Adding wireless to existing NAT network.

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Hey all,

I'm pretty new to the wireless world, and not sure of my options. I want
to add a wireless laptop to
my home network. I have an existing firewall that handles IP Masquerading
and blocks unwanted traffic. It works fine so I don't want to
overhaul my network unless I need to.

I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to configure a wireless router to act
like a dumb hub if I don't need NAT or firewall abilities. Just
want to make sure before picking one up. Anything I should worry about?
Maybe I need a different product? Thanks for any help you can offer.


that guy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

that guy wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm pretty new to the wireless world, and not sure of my options. I
> want to add a wireless laptop to
> my home network. I have an existing firewall that handles IP
> Masquerading and blocks unwanted traffic. It works fine so I don't
> want to
> overhaul my network unless I need to.
>
> I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to configure a wireless router to act
> like a dumb hub if I don't need NAT or firewall abilities. Just
> want to make sure before picking one up. Anything I should worry
> about? Maybe I need a different product? Thanks for any help you can
> offer.
>
>
> that guy

For the cost of an AP vs wireless router, I would go with the router
since they all have multiple wired ports. Your existing firewall will
remain necessary - is it a hardware firewall or software? NAT does
simple internal LAN IP/external WAN IP translation, built in to all
routers. Wireless routers will provide the host for WPA/WEP wireless
security and leave you with an expandable network, and are easier to
configure than APs (IMO).

Q

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

that guy <thatguy@notarealemailaddress.com> wrote in
newsine.LNX.4.44.0404231153130.7464-100000@highlife.homeip.net:

> I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to configure a wireless router to act
> like a dumb hub if I don't need NAT or firewall abilities

Just get an Access Point, no need for a router.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Routers are generally less money than an AP. Be sure to configure it as a
router and not as a gateway.


"Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
news:dLidnbwgU6_T1xTdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> that guy wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I'm pretty new to the wireless world, and not sure of my options. I
> > want to add a wireless laptop to
> > my home network. I have an existing firewall that handles IP
> > Masquerading and blocks unwanted traffic. It works fine so I don't
> > want to
> > overhaul my network unless I need to.
> >
> > I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to configure a wireless router to act
> > like a dumb hub if I don't need NAT or firewall abilities. Just
> > want to make sure before picking one up. Anything I should worry
> > about? Maybe I need a different product? Thanks for any help you can
> > offer.
> >
> >
> > that guy
>
> For the cost of an AP vs wireless router, I would go with the router
> since they all have multiple wired ports. Your existing firewall will
> remain necessary - is it a hardware firewall or software? NAT does
> simple internal LAN IP/external WAN IP translation, built in to all
> routers. Wireless routers will provide the host for WPA/WEP wireless
> security and leave you with an expandable network, and are easier to
> configure than APs (IMO).
>
> Q
>
>

 

[Don]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

I did just that today.
My existing network consisted of a linksys broadband router.
To get a wireless router to work easily I did the following:
Change the IP address of the wireless router to 192.168.1.2 so that
there will not be two divices with the same number.
Use a crossover (very important) cat5 cable to go from a regular port
on the existing router to a regular port on the wireless router (do
NOT use the uplink connector on either router or the WAN connector on
the wireless router).
You should be able to power everything up and be running with no other
changes to either router.
It worked for me using a linksys wireless and linksys wired router.
Again...you must use a crossover cable. (easy to make)

Don

that guy <thatguy@notarealemailaddress.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404231153130.7464-100000@highlife.homeip.net>...
> Hey all,
>
> I'm pretty new to the wireless world, and not sure of my options. I want
> to add a wireless laptop to
> my home network. I have an existing firewall that handles IP Masquerading
> and blocks unwanted traffic. It works fine so I don't want to
> overhaul my network unless I need to.
>
> I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to configure a wireless router to act
> like a dumb hub if I don't need NAT or firewall abilities. Just
> want to make sure before picking one up. Anything I should worry about?
> Maybe I need a different product? Thanks for any help you can offer.
>
>
> that guy

 

[DS]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

donnomatter@yahoo.com (Don) wrote in
news:c8ae8258.0404261826.4025a34d@posting.google.com:


> Use a crossover (very important) cat5 cable to go from a regular port
> on the existing router to a regular port on the wireless router (do
> NOT use the uplink connector on either router or the WAN connector on
> the wireless router).

Just wondering why NOT to use one of the uplink ports ?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2004 19:26:20 -0700, Don spoketh

>I did just that today.
>My existing network consisted of a linksys broadband router.
>To get a wireless router to work easily I did the following:
>Change the IP address of the wireless router to 192.168.1.2 so that
>there will not be two divices with the same number.
>Use a crossover (very important) cat5 cable to go from a regular port
>on the existing router to a regular port on the wireless router (do
>NOT use the uplink connector on either router or the WAN connector on
>the wireless router).
>You should be able to power everything up and be running with no other
>changes to either router.
>It worked for me using a linksys wireless and linksys wired router.
>Again...you must use a crossover cable. (easy to make)
>
>Don
>

There's four ways you can connect two devices with uplink ports:

1. Regular port on switch1 to uplink port on switch2 with cat5.
2. Uplink port on switch1 to regular port on switch2 with cat5.
3. Regular port on switch1 to regular port on switch2 with xcat5.
4. Uplink port on switch1 to uplink port on switch2 with xcat5.

There's absolutely no reason why you must use a cross-over cable with
two regular ports. Some of these devices have shared ports, which mean
the uplink port is shared with a regular port, and if that is the case,
then you cannot use both...

Also, since there's no need to get a router, a simple Wireless access
point will do nicely...

Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Lars M. Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in
news:n4vs9012b58r8m6063iq56maq1a1e8toki@4ax.com:
k port on switch1 to uplink port on switch2 with xcat5.

> There's absolutely no reason why you must use a cross-over cable with
> two regular ports. Some of these devices have shared ports, which mean
> the uplink port is shared with a regular port, and if that is the case,
> then you cannot use both...

Exactly. Many of them share the uplink with the port beside it. The Linksys
BEFSR41 does this. You either use the crossover cable on the "regular" port,
which will disable the uplink port, or use a "regular" cable on the "uplink"
port, which will disable the "regular" port beside it. Makes no difference
which you use, except it's a lot easier to find a pre-made regular cable in
the longer lengths than a crossover.