NETBEUI support on WAPs and WNICs

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

I'm looking for a Wireless Access Point (not a router) and a Wireless Network
Interface Card that can both support NETBEUI. I have tried using the D-Link
DWL-G120 WNIC and DWL-G700AP WAP, but NETBEUI doesn't seem to be supported on
one or both. This is to handle a small group of computers (six or so) that
have no need of Internet access and, because of policy, cannot be served by a
router. If only router models exist that support NETBEUI, I would need to be
able to disable the routing functionality so that it only bridges wired with
wireless.

In a more general vein, why is it that an access point that is only configured
to bridge wired and wireless should even care what protocols are being used?

Thanks,
Mike
7 answers Last reply
More about netbeui support waps wnics
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 17 Jul 2004 08:56:04 -0700, davis.157@osu.edu (M. Davis) wrote:

    >I'm looking for a Wireless Access Point (not a router) and a Wireless Network
    >Interface Card that can both support NETBEUI.

    Ahem. A wireless access point is also known as a wireless bridge. A
    wireless bridge works on layer 2 and doesn't know anything about the
    higher level protocols (TCP/IP, NETBEUI, IPX/SPX, AppleTalk, etc). It
    works on 802.3 frames using the source and destination MAC addresses
    found inside. In theory, any wireless bridge should work with
    NETBEUI. However, I haven't personally tried it and don't really know
    what problems you'll encounter.

    >I have tried using the D-Link
    >DWL-G120 WNIC and DWL-G700AP WAP, but NETBEUI doesn't seem to be supported on
    >one or both.

    Duz "not supported" mean that it's not specified in the data sheets?
    How are you testing it (or are you doing any testing)?

    >This is to handle a small group of computers (six or so) that
    >have no need of Internet access and, because of policy, cannot be served by a
    >router. If only router models exist that support NETBEUI, I would need to be
    >able to disable the routing functionality so that it only bridges wired with
    >wireless.

    Careful. You just threw in the evil term "router". A router is a
    protocol dependent device that works on layer 3. That means the
    router has to support NETBEUI to work. That isn't going to happen
    because even Microsloth doesn't like NETBEUI.
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;301041
    If you roll back to your previous request and stick with wireless
    bridges (access points), it should work.

    >In a more general vein, why is it that an access point that is only configured
    >to bridge wired and wireless should even care what protocols are being used?

    A wireless bridge or access point doesn't care about layer 3
    protocols. However, you're gonna have problems with managing and
    configuring these access points and cards. All configuration on the
    access point must be done using TCP/IP (web based). I'm also not
    certain if the device drivers for various PCMCIA or USB radios will
    "bind" to the NETBEUI protocol. I guess I have to try it first to be
    sure.

    There's quite a bit of stuff online that claims NETBEUI will play over
    wireless.
    http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/netbeui.htm
    http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Security.html

    http://www.cmu.edu/computing/documentation/wireless_me/Wire_WinME.html
    None of it seems tied to specific hardware.

    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:04:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann spoketh

    >
    >Ahem. A wireless access point is also known as a wireless bridge.

    Never confuse a wireless access point with a wireless bridge. These are
    two very different things, and does not perform the same tasks.

    A wireless access point allows regular wireless clients (such as
    computers) to connect to a wired network.

    A wireless bridge only allows connections from access points and other
    bridges.

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

    On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:45:08 GMT, Lars M. Hansen
    <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:

    >On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:04:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann spoketh
    >
    >>
    >>Ahem. A wireless access point is also known as a wireless bridge.

    >Never confuse a wireless access point with a wireless bridge. These are
    >two very different things, and does not perform the same tasks.
    >
    >A wireless access point allows regular wireless clients (such as
    >computers) to connect to a wired network.
    >
    >A wireless bridge only allows connections from access points and other
    >bridges.

    All wireless bridges are not the same, despite the overuse of the
    term.

    Methinks you may be thinking of a "transparent bridge". This is
    usually a pair of wireless bridges designed to connect two networks
    together. The distinguishing characteristic is that the transparent
    bridge will pass multiple MAC addresses (usually 30 for the cheap
    bridges) over the wireless link, while the typical access point and
    client radio, will only do one MAC address per client.

    In the past, the distinction between a client side wireless bridge was
    that it would pass only one MAC address. The D-Link DWL-900AP+, in
    client radio mode, is one of these. It was also common to seriously
    overcharge for transparent bridges as compared to the identical
    devices with different firmware acting as access points. I recall
    buying two Cisco 340 series transparent bridges for $1500 each, while
    the equivalent access point was only $500 each. The lack of a common
    transparent bridging protocol also made compatibility somewhat of a
    challenge.

    Recently, a generation of devices commonly called "game adapters" has
    appeared. These are essentially transparent bridges and can bridge 30
    devices (32 MAC addresses minus the addresses of the devices
    themselves) and are quite different from previous incantations in that
    they don't need an identical unit on the other side of the link and
    will function in concert with a conventional access point. I'm not
    sure exactly how they do this, so I won't try to guess.

    Bridges can come in point to multipoint, which really should be called
    a "wireless switch" but that might cause consumer confusion. This
    point to multipoint wireless bridge can act as a conventional access
    point allowing one MAC address connection per client radio, or talk to
    a game adapter (transparent bridge) which allows more than one. The
    DWL-900AP+ can do either of these modes, but not at the same time.

    Of course there's nothing cast in concete as to the media that's being
    bridged. We can safely assume that one end of the bridge is wireless.
    The other can be ethernet, USB, RS-232, parallel port, fire wire,
    fiber, or whatever is fashionable this week.

    So, we have:

    - Transparent bridge (more than one MAC address between two points)
    - Point to point transparent bridge (same as Transparent bridge)
    - Game adapter (transparent bridge acting as client radio)
    - Point to multipoint bridge (access point. One MAC per client)
    - Client bridge (one MAC only)


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
    news:<rulif01rc8svok9bpl6s1vcdsqu5dbpqou@4ax.com>...
    > On 17 Jul 2004 08:56:04 -0700, davis.157@osu.edu (M. Davis) wrote:
    >
    > >I'm looking for a Wireless Access Point (not a router) and a Wireless Network
    > >Interface Card that can both support NETBEUI.
    >
    > Ahem. A wireless access point is also known as a wireless bridge. A
    > wireless bridge works on layer 2 and doesn't know anything about the
    > higher level protocols (TCP/IP, NETBEUI, IPX/SPX, AppleTalk, etc). It
    > works on 802.3 frames using the source and destination MAC addresses
    > found inside. In theory, any wireless bridge should work with
    > NETBEUI. However, I haven't personally tried it and don't really know
    > what problems you'll encounter.

    I know that, theoretically, the protocol shouldn't matter to the
    WNIC and/or WAP. There are plenty of posts in this newsgroup that
    seem to imply that is not the case. For example, a number of posts
    say that, for at least some hardware, while NETBEUI can be passed, you
    can't also use encryption (e.g. WEP). How lame is that? ...And it
    looks like there's plenty of issues with AppleTalk for the Macintosh
    bretheren.

    >
    > >I have tried using the D-Link
    > >DWL-G120 WNIC and DWL-G700AP WAP, but NETBEUI doesn't seem to be supported on
    > >one or both.
    >
    > Duz "not supported" mean that it's not specified in the data sheets?
    > How are you testing it (or are you doing any testing)?

    I'm testing both in a real-world situation with both Win2K and WinXP.
    So far, nothing I have done with the WAP or WNIC have allowed NETBEUI
    to pass between them. The data sheets don't mention protocols
    supported (apart from TCP/IP for management of the WAP) but then, why
    should they? Again, theoretically, any protocol that can be carried
    over Ethernet should be transportable with a WiFi WAP, right?

    >
    > >This is to handle a small group of computers (six or so) that
    > >have no need of Internet access and, because of policy, cannot be served by a
    > >router. If only router models exist that support NETBEUI, I would need to be
    > >able to disable the routing functionality so that it only bridges wired with
    > >wireless.
    >
    > Careful. You just threw in the evil term "router". A router is a
    > protocol dependent device that works on layer 3. That means the
    > router has to support NETBEUI to work. That isn't going to happen
    > because even Microsloth doesn't like NETBEUI.
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;301041
    > If you roll back to your previous request and stick with wireless
    > bridges (access points), it should work.

    I now the difference between a router, access point, hubs and
    switches. (I get paid to.) I was just proposing that, perhaps,
    there's a wireless router out there that someone knows for a fact can
    pass NETBEUI when its routing capability is disabled and it only acts
    as an access point.

    >
    > >In a more general vein, why is it that an access point that is only configured
    > >to bridge wired and wireless should even care what protocols are being used?
    >
    > A wireless bridge or access point doesn't care about layer 3
    > protocols. However, you're gonna have problems with managing and
    > configuring these access points and cards. All configuration on the
    > access point must be done using TCP/IP (web based). I'm also not
    > certain if the device drivers for various PCMCIA or USB radios will
    > "bind" to the NETBEUI protocol. I guess I have to try it first to be
    > sure.

    We're only just getting our feet wet with WiFi, since practically every
    room in the building complex at work is wired. It has generally only
    been requested when stringing Ethernet cables across a floor or ceiling
    would not be ideal.

    >
    > There's quite a bit of stuff online that claims NETBEUI will play over
    > wireless.
    > http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/netbeui.htm
    > http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Security.html
    >
    > http://www.cmu.edu/computing/documentation/wireless_me/Wire_WinME.html
    > None of it seems tied to specific hardware.

    I appreciate the links. I'll review them to see if there's anything there
    I can apply to my testing next week. Regardless, if someone has specific
    hardware recommendations for WNIC and/or WAP that are known and testing
    to pass NETBEUI, I'd be glad to see them.

    Thanks,
    Mike
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 17 Jul 2004 18:08:17 -0700, davis.157@osu.edu (M. Davis) wrote:

    >I know that, theoretically, the protocol shouldn't matter to the
    >WNIC and/or WAP.

    Practice generally follows theory. I'm a practioner of arcane
    protocols and byzantine specifications built on marginal technology.
    If the spec says it should work, then there will appear someone from
    behind the curtain to make it work (or heads will roll).

    >There are plenty of posts in this newsgroup that
    >seem to imply that is not the case.

    I've spent considerable time dealing with some of these issues. I
    know more about RF than about protocols and find anecdotal experience
    to be interesting, but never the absolute last word. Keep an open
    mind, especially when you know that in theory it should work.

    >I'm testing both in a real-world situation with both Win2K and WinXP.
    >So far, nothing I have done with the WAP or WNIC have allowed NETBEUI
    >to pass between them.

    Well, it took me about 15 minutes to verify that it DOES work. Here's
    what I did:

    One end:
    W2K Desktop.
    Ethernet to Linksys BEFW11S4 wireless router.
    WAN port goes to DSL modem.
    Ethernet card now shows:
    Client for Messy Networks
    File and Print Sharing
    Netbeui protocol
    Network monitor driver
    Internet protocol (TCP/IP)
    I have intentionally set the default protocol to Netbeui and setup a
    bogus IP address for TCP/IP. It can't see the router or surf the
    internet.

    At the other end, I have:
    Micron P133 junker laptop with Windoze 98SE
    Orinoco Silver card
    Wireless card shows:
    Client for Messy Networks
    File and print sharing
    Netbeui protocol
    I went into the properties for TCP/IP -> Orinoco and unchecked all the
    bindings. Rebooted.

    #begin diversion();
    In theory, TCP/IP should be disarmed and off. Wrong. I got a suprise
    when I ran IPCONFIG and discovered that the router had delivered an IP
    address. I ran:
    ipconfig /release_all
    and everything cleared to 0.0.0.0. I then ran:
    ipconfig /renew_all
    and the IP address arrived. Now way should that have happened. So, I
    just ran ipconfig /release_all and left it with all 0.0.0.0. It
    stayed that way so I'll assume that TCP/IP is disarmed and off. I
    can't ping or browse, so I guess that takes care of that problem.
    #end diversion();

    For testing, I simply shared a handy folder on the W2K machine. From
    the W98SE laptop, network neighborhood found the W2K box, found the
    shared folder, and opened files in it. Windoze networking is working
    over NETBEUI.

    I realize that this is between a wireless port and an ethernet port
    and that a wireless to wireless connection should be tested. However,
    I'm fairly certain that it will work the same way. I do have a 2nd
    laptop and wireless card here, but I suspect it has either a virus or
    trojan and I wanna clean it out before I do anything with it.

    >The data sheets don't mention protocols
    >supported (apart from TCP/IP for management of the WAP) but then, why
    >should they? Again, theoretically, any protocol that can be carried
    >over Ethernet should be transportable with a WiFi WAP, right?

    Right. Actually, one wireless contraption does specify supported
    protocols. That's the multiprotocol print server, which has to
    directly support every layer 3 protocol in order to print. Most (not
    all) of the 802.11 print servers support NETBEUI. This should be a
    clue as they would need to have the client radios also support the
    same collection of protocols.

    >I was just proposing that, perhaps,
    >there's a wireless router out there that someone knows for a fact can
    >pass NETBEUI when its routing capability is disabled and it only acts
    >as an access point.

    Eventually, the wireless contraption manufactories will get the clue
    and casually mention that a wireless router can be used as an access
    point (or point to multipoint bridge) by ignoring the router features.
    Admitting that they support diverse protocols would also be nice.
    However, I call to your attention the typical data sheet, which is
    devoid of useful information and is crammed with marketing hype
    instead of standards, protocols, and specs. For an exercise in
    futility, try to determine how many MAC addresses a "game adapter"
    (DWL-810, WET11) will simultaneously bridge. (The answer is 30 but
    good luck finding the info). That's because the manufacturers know
    that they can sell individual "game adapters" for each computah when
    only one is really necessary.

    >We're only just getting our feet wet with WiFi, since practically every
    >room in the building complex at work is wired.

    If your feet feel wet, I would call a plumber, not a network engineer.

    >It has generally only
    >been requested when stringing Ethernet cables across a floor or ceiling
    >would not be ideal.

    Most of my wired installations are lurching toward gigabit ethernet on
    the desktop. It will be a long time before any form of wireless can
    come close to the performance.

    >I appreciate the links. I'll review them to see if there's anything there
    >I can apply to my testing next week. Regardless, if someone has specific
    >hardware recommendations for WNIC and/or WAP that are known and testing
    >to pass NETBEUI, I'd be glad to see them.

    Well, my Linksys BEFW11S4 works with my Orinoco Silver card. Two down
    and about 1000 assorted adapters to go. Best of luck. You should
    have no problems with NETBEUI and bridging unless you have something
    else in between (personal firewall, broken drivers, buggy MAC filters,
    etc).


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:04:34 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Jeff
    Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
    >Careful. You just threw in the evil term "router". A router is a
    >protocol dependent device that works on layer 3. That means the
    >router has to support NETBEUI to work. That isn't going to happen
    >because even Microsloth doesn't like NETBEUI.

    Well actually, as far as I remember, its because NetBios is a nonrouting
    protocol, rather than anyone disliking it. However its largely irrelevant
    as he wants it for a lan, not a wan, and all his kit would be plugged into
    the switch side of the router unit, ie not routing anywhere.

    >>In a more general vein, why is it that an access point that is only configured
    >>to bridge wired and wireless should even care what protocols are being used?
    >
    >A wireless bridge or access point doesn't care about layer 3

    Absolutely. Neither an AP nor a switch knows anything at all about the
    protocols at the level you're talking, and you have a different problem.

    >"bind" to the NETBEUI protocol. I guess I have to try it first to be
    >sure.

    I have at various times used NetBEUI just fine over both wired and wireless
    lan, using a variety of wireless kit (belkin, 3com, dlink, others). .
    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  7. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:20:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann spoketh

    >
    >All wireless bridges are not the same, despite the overuse of the
    >term.
    >
    >Methinks you may be thinking of a "transparent bridge". This is
    >usually a pair of wireless bridges designed to connect two networks
    >together.

    If a person wishes to add wireless clients (read: computers) to a
    network, the proper device to look for is a wireless access point. The
    fact that some access points can be configured as a bridge, an AP client
    and a repeater is very much beside the point. The same goes for bridges.
    Although bridges may also be configured for different modes, it's main
    use is as you describe for a transparent bridge.

    Mixing the two terms, or saying they are the same thing is inaccurate,
    and leads to more confusion about which product to get.

    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless Wireless Access Support Wireless Networking