tone" of your email was "here's reasons not to use WDS" - negative but
factual - not here's what you could do with WDS, which is slightly more
optimistic.

>
>>Yeah it does cost more but can give you more flexibility - just depends
>>how
>>you want to look at it.
>
> That's true. I didn't list the advantages of WDS because I thought
> you would supply the necessary detail. After all, it is your
> suggestion.

I didn't specifically for the reason staed above.

>
>>> 3. I cuts the maximum throughput in half (which is usually not a
>>> problem with DSL intenet access but does cause trouble with client to
>>> client file transfers).
>
>>True - but if you're being rate limited by your ISP, that *MAY* be
>>irrelevant.
>>e.g. 2 * 54Mbps routers - cut connection rate in half- if you're still
>>only
>>being fed
>>data by your ISP at 10Mbps ( which is the max NTL here support/will
>>support
>>in the perceivable future) even if the rate is being halved by WDS, that
>>will be irrelevant.
>
> I believe I said that but thanks for the details. Generally, the
> 802.11g wireless network runs faster than the typical US broadband
> connections. It seems the UK cable broadband is considerably faster,
> so it might still be a problem.
>

Like anything, transmission rates will depend primarily on what ISP you are
signed up to, but in Britain it isn't exactly fast ( not if you compare it
with the likes of Sweden for example).
In the UK, NTL have just recently offered a 10MB service, most users still
haven't been upgraded and are currently on either 1/2/3MB connections so the
argument for the use of WDS is arguably even stronger-again depending on how
you want to look at it.

>>What do you mean causes trouble with client to client file transfers ?
>
> Client to client transfers are not rate capped like broadband
> connections. They should go at the full speed of the wireless
> devices. For example, a 54Mbit/sec connection to an access point will
> run at about 20-25Mbits/sec thruput when run through a single access
> point (or wireless router).
>
> However, when you add a WDS store and forward repeater, only one of
> the two access points can transmit at a time (i.e. simplex operation),
> thereby cutting the maximum bandwidth in half. The same 54Mbit/sec
> connection at the end points of a WDS system will only have about
> 10-12Mbits/sec at best. My measurement with two WRT54G routers and
> Sveasoft Alchemy can only do about 8Mbits/sec. I'm not sure why and
> unfortunately don't have the time to investigate.
>
> More commonly, the client radios cannot maintain a 54Mbit/sec
> connection and connect at lower speed. This would be expected as WDS
> repeaters are rarely deployed in situations where there is an adequate
> signal or clear path. So, the thruput can be even less than
> 10-12Mbits/sec or less. This may be adequate for many users, but I've
> seen a few complaints where users were expecting much faster client to
> client performance through WDS.

Ok - that's valuable info thanks - that much I didn't know.
>
> You might want to spend some time reading:
> http://www.smallworks.com/archives/00000072.htm
> It's on the scaleability of mesh networks but the same principles
> apply to WDS networks. I don't agree with everything on the page, but
> the analysis and references are good enough to cover the major points.

When I get time, I'll try and get round to it.

>
>>> 4. Since everything has to be on the same SSID and channel, the extra
>>> radio just creates that much extra interference.
>
>>True again - but usually not to the extent that it interfers with much
>>else.
>
> Huh? There are at least 3 radios on the same channel in the same
> airspace. Two access points connected with WDS and a client radio.
> Interference between these is exactly the same as if you had placed a
> non-WDS access point on the same channel in the vicinity. The FCC
> does not allow synchronous operation between access points or clients
> so the interference is always there. I typically see about 10-20%
> resends at the MAC (radio) level using the "wl" command on the WRT54G
> radios. That's not too horrible but it's also not that good.

I bow to your superior knowledge.

>
>>WDS is an IETF/IEEE derived standard.
>
> WDS is not clearly defined in IEEE 802.11b/g specs. I can cite
> chapter and verse if you're interested. WDS in it's current
> implimentation was thrown together by Broadcom, using their best guess
> as to what the IEEE was thinking. Atheros did the same with less
> success. That's why it only works with compatible chipsets. Please
> note that http://www.wi-fi.org does not certify Wi-Fi devices for WDS
> compliance.
> http://certifications.wi-fi.org/wbcs_certified_products...
>
>>Why should it cause any more problems
>>than normal radio broadcast signals, assuming the Vendors have implemented
>>it correctly ?
>
> See above. The interference problem has nothing to do with the WDS
> implimentation. It's the increased number of active transmitters on
> the channel in a given airspace that causes problems.
>
>>I've used WDS succesfully in the past, and am currently doing so with no
>>problems at all (based on what I need it to do).
>
> Any benchmarks?

No.

>
>>> 5. It's apparently not very good in the presence of interefence.
>>> Lose one packet and each WDS access point has to repeat it twice,
>>> which really cuts down on the available air time.
>
>>I think we're going over the score here - the scenario was for a home
>>user.
>>Most home users won't give a monkey's chuff about whether the TCP/IP stack
>>has to do resends,
>>so long as performance isn't impaired to an unnacceptable level..If this
>>was
>>a business scenario then I'd agree with you.
>
> I could write quite a bit about what home and business users really
> want. Initially, they all want fabulous performance and copious
> features. That lasts about a month or so. When I arrive, they are
> more than happy to dump all the goodies and garbage for a major
> improvement in reliability. Flakey wireless connectivity is the
> surest way to screw up reliability.

True.

>
>>> 6. WDS repeaters tend to require omni antennas located at midpoint.
>>> Omnis are somewhat more sensitive to multipath and reflections than
>>> directional antennas.
>
>>Yeah and ??? Does that mean WDS doesn't work then ??
>
> Read what I wrote. I said that they are "somewhat more sensitive..."
> not that they would totally fail to operate.
>
>>> 7. Some buggy implimentations of WDS interfere with the use of WPA.
>>> This is finally being fixed on current firmware releases.
>>
>>Fair point.
>>
>>> 8. Setup is a bit complex, but not overwhelming.
>>
>>Hmm.. Not too bad if you research it enough.
>
> I did. That's why I included the URL below so she could see what she
> would be dealing with.
>
>>> http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=...
>
> Any more questions or comments?

Nope.

>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:19:02 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Steve Berry wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> See the end.
>
<SNIP>
>
> All noted I did find this educational even if it wasn't how I expected it
> was going to be.
> Don't bother with next week - guess you're busy.;)
>
Lawdamercy! Bottom posting is good, but the whole point is to EDIT!
--
derek
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 5:55:53 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Apols - was a last minute before bed thing.

S

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:me8d03-909.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca...
> Steve Berry wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> See the end.
>>
> <SNIP>
>>
>> All noted I did find this educational even if it wasn't how I expected it
>> was going to be.
>> Don't bother with next week - guess you're busy.;)
>>
> Lawdamercy! Bottom posting is good, but the whole point is to EDIT!
> --
> derek
!