Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Using a wireless access point?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:24:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Instead of using a USB wireless adapter (for TiVo ToGo), I've read where you
can used a wired adapter and a "bridge." Can a wireless access point serve
as a bridge? All of the wireless bridges I've found are kind of expensive,
and I see that CompUSA has a Motorola WAP for a good price this week. Will
this work?

More about : wireless access point

Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:24:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:24:26 +0000, Mark Rathgeber wrote:

> Instead of using a USB wireless adapter (for TiVo ToGo), I've read where you
> can used a wired adapter and a "bridge." Can a wireless access point serve
> as a bridge? All of the wireless bridges I've found are kind of expensive,
> and I see that CompUSA has a Motorola WAP for a good price this week. Will
> this work?

If the WAP has wired ports too (not just a single port for a modem), then
yes that would work. Otherwise, no.

Note that it may or may not work with _another_ router (in addition to the
new WAP), but that would be a subnet/forwarding issue, not strictly
related to getting the TiVo networked.

--
Lenroc
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:24:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:24:26 +0000, Mark Rathgeber wrote:

> Instead of using a USB wireless adapter (for TiVo ToGo), I've read where you
> can used a wired adapter and a "bridge." Can a wireless access point serve
> as a bridge? All of the wireless bridges I've found are kind of expensive,
> and I see that CompUSA has a Motorola WAP for a good price this week. Will
> this work?

Here's another take on the topic:

If you're willing to buy a Motorola WAP, why not just pick up a wireless
adapter instead?

I saw the same ad about the Motorola WAP... if you're talking about the
after-rebate price, it may be hard to find a Wireless Adapter for that
price. But if you are going by the pre-rebate price (like you should be,
treating the rebates as frosting on the cake...), it's a lot easier.

Just check the list of supported adapters at
http://customersupport.tivo.com/knowbase/root/public/tv...

Then go shopping on newegg.com, outpost.com, etc.

--
Lenroc
Related resources
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:24:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:24:26 +0000, Mark Rathgeber wrote:

> Can a wireless access point serve as a bridge?

Sorry for responding another time to the same thread. My head isn't
working right tonight...

The answer is a definitive "no". A "Wireless Access Point" cannot act as a
bridge, because a "Wireless Access Point" does not accept wired clients.

For some reason I got my terminology mixed up, and thought a WAP was a
Wireless Router....

--
Lenroc
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:24:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:26:26 -0700, Lenroc wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:24:26 +0000, Mark Rathgeber wrote:
>
>> Instead of using a USB wireless adapter (for TiVo ToGo), I've read where you
>> can used a wired adapter and a "bridge." Can a wireless access point serve
>> as a bridge?
>
> If the WAP has wired ports too (not just a single port for a modem), then
> yes that would work. Otherwise, no.

For the record, I should point out that in retrospect, I'm not 100% sure
it would work, even if it had wired ports.

It might work, but it may not be possible to make one wireless router act
as a downstream hub for another wireless router, as I originally (and
possibly incorrectly) assumed.

Sorry.

--
Lenroc
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:36:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying to
configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work. Tell
me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."

My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
Robotics 8054 wireless router. The wireless is necessary for a roaming
laptop. I have tried to connect my TiVo, via WiFi, but all of the USB
adapters quit after about 20 minutes or so. Now, I have a wired adapter
connected to a network cable that I string from the living room, where the
TiVo is, to the computer room, but this can't be a permanent solution,
'cause it's really ugly, and dear wife doesn't like it (neither do I). So,
if there's a way to configure the Netgear, I would like to try, but I
haven't had any luck so far. If I don't get it working within few days,
it's going back to Best Buy. The Netgear is a WGR614v5.

Thanks in advance.

Mark

"Lenroc" <lenroc@NOSPAMFORYOU.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NtrXd.26021$Sn6.24022@lakeread03...
| On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:24:26 +0000, Mark Rathgeber wrote:
|
| > Instead of using a USB wireless adapter (for TiVo ToGo), I've read where
you
| > can used a wired adapter and a "bridge." Can a wireless access point
serve
| > as a bridge? All of the wireless bridges I've found are kind of
expensive,
| > and I see that CompUSA has a Motorola WAP for a good price this week.
Will
| > this work?
|
| If the WAP has wired ports too (not just a single port for a modem), then
| yes that would work. Otherwise, no.
|
| Note that it may or may not work with _another_ router (in addition to the
| new WAP), but that would be a subnet/forwarding issue, not strictly
| related to getting the TiVo networked.
|
| --
| Lenroc
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:36:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:36:22 +0000, Mark Rathgeber wrote:

> Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying to
> configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work. Tell
> me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."
>
> My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
> Robotics 8054 wireless router.

First step is to get the TiVo playing nicely with just the Netgear router.
(I assume it has multiple wired ports.)

Try plugging the TiVo into one of the wired ports, and either have your
laptop connect wirelessly to the Netgear router, or plug in either the
laptop or a desktop to the Netgear router temporarily.

Ensure that the TiVo can connect to the PC, and/or vice versa, in this
configuration.

If this works, then it's a non-trivial leap to get the TiVo (connected to
the Netgear) on your larger network. What you need to do is make the
Netgear router a client on the USR router. To do this, you may need to
make the Netgear router stop being a router (turn of DHCP, etc.). This may
be possible, or it may not be. I may have been wrong in my original
followup. I've never actually tried to make a _wireless_ router act as a
hub, but I know it's possible to make a wired router into one.

I may have lead you astray with my original post, and if so I'm sorry.

Maybe you could run a wire from one router to another, through some walls,
perhaps? :-P

--
Lenroc
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:36:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:WauXd.1726$yp.108@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying
> to
> configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work. Tell
> me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."
>
> My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
> Robotics 8054 wireless router. The wireless is necessary for a roaming
> laptop. I have tried to connect my TiVo, via WiFi, but all of the USB
> adapters quit after about 20 minutes or so. Now, I have a wired adapter
> connected to a network cable that I string from the living room, where the
> TiVo is, to the computer room, but this can't be a permanent solution,
> 'cause it's really ugly, and dear wife doesn't like it (neither do I).
> So,
> if there's a way to configure the Netgear, I would like to try, but I
> haven't had any luck so far. If I don't get it working within few days,
> it's going back to Best Buy. The Netgear is a WGR614v5.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Mark

Mark,

Generally wireless interfaces support about 255 connections,
so you should have plenty of capability with your Robotics.

I have a Linksys cable modem and a Linksys BEFW11S4
Wireless B Broadband Router. I've got it set up to act
as a DHCP serving IP addresses in the 192.168.2.x
range (x=2 to 10 or so). Each TIVO has a Linksys
WUSB11 something. The print is too small to make out.

Anyway, I set up WEP encryption on both ends using
the same keys and my setup works like a champ.

It's slow, but solid and dependable. It only fails after
the maid has been here and 'cleaned' up around the
WUSB11's. But, I simply unplug them and plug them
back in and they start working again.

What type of adapters were you using that failed
after 20 minutes? You probably mentioned it
in a previous post, but I missed it.

Larry Hazel
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:51:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Right now, I have a Netgear MA111 which works fine for the TiVo updates.
But, it won't transfer to the PC. It will start, but then it's like the
adapter locks up after about 20 minutes or so. I've also tried this with a
Linksys 802.11b adapter, which TiVo "certified."

So, I read on the TiVo Community Forum that a wired adapter connected to a
wireless bridge would work, and that many routers can be configure to act as
a bridge. But, so far I can't get the Netgear router to work quite right.
I still want to fiddle with it some more before I return it, however.

I have turned off the DHCP, tried to set a separate IP for the Netgear, but
so far no luck. Next, I may try to set the Netgear up with the laptop, like
the above post suggests (hadn't tried that, yet), just to see if it can
communicate. Eventually, if I don't hit on the right combination of
settings, I'm gonna get tired of screwing around with all of this stuff and
run a cable, but that involves moving a big entertainment center to get to
the wall, and that's really low on my list of desireable activities!

I like what TiVo does, but their OS updates don't seem very "up to date."

Mark

"Homer L. Hazel" <hNoOmerlhANTI@SPAMcox.net> wrote in message
news:FPuXd.1382$uk7.752@fed1read01...
|
| "Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote in message
| news:WauXd.1726$yp.108@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
| > Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying
| > to
| > configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work.
Tell
| > me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."
| >
| > My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
| > Robotics 8054 wireless router. The wireless is necessary for a roaming
| > laptop. I have tried to connect my TiVo, via WiFi, but all of the USB
| > adapters quit after about 20 minutes or so. Now, I have a wired adapter
| > connected to a network cable that I string from the living room, where
the
| > TiVo is, to the computer room, but this can't be a permanent solution,
| > 'cause it's really ugly, and dear wife doesn't like it (neither do I).
| > So,
| > if there's a way to configure the Netgear, I would like to try, but I
| > haven't had any luck so far. If I don't get it working within few days,
| > it's going back to Best Buy. The Netgear is a WGR614v5.
| >
| > Thanks in advance.
| >
| > Mark
|
| Mark,
|
| Generally wireless interfaces support about 255 connections,
| so you should have plenty of capability with your Robotics.
|
| I have a Linksys cable modem and a Linksys BEFW11S4
| Wireless B Broadband Router. I've got it set up to act
| as a DHCP serving IP addresses in the 192.168.2.x
| range (x=2 to 10 or so). Each TIVO has a Linksys
| WUSB11 something. The print is too small to make out.
|
| Anyway, I set up WEP encryption on both ends using
| the same keys and my setup works like a champ.
|
| It's slow, but solid and dependable. It only fails after
| the maid has been here and 'cleaned' up around the
| WUSB11's. But, I simply unplug them and plug them
| back in and they start working again.
|
| What type of adapters were you using that failed
| after 20 minutes? You probably mentioned it
| in a previous post, but I missed it.
|
| Larry Hazel
|
|
|
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:51:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Mark,

I think I agree with one of LENROC's suggestions that you try a different
wireless USB adapter for the TIVO. If you have the 7.x software, it will
support a couple of the wireless G adapters. I tend to like Linksys since
they always work for me. I've had too much NETGEAR equipment fail.

I think a Wireless G adapter that's compatible with TIVO might cost
less than the wireless Bridge.

Larry Hazel
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:43:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> Sorry for responding another time to the same thread. My head isn't
> working right tonight...
>
> The answer is a definitive "no". A "Wireless Access Point" cannot act as a
> bridge, because a "Wireless Access Point" does not accept wired clients.
>
> For some reason I got my terminology mixed up, and thought a WAP was a
> Wireless Router....
>

Well, a WAP can be integrated with a switch or hub, just as a wireless
router can be. It's true that you typically don't see it as often.

I think the problem you keep running into Lenroc, is that most (all?)
wireless routers dedicate a wired port as the sole WAN source. In the
configuration you are suggesting (WAN -- Wireless Router 1 -- Wireless
router 2 -- Tivo (using wired port)), the second wireless router would
have to use a *wireless* connection as the WAN port.

Technically, there's no reason this couldn't be done, aside from some
interesting setup configuration dealing with *which* wireless connection
is the WAN one. However most of the consumer hardware won't do that.
There are range extenders, some of which include a wireless port, that
will do that, but you usually have to match brands for them to work, and
for some reason they are often significantly more expensive than the
more typical router.

As I think has been mentioned here before, there are video game WAP's
designed for this type of need (intended for X-boxes and the like), but
they are not very cheap either. See
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/details/US/E...

as an example. Note that it directly mentions use w/ DVR's.

Randy S.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:44:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <80vXd.26053$Sn6.16087@lakeread03>,
lenroc@NOSPAMFORYOU.hotmail.com says...
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:24:26 +0000, Mark Rathgeber wrote:
>
> > Can a wireless access point serve as a bridge?
>
> Sorry for responding another time to the same thread. My head isn't
> working right tonight...
>
> The answer is a definitive "no". A "Wireless Access Point" cannot act as a
> bridge, because a "Wireless Access Point" does not accept wired clients.

Not necessarily true. Several access points (including linksys) allow
the WAP to be configured as a wireless AP client, and allow bridging a
wired segment that way. My complaint: none of them I've seen so far
support WPA in that mode :( 
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:46:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> As I think has been mentioned here before, there are video game WAP's
> designed for this type of need (intended for X-boxes and the like), but
> they are not very cheap either. See
> http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/details/US/E...
>
> as an example. Note that it directly mentions use w/ DVR's.
>
> Randy S.

One further note, I just noticed that the example above uses some sort
of proprietary connection that runs only at 1.5 Mbps, so it's not
optimal for TTG purposes. There are others more suited however.

Randy S.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:48:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> Not necessarily true. Several access points (including linksys) allow
> the WAP to be configured as a wireless AP client, and allow bridging a
> wired segment that way. My complaint: none of them I've seen so far
> support WPA in that mode :( 
>

Not only that, they're almost always much more expensive then your
typical consumer oriented router, I don't know why. It's also *really*
hard to figure out which models have the capability before you buy it.

Randy S.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:03:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Thanks to both of you guys for your comments, especially that it's hard to
know before you buy. I still stand by a comment I made in another post last
night: TiVo's updates aren't very "up to date." Why in the world would you
come up with an option (TiVo ToGo) with such inadequate 802.11g capability,
when the rest of the world is pretty much "g?" I also read in lots of
forums that using a wireless adapter is frequently impossible, at least for
transfers.

Mark

"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 0mrba$1256$3@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
|
| > Not necessarily true. Several access points (including linksys) allow
| > the WAP to be configured as a wireless AP client, and allow bridging a
| > wired segment that way. My complaint: none of them I've seen so far
| > support WPA in that mode :( 
| >
|
| Not only that, they're almost always much more expensive then your
| typical consumer oriented router, I don't know why. It's also *really*
| hard to figure out which models have the capability before you buy it.
|
| Randy S.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:30:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <_mrXd.2217$WK2.1991@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote:

> Instead of using a USB wireless adapter (for TiVo ToGo), I've read where you
> can used a wired adapter and a "bridge." Can a wireless access point serve
> as a bridge? All of the wireless bridges I've found are kind of expensive,
> and I see that CompUSA has a Motorola WAP for a good price this week. Will
> this work?

Only the VERY high end Access Points can act as a Bridge. If they don't
say they can, they can't, and even if they say they can, it may only be
with another Access Point from the same company. Certainly the low end
D-Link and Belkin ones can't. I tried, so I know. I bit the bullet and
got a WET54G Bridge from Linksys when BestBuy was closing them out in
November. Works wonderfully from 2 rooms away.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <cuCXd.4124$WK2.712@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote:

> Thanks to both of you guys for your comments, especially that it's hard to
> know before you buy. I still stand by a comment I made in another post last
> night: TiVo's updates aren't very "up to date." Why in the world would you
> come up with an option (TiVo ToGo) with such inadequate 802.11g capability,
> when the rest of the world is pretty much "g?" I also read in lots of
> forums that using a wireless adapter is frequently impossible, at least for
> transfers.

Works fine for me with the Linksys WET54G Bridge. If one has an 802.11b
setup, and it downshifts speed to maintain a connection, transfer rates
can be abysmal.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>>Thanks to both of you guys for your comments, especially that it's hard to
>>know before you buy. I still stand by a comment I made in another post last
>>night: TiVo's updates aren't very "up to date." Why in the world would you
>>come up with an option (TiVo ToGo) with such inadequate 802.11g capability,
>>when the rest of the world is pretty much "g?" I also read in lots of
>>forums that using a wireless adapter is frequently impossible, at least for
>>transfers.
>
>
> Works fine for me with the Linksys WET54G Bridge. If one has an 802.11b
> setup, and it downshifts speed to maintain a connection, transfer rates
> can be abysmal.

Using an 802.11g router in normal or "compatibility" mode to accomodate
..b devices can slow down throughput marginally as compared to
"native-only" or ".g only" modes. However, it's *not* going to slow
them down to "absymal". 802.11g does have slightly better range due to
better error correction (it uses an orthogonal signaling scheme) than
..b, and that may increase connectivity at a given point significantly.
The new MIMO (multiiple input/multiple output) routers improve on this
idea even more (these are pre-release 802.11n routers).

But given good connectivity, the major limiter in TTG transfers is the
Tivo, probably due to DRM issues.

Randy S.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:36:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <L_uXd.26052$Sn6.18463@lakeread03>,
Lenroc <lenroc@NOSPAMFORYOU.hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:24:26 +0000, Mark Rathgeber wrote:
>
> > Instead of using a USB wireless adapter (for TiVo ToGo), I've read where
> > you
> > can used a wired adapter and a "bridge." Can a wireless access point serve
> > as a bridge? All of the wireless bridges I've found are kind of expensive,
> > and I see that CompUSA has a Motorola WAP for a good price this week. Will
> > this work?
>
> Here's another take on the topic:
>
> If you're willing to buy a Motorola WAP, why not just pick up a wireless
> adapter instead?
>
> I saw the same ad about the Motorola WAP... if you're talking about the
> after-rebate price, it may be hard to find a Wireless Adapter for that
> price. But if you are going by the pre-rebate price (like you should be,
> treating the rebates as frosting on the cake...), it's a lot easier.
>
> Just check the list of supported adapters at
> http://customersupport.tivo.com/knowbase/root/public/tv...
>
> Then go shopping on newegg.com, outpost.com, etc.

I wouldnt recommend NewEgg to my worst enemy. They have a 15% restocking
fee, so if you get DOA stuff, or if what you buy doesnt work for your
setup, you're out shipping charges both ways and 15%.

Also don't expect to get any CompUSA rebates, they have a poor record
for fulfillment. If its the manufacturers rebate maybe you stand in
better stead. I have eventually seen rebates from D-Link and Belkin.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:36:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> I wouldnt recommend NewEgg to my worst enemy. They have a 15% restocking
> fee, so if you get DOA stuff, or if what you buy doesnt work for your
> setup, you're out shipping charges both ways and 15%.
>
> Also don't expect to get any CompUSA rebates, they have a poor record
> for fulfillment. If its the manufacturers rebate maybe you stand in
> better stead. I have eventually seen rebates from D-Link and Belkin.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with you about newegg. I've bought
from them for years and have *never* had a problem. Anything DOA is
*immediately* replaced w/ no restocking fee. I can't say for sure right
now, but I think they pay for return shipping in that case as well.
Plus shipping from them is *incredibly* fast, I've received stuff in
under 2 days at times.

Just look at the customer testimonials at their site, I've never seen a
more loyal customer base. Just be prepared to know your stuff, they
don't provide recommendations. I tend to thoroughly investigate what I
want at manufacturer's sites prior to buying.

Randy S.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:40:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <WauXd.1726$yp.108@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote:

> Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying to
> configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work. Tell
> me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."
>
> My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
> Robotics 8054 wireless router. The wireless is necessary for a roaming
> laptop. I have tried to connect my TiVo, via WiFi, but all of the USB
> adapters quit after about 20 minutes or so. Now, I have a wired adapter
> connected to a network cable that I string from the living room, where the
> TiVo is, to the computer room, but this can't be a permanent solution,
> 'cause it's really ugly, and dear wife doesn't like it (neither do I). So,
> if there's a way to configure the Netgear, I would like to try, but I
> haven't had any luck so far. If I don't get it working within few days,
> it's going back to Best Buy. The Netgear is a WGR614v5.
>
> Thanks in advance.

Are you communicating in "G" mode or "B" mode. 802.11b transmission
coverage is much poorer than 802.11g

Thats why a Linksys USB200M and a Linksys WET54G work so good. You can
configure the router for "G" mode only.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:43:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <ZKuXd.26047$Sn6.25318@lakeread03>,
Lenroc <lenroc@NOSPAMFORYOU.hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:36:22 +0000, Mark Rathgeber wrote:
>
> > Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying to
> > configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work. Tell
> > me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."
> >
> > My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
> > Robotics 8054 wireless router.
>
> First step is to get the TiVo playing nicely with just the Netgear router.
> (I assume it has multiple wired ports.)
>
> Try plugging the TiVo into one of the wired ports, and either have your
> laptop connect wirelessly to the Netgear router, or plug in either the
> laptop or a desktop to the Netgear router temporarily.
>
> Ensure that the TiVo can connect to the PC, and/or vice versa, in this
> configuration.
>
> If this works, then it's a non-trivial leap to get the TiVo (connected to
> the Netgear) on your larger network. What you need to do is make the
> Netgear router a client on the USR router. To do this, you may need to
> make the Netgear router stop being a router (turn of DHCP, etc.). This may
> be possible, or it may not be. I may have been wrong in my original
> followup. I've never actually tried to make a _wireless_ router act as a
> hub, but I know it's possible to make a wired router into one.
>
> I may have lead you astray with my original post, and if so I'm sorry.
>
> Maybe you could run a wire from one router to another, through some walls,
> perhaps? :-P

Until I got my 802.11g up and and running, I just used a 50' Ethernet
Cable snaked between rooms, and did file transfers over night.

Linksys USB200M at the TiVo to my Router.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:20:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:WauXd.1726$yp.108@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying
to
> configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work. Tell
> me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."
>
> My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
> Robotics 8054 wireless router. The wireless is necessary for a roaming
> laptop. I have tried to connect my TiVo, via WiFi, but all of the USB
> adapters quit after about 20 minutes or so. Now, I have a wired adapter
> connected to a network cable that I string from the living room, where the
> TiVo is, to the computer room, but this can't be a permanent solution,
> 'cause it's really ugly, and dear wife doesn't like it (neither do I).
So,
> if there's a way to configure the Netgear, I would like to try, but I
> haven't had any luck so far. If I don't get it working within few days,
> it's going back to Best Buy. The Netgear is a WGR614v5.

Neither of your routers will act as a bridge. The wireless routers get their
internet connection from the wired side. Bridges will only work with
compatible routers.

You can look for 802.11g range extenders, there may be one that works with
your one the USR. You can also try playing with the antennas to increase the
range. Here are some examples: http://wireless.hackaday.com/

Brad Houser
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:30:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <jzwick3-8FF19D.07333409032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> In article <cuCXd.4124$WK2.712@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Thanks to both of you guys for your comments, especially that it's hard to
> > know before you buy. I still stand by a comment I made in another post last
> > night: TiVo's updates aren't very "up to date." Why in the world would you
> > come up with an option (TiVo ToGo) with such inadequate 802.11g capability,
> > when the rest of the world is pretty much "g?" I also read in lots of
> > forums that using a wireless adapter is frequently impossible, at least for
> > transfers.
>
> Works fine for me with the Linksys WET54G Bridge. If one has an 802.11b
> setup, and it downshifts speed to maintain a connection, transfer rates
> can be abysmal.

My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge. So, if you already have
wireless client(s) using the WAP, that means you need two more pieces of
HW, not one :(  That's why I so badly wanted to use a linksys WAP as a
AP client and bridge some stuff upstairs to it, but not at the expense
of using WEP :( 
March 10, 2005 2:38:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c99510336f181a49896d0@news.giganews.com...
> In article <jzwick3-8FF19D.07333409032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
>> In article <cuCXd.4124$WK2.712@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks to both of you guys for your comments, especially that it's hard
>> > to
>> > know before you buy. I still stand by a comment I made in another post
>> > last
>> > night: TiVo's updates aren't very "up to date." Why in the world would
>> > you
>> > come up with an option (TiVo ToGo) with such inadequate 802.11g
>> > capability,
>> > when the rest of the world is pretty much "g?" I also read in lots of
>> > forums that using a wireless adapter is frequently impossible, at least
>> > for
>> > transfers.
>>
>> Works fine for me with the Linksys WET54G Bridge. If one has an 802.11b
>> setup, and it downshifts speed to maintain a connection, transfer rates
>> can be abysmal.
>
> My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
> connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge. So, if you already have
> wireless client(s) using the WAP, that means you need two more pieces of
> HW, not one :(  That's why I so badly wanted to use a linksys WAP as a
> AP client and bridge some stuff upstairs to it, but not at the expense
> of using WEP :( 

I don't know if it can connect to another WAP or not as I have never tried,
but a bridge, specifically the Linksys ones, can connect to devices other
than bridges, namely directly to a router. Doesn't have to be bridge to
bridge.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:38:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <ANLXd.21$hg.18@news01.roc.ny>, seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
says...
> > My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
> > connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge. So, if you already have
> > wireless client(s) using the WAP, that means you need two more pieces of
> > HW, not one :(  That's why I so badly wanted to use a linksys WAP as a
> > AP client and bridge some stuff upstairs to it, but not at the expense
> > of using WEP :( 
>
> I don't know if it can connect to another WAP or not as I have never tried,
> but a bridge, specifically the Linksys ones, can connect to devices other
> than bridges, namely directly to a router. Doesn't have to be bridge to
> bridge.

I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...
March 10, 2005 2:38:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c99579a804fb3039896d1@news.giganews.com...
> In article <ANLXd.21$hg.18@news01.roc.ny>, seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
> function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
> doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
> bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
> otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...

Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his house
he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the pool
house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:38:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <wcMXd.11767$Xv4.4690@fe09.lga>,
seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
> "Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c99579a804fb3039896d1@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <ANLXd.21$hg.18@news01.roc.ny>, seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >
> > I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
> > function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
> > doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
> > bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
> > otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...
>
> Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
> can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his house
> he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the pool
> house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.

You misunderstood me, I think. Presenting an actual configuration that
works counts as proof in my book :)  I do have to admit to being
surprised though...
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:38:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c9985e18e6e6f9d9896d3@news.giganews.com>,
dswartz@druber.com says...
> In article <wcMXd.11767$Xv4.4690@fe09.lga>,
> seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
> > "Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c99579a804fb3039896d1@news.giganews.com...
> > > In article <ANLXd.21$hg.18@news01.roc.ny>, seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
> > > says...
> > >
> > > I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
> > > function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
> > > doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
> > > bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
> > > otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...
> >
> > Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
> > can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his house
> > he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the pool
> > house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.

I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
(what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
mode". Still doesn't support WPA though :( 
March 10, 2005 2:38:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9985e18e6e6f9d9896d3@news.giganews.com...
> In article <wcMXd.11767$Xv4.4690@fe09.lga>,
> seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
>> "Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c99579a804fb3039896d1@news.giganews.com...
>> > In article <ANLXd.21$hg.18@news01.roc.ny>,
>> > seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
>> > says...
>> >
>> > I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units
>> > can
>> > function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
>> > doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
>> > bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
>> > otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...
>>
>> Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
>> can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his
>> house
>> he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the
>> pool
>> house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.
>
> You misunderstood me, I think. Presenting an actual configuration that
> works counts as proof in my book :)  I do have to admit to being
> surprised though...

Well, some people don't think anything has been proven until they physically
see it with their own eyes and touch it...

I try not to guess at which camp people are in.
March 10, 2005 2:38:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c99885ed8ae58679896d4@news.giganews.com...
>
> I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
> think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
> little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
> in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
> (what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
> it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
> which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
> mode". Still doesn't support WPA though :( 

I only use in infrastructure mode. Things can get unruly if you let each
device talk to whomever they want. Also, when you need to troubleshoot a
system and see what's going on, the router built in logger doesn't do much
good if some of the traffic is bypassing it.

They haven't ported WPA over to the "B" class devices yet? I haven't really
stayed up to speed on the B stuff as most of my people have moved on to "G",
and I try to discourage wireless whenever I can. I do a lot of linking
people's homes to the office via VPN and all I have to do is mention how a
kid in a car can easily see everything in their office if they have wireless
at either location and wireless pretty much disappears from the
conversation.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 4:10:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <d0o3ri$e49$1@news01.intel.com>,
Brad Houser <bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote:

>> if there's a way to configure the Netgear, I would like to try, but I
>> haven't had any luck so far. If I don't get it working within few days,
>> it's going back to Best Buy. The Netgear is a WGR614v5.
>
>Neither of your routers will act as a bridge. The wireless routers get their
>internet connection from the wired side. Bridges will only work with
>compatible routers.

I think there is, unfortunately, some blurring of terminology going on
here which is confusing the issue. It's probably the fault of some
company's marketing department for mis-using the word "bridge".

In normal networking terminology, a "bridge" is a device with two
Ethernet interfaces. It can receive Ethernet packets on one
interface, and retransmit them on the other (or in some cases
retransmit them back out the same interface). It can do so without
regard for the higher-level protocol (e.g. IP, AppleTalk, NetBEUI,
etc.) wrapped in the Ethernet packet. Bridging is largely transparent
to the Ethernet devices whose packets are being forwarded - they need
not be aware of the presence of the bridge. A bridge makes two
physically-discontigous Ethernet segments look like a single Ethernet.

A "router" is a higher-level (IP-level, usually) device. It also has
two or more interfaces (often but not always Ethernet), and each such
interface has its own IP address. The interfaces are typically
connected to different IP networks (different network numbers,
possibly different net-masks). The router can receive packets from
systems on one IP network, and route/forward them onto another network.
Devices which are using a router for packet forwarding *must* be aware
of the router, and voluntarily send the packets to the router for
forwarding (i.e. each device learns the Ethernet interface address of
the router's port on that network, and sends the packet to that
interface rather than to the Ethernet interface of its ultimate
destination).

All of the above applies to Ethernet and IP in general.

Then, there comes 802.11 of its various flavors. It's possible for
802.11b/g devices to operate in "ad hoc" mode, where each of them
sends packets directly to another - this is the wireless equivalent of
a simple twisted-pair wired LAN.

Very few people use ad hoc mode. It's generally felt to be suitable
only for relatively small, simple networks.

Almost everybody uses "infrastructure" mode. In this mode, 802.11
nodes are broken into two classes - access points, and clients.
Clients speak directly *only* to access points - they don't speak to
one another.

Access points will forward packets between wireless clients - they act
as Ethernet-level bridges on their wireless side (retransmitting
packets out of the same interface from which it arrived). They will
also usually act as Ethernet-level bridges between the wired and
wireless interfaces.

Access points may also incorporate IP-level router functionality.
They may have a "WAN" interface which hooks up to a cable modem, DSL,
or other Ethernet.

A lot of the small/home-office devices sold todays are all of these:
802.11 WAP (with wireless-to-wireless bridging), wired-to-wireless
bridge, and IP router. Extra functions such as IP firewalling and a
DHCP or print server are also built in sometimes.

Now, there comes the confusion: the device called a "wireless
bridge". This is a device which is an Ethernet-level bridge, where
one of the interfaces is an 802.11b/g card or radio which is operating
as a client.

To make matters even more confusing, there are (I believe) some WAPs
on the market which can be configured to operate either as normal
WAPs (802.11 infrastructure-mode access points with Ethernet-level
bridging) or as "wireless bridges" (802.11 infrastructure-mode clients
of another access point, with both it and the AP to which it's
associated acting as Ethernet bridges).

There are even some which can operate in both modes at once, I think -
they're an infrastructure access point using one radio and antenna,
and an infrastructure client on a different network using a second
radio and antenna.

Confusing things even further is the "wireless repeater" or "range
extender", which uses a special very-low-level 802.11 packet
forwarding mechanism which actually lies "beneath" the Ethernet level.
These are fairly uncommon, expensive, and not all 802.11 cards will
know how to work with them).

Devices which can operate as 802.11b clients, and Ethernet-level
bridges ("wireless bridges" in marketing-speak) don't *need* to be
more expensive than normal 802.11b WAPs - they use the same radio,
pretty much the same firmware, and they both implement the same
Ethernet-level bridging functions. Arguably they're technically
easier to implement, since their firmware doesn't need to implement
access-point functionality. However, for reasons that I suspect have
to do with the low number which are sold, they're uncommon and
expensive. Very few vendors seem to bother building this
functionality into their standard WAPs, although it's not technically
difficult to do.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 4:23:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c99510336f181a49896d0@news.giganews.com>,
Dan Swartzendruber <dswartz@druber.com> wrote:

> In article <jzwick3-8FF19D.07333409032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> > In article <cuCXd.4124$WK2.712@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks to both of you guys for your comments, especially that it's hard
> > > to
> > > know before you buy. I still stand by a comment I made in another post
> > > last
> > > night: TiVo's updates aren't very "up to date." Why in the world would
> > > you
> > > come up with an option (TiVo ToGo) with such inadequate 802.11g
> > > capability,
> > > when the rest of the world is pretty much "g?" I also read in lots of
> > > forums that using a wireless adapter is frequently impossible, at least
> > > for
> > > transfers.
> >
> > Works fine for me with the Linksys WET54G Bridge. If one has an 802.11b
> > setup, and it downshifts speed to maintain a connection, transfer rates
> > can be abysmal.
>
> My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
> connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge.

I know thats not true, as I have my Bridge connecting to my Wireless
Router.



> So, if you already have
> wireless client(s) using the WAP, that means you need two more pieces of
> HW, not one :(  That's why I so badly wanted to use a linksys WAP as a
> AP client and bridge some stuff upstairs to it, but not at the expense
> of using WEP :( 
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 4:24:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <jzwick3-51FD26.19235909032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> > My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
> > connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge.
>
> I know thats not true, as I have my Bridge connecting to my Wireless
> Router.

This is a linksys router? And it's not in bridge mode? If so, that's
pretty surprising, as their own documentation says you have to pick a
mode to operate the WAP in - and if you pick "bridge" mode, it won't
associate with any roaming clients.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 4:26:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <112v7jsnkuhfu2f@corp.supernews.com>,
dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote:

> Devices which can operate as 802.11b clients, and Ethernet-level
> bridges ("wireless bridges" in marketing-speak) don't *need* to be
> more expensive than normal 802.11b WAPs - they use the same radio,
> pretty much the same firmware, and they both implement the same
> Ethernet-level bridging functions. Arguably they're technically
> easier to implement, since their firmware doesn't need to implement
> access-point functionality. However, for reasons that I suspect have
> to do with the low number which are sold, they're uncommon and
> expensive. Very few vendors seem to bother building this
> functionality into their standard WAPs, although it's not technically
> difficult to do.

Perhaps also Bridges cost more as they generate more support calls.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 4:44:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>> Devices which can operate as 802.11b clients, and Ethernet-level
>> bridges ("wireless bridges" in marketing-speak) don't *need* to be
>> more expensive than normal 802.11b WAPs - they use the same radio,
>> pretty much the same firmware, and they both implement the same
>> Ethernet-level bridging functions. Arguably they're technically
>> easier to implement, since their firmware doesn't need to implement
>> access-point functionality. However, for reasons that I suspect have
>> to do with the low number which are sold, they're uncommon and
>> expensive. Very few vendors seem to bother building this
>> functionality into their standard WAPs, although it's not technically
>> difficult to do.

>Perhaps also Bridges cost more as they generate more support calls.

That could very well be the case. The secondary cost of providing
client-bridge capability (support calls, extra pages written up and
maintained in the manual, a more complex user interface for the
onboard HTTP-based configuration server) could easily be more than the
actual low-level engineering cost of adding client-mode support.

Then again it may be a matter of not cannibalizing your own market.
"Hey, Bob, we're selling this 802.11 client bridge for $100. Why
are you talking about adding this capability to our SOHO WAP/router
which is regularly being discounted for $40 minus rebate? None of
our competitors have this capability in their WAPs - what's the
justification for adding it to ours? You're gonna cost me my sales
bonus for the quarter, dude!"

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 7:59:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <ffQXd.438$mP1.232@fe10.lga>,
Seth <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>They haven't ported WPA over to the "B" class devices yet?

It depends. I believe that some vendors have upgraded their card
firmware and driver software, and implemented WPA supplicants, but
many have not. Ditto for the access points - I believe it's quite
unusual for WPA support to be added to an 802.11B AP firmware for
APs which didn't support it initially.

On the other hand, on Linux and other open-source operating systems
it's often possible to run an open-source WPA supplicant, a driver
which at least allows rapid re-keying, and use host-side encryption
support. The card itself is put in a "transmit and receive packets
unencrypted" mode, and the host handles all of the encryption. Faster
that way, really.


--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:00:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
> think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
> little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
> in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
> (what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
> it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
> which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
> mode". Still doesn't support WPA though :( 

That's true, but I still think you're going to run into a problem
because you won't be able to designate the wireless interface (actually
a particular *client* on the wireless interface) as the WAN source.

RandY S.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:52:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <ffQXd.438$mP1.232@fe10.lga>, seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com
says...
> "Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c99885ed8ae58679896d4@news.giganews.com...
> >
> > I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
> > think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
> > little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
> > in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
> > (what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
> > it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
> > which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
> > mode". Still doesn't support WPA though :( 
>
> I only use in infrastructure mode. Things can get unruly if you let each
> device talk to whomever they want. Also, when you need to troubleshoot a
> system and see what's going on, the router built in logger doesn't do much
> good if some of the traffic is bypassing it.

Good to hear...

> They haven't ported WPA over to the "B" class devices yet? I haven't really
> stayed up to speed on the B stuff as most of my people have moved on to "G",
> and I try to discourage wireless whenever I can. I do a lot of linking
> people's homes to the office via VPN and all I have to do is mention how a
> kid in a car can easily see everything in their office if they have wireless
> at either location and wireless pretty much disappears from the
> conversation.

Nope. There is a "G" version that does do WPA and has a builtin 5-port
switch though...
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:56:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <d0pge0$15fo$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>,
rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com says...
>
> > I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
> > think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
> > little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
> > in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
> > (what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
> > it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
> > which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
> > mode". Still doesn't support WPA though :( 
>
> That's true, but I still think you're going to run into a problem
> because you won't be able to designate the wireless interface (actually
> a particular *client* on the wireless interface) as the WAN source.

Not sure what you mean by WAN source. The gateway to the outside world?
That's done via the default gateway at the IP level and has nothing to
do with wireless...
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:33:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c99858bd6da3d999896d2@news.giganews.com>,
Dan Swartzendruber <dswartz@druber.com> wrote:

> In article <jzwick3-51FD26.19235909032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> > > My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
> > > connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge.
> >
> > I know thats not true, as I have my Bridge connecting to my Wireless
> > Router.
>
> This is a linksys router? And it's not in bridge mode? If so, that's
> pretty surprising, as their own documentation says you have to pick a
> mode to operate the WAP in - and if you pick "bridge" mode, it won't
> associate with any roaming clients.

Nope D-Link Wireless Router DI-524, using WAP from the Linksys WET54G
Bridge.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:33:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <jzwick3-6408E1.04331010032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> In article <MPG.1c99858bd6da3d999896d2@news.giganews.com>,
> Dan Swartzendruber <dswartz@druber.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <jzwick3-51FD26.19235909032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> > jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> > > > My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
> > > > connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge.
> > >
> > > I know thats not true, as I have my Bridge connecting to my Wireless
> > > Router.
> >
> > This is a linksys router? And it's not in bridge mode? If so, that's
> > pretty surprising, as their own documentation says you have to pick a
> > mode to operate the WAP in - and if you pick "bridge" mode, it won't
> > associate with any roaming clients.
>
> Nope D-Link Wireless Router DI-524, using WAP from the Linksys WET54G
> Bridge.

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about the WAP, but the
bridge. e.g. linksys supports running their WAPs as "bridges", or as
"wireless AP clients", but in the former case, they have to talk to
another linksys "bridge" (by their own documentation). As a different
subthread here is indicating, the WET units work differently (e.g. they
seem to be bridges or WAP clients, and in the latter case, doesn't
matter whose WAP/router they talk to (as is your case it seems.)
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:59:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> In article <d0pge0$15fo$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>,
> rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com says...
>
>>>I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
>>>think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
>>>little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
>>>in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
>>>(what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
>>>it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
>>>which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
>>>mode". Still doesn't support WPA though :( 
>>
>>That's true, but I still think you're going to run into a problem
>>because you won't be able to designate the wireless interface (actually
>>a particular *client* on the wireless interface) as the WAN source.
>
>
> Not sure what you mean by WAN source. The gateway to the outside world?
> That's done via the default gateway at the IP level and has nothing to
> do with wireless...
>

That's true for a bridge, but a router has interfaces on multiple LANs
(hence it will have multiple gateway addresses, one for each LAN it is
attached to). In the configuration you are describing, one of those
wireless clients will have to be identified as a member of the external
LAN (i.e. WAN). Typically consumer level routers automatically lump all
wireless clients into a single LAN and don't give you an option to
designate otherwise.

If it is possible to throw the device into "bridge mode", where it is no
longer acting as a router, then your statement is correct, and you
should have no problem. In this mode the device is acting as nothing
more than a translater between wired ethernet and 802.11b/g. In this
mode they don't do NAT. But I've noticed that a lot of consumer level
routers don't *have* a "bridge" mode, in which case you'd be SOL.

Dave Platt's explanation was a good one, but the consumer level devices
try to dumb down the terminology and end up confusing the issue
tremendously when trying to set up more advanced networks. A lot of
times it's even really difficult to figure out which device can do which.

The one thing that keeps confusing me is that most literature defines
"bridge" to be a device that connects two LAN's running the same Layer 2
protocol. I've seen this done mainly to break up collision domains in
non-switched networks, however the inexpensiveness of switches (as
opposed to hubs) now has pretty much removed this need. I more commonly
see "bridge" used in the field to refer to a device that connects 2 LANs
using *different* layer 1 media and or layer 2 protocols, i.e. 10base2
ethernet to 10baseT, ethernet to token ring, or (most commonly) ethernet
to wireless. There the device is acting more as a media and protocol
converter. Dave, what's your experience on this?

Randy S.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:18:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Mark Rathgeber" <alvamark@swbell.net> writes:

> Instead of using a USB wireless adapter (for TiVo ToGo), I've read
> where you can used a wired adapter and a "bridge." Can a wireless
> access point serve as a bridge? All of the wireless bridges I've
> found are kind of expensive, and I see that CompUSA has a Motorola
> WAP for a good price this week. Will this work?

Short answer: No. Wireless routers generally do not support wireless
bridging, because they are not designed to act as wireless clients.

Long answer: How technical are you?

If you get a Linksys WRT54G (or WRT54GS) and install one of the
firmware "upgrades" from <http://www.sveasoft.com/&gt;, the wireless
configuration page will have a new option called "client mode". This
configures the router as a wireless client and thus function as a
wireless bridge.

This is what I am using for my TiVo and it works great.

I paid the $25/year fee so I could use the "Alchemy" releases, but the
free "Satori" releases also support client mode. The technical
details differ significantly, though. In Satori, enabling "client
mode" configures the router as a bridge. For a variety of reasons
this does not always work, especially if you have more than one
machine behind the bridge (which I do). In Alchemy, enabling "client
mode" causes the wireless uplink to be treated exactly like the WAN
interface. This is more reliable and efficient, but it also firewalls
off my TiVo from the rest of my network, which happens to be what I
want.

The WRT54G is a hacker's dream (runs Linux, naturally), and the
SVEASOFT developers have really gone to town. If you do take this
route and get stuck, the SVEASOFT forums are a decent resource.

- Pat
March 10, 2005 8:08:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dan Swartzendruber" <dswartz@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9a1b46fb70bcf79896d5@news.giganews.com...
>
>> They haven't ported WPA over to the "B" class devices yet? I haven't
>> really
>> stayed up to speed on the B stuff as most of my people have moved on to
>> "G",
>> and I try to discourage wireless whenever I can. I do a lot of linking
>> people's homes to the office via VPN and all I have to do is mention how
>> a
>> kid in a car can easily see everything in their office if they have
>> wireless
>> at either location and wireless pretty much disappears from the
>> conversation.
>
> Nope. There is a "G" version that does do WPA and has a builtin 5-port
> switch though...

Yup. WRT54G (a few flavors, with speedboost, VoIP, etc). That's what I use
myself and my clients.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:59:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <s5gy8cvl9p8.fsf@patl=users.sf.net>,
patl@users.sourceforge.net says...
> If you get a Linksys WRT54G (or WRT54GS) and install one of the
> firmware "upgrades" from <http://www.sveasoft.com/&gt;, the wireless
> configuration page will have a new option called "client mode". This
> configures the router as a wireless client and thus function as a
> wireless bridge.
>
> This is what I am using for my TiVo and it works great.
>
> I paid the $25/year fee so I could use the "Alchemy" releases, but the
> free "Satori" releases also support client mode. The technical
> details differ significantly, though. In Satori, enabling "client
> mode" configures the router as a bridge. For a variety of reasons
> this does not always work, especially if you have more than one
> machine behind the bridge (which I do). In Alchemy, enabling "client
> mode" causes the wireless uplink to be treated exactly like the WAN
> interface. This is more reliable and efficient, but it also firewalls
> off my TiVo from the rest of my network, which happens to be what I
> want.
>
> The WRT54G is a hacker's dream (runs Linux, naturally), and the
> SVEASOFT developers have really gone to town. If you do take this
> route and get stuck, the SVEASOFT forums are a decent resource.

Does this version support WPA? When I first tried this (back maybe 6
months or so ago), it didn't. There was talk on the forum of "sometime
but we're not sure when...". I moved on that that point...
!