DI-624 as bridge

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

I've got both a little Linksys wireless router (BFSW11S4) and a Dlink
DI-624. They're both wireless routers, right?

If I plug a cable modem into one of these "routers", all my wireless
clients can see the entire LAN - as well as the internet. Cool. It's
routing wireless to the LAN. Or acting a a bridge I suppose.

But take away the cable modem, and all bets are off. It then somehow
kills the bridge from Wireless into ethernet. So it ain't just the
WAN (internet) that dies when you pull the Cable modem - but also
access from wireless to Ethernet. Go figure.

You see, I've got a Cisco 2425 I use for my internet stuff - and two
wireless SOHO routers (boat anchors) that all of a sudden can't be
used for even simple wireless. Is this for real?

Thinking I might route at the IP level, I even tried establishing a
route on the Di-624 from Wireless-ethernet, but it won't accept it.
Is this why these little gizmos are only $40? But an AccessPoint that
WILL bridge is $120 ?

Jezz, I give up.
2 answers Last reply
More about bridge
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 31 May 2004 12:16:20 -0700, buckwheat_phd@yahoo.com (buckwheat)
    wrote:

    >I've got both a little Linksys wireless router (BFSW11S4) and a Dlink
    >DI-624. They're both wireless routers, right?
    >
    >If I plug a cable modem into one of these "routers", all my wireless
    >clients can see the entire LAN - as well as the internet. Cool. It's
    >routing wireless to the LAN. Or acting a a bridge I suppose.
    >
    >But take away the cable modem, and all bets are off. It then somehow
    >kills the bridge from Wireless into ethernet. So it ain't just the
    >WAN (internet) that dies when you pull the Cable modem - but also
    >access from wireless to Ethernet. Go figure.
    >
    >You see, I've got a Cisco 2425 I use for my internet stuff - and two
    >wireless SOHO routers (boat anchors) that all of a sudden can't be
    >used for even simple wireless. Is this for real?
    >
    >Thinking I might route at the IP level, I even tried establishing a
    >route on the Di-624 from Wireless-ethernet, but it won't accept it.
    >Is this why these little gizmos are only $40? But an AccessPoint that
    >WILL bridge is $120 ?
    >
    >Jezz, I give up.

    Makes no sense to me. I bought a DI-624 and when I first set it up, I
    had no DSL modem. It worked fine routing wireless connections to my
    ethernet desktop. Later I added a DSL modem and now have internet
    access from every PC.

    So it does work both ways. Not sure what you have done wrong, but it
    should work fine without a modem connected.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    buckwheat <buckwheat_phd@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > I've got both a little Linksys wireless router (BFSW11S4) and a Dlink
    > DI-624. They're both wireless routers, right?

    > If I plug a cable modem into one of these "routers", all my wireless
    > clients can see the entire LAN - as well as the internet. Cool. It's
    > routing wireless to the LAN. Or acting a a bridge I suppose.

    > But take away the cable modem, and all bets are off. It then somehow
    > kills the bridge from Wireless into ethernet. So it ain't just the
    > WAN (internet) that dies when you pull the Cable modem - but also
    > access from wireless to Ethernet. Go figure.

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?J30641777
    It looks like you need to assign a fixed IP address to the WAN port, so
    that it isn't constantly looking for a DHCP server on the WAN side.

    I get revs confused, but there is also an option on some versions of the
    Linksys to set the router as a router instead of a gateway. You would
    then use the WAN port to connect to your upstream network. Advanced Tab -
    Dynamic Routing - Router

    ---
    Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless Wireless Router Internet Wireless Networking