Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Router vs. AP - Bridge mode (point to point, multipoint) -..

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 27, 2004 12:07:44 AM

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

Hi,

Two quickies:
First, I was wondering if anyone knew of a good site (I have yet to find
one) that deals with repeater vs. bridging modes and other useful
information (basically an all in one wireless site).

Second, I'm setting up a wireless network, it will have three access
points/routers. I'm not sure which companies offer built in point to
multipoint bridging on their routers and access points, I just know that
Linksys does not (their bridging support is point to point, not sure about
the 3rd party firmware). Does anyone have recommendations? It need not be
residential stuff, the lower end enterprise/commercial hardware (I know
netgear has a router in the $200 range) would be fine too.

Thanks,
Adam
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 27, 2004 4:13:41 AM

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

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:07:44 -0400, Adam Steiner spoketh

>Hi,
>
>Two quickies:
>First, I was wondering if anyone knew of a good site (I have yet to find
>one) that deals with repeater vs. bridging modes and other useful
>information (basically an all in one wireless site).
>
>Second, I'm setting up a wireless network, it will have three access
>points/routers. I'm not sure which companies offer built in point to
>multipoint bridging on their routers and access points, I just know that
>Linksys does not (their bridging support is point to point, not sure about
>the 3rd party firmware). Does anyone have recommendations? It need not be
>residential stuff, the lower end enterprise/commercial hardware (I know
>netgear has a router in the $200 range) would be fine too.
>
>Thanks,
>Adam
>
>

The Linksys WAP54 in bridging mode supports multi-point bridging.
However, in repeater mode, it's point to point.

From the help page:
"Select Wireless Bridge to create a wireless connection between two or
more wired networks. This mode connects the physically separated, wired
networks using multiple access points. In the Remote Wireless Bridge¡¦s
LAN MAC Addresses fields, enter the LAN MAC addresses of the remote
access points.
Note: Wireless Bridge mode will work with another Linksys WAP11 and
WAP54G only. "


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?"
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 27, 2004 4:13:42 AM

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

"Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
news:p d7bg0tg7745j7gpcij2r93c9fsvhu2bhj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:07:44 -0400, Adam Steiner spoketh
>
>
>
> The Linksys WAP54 in bridging mode supports multi-point bridging.
> However, in repeater mode, it's point to point.
>
> From the help page:
> "Select Wireless Bridge to create a wireless connection between two or
> more wired networks. This mode connects the physically separated, wired
> networks using multiple access points. In the Remote Wireless Bridge¡¦s
> LAN MAC Addresses fields, enter the LAN MAC addresses of the remote
> access points.
> Note: Wireless Bridge mode will work with another Linksys WAP11 and
> WAP54G only. "
>

Right, but as WAP11 and WAP54G are AP's, how will that work with a router
(ie WRT54G or 54GS). Will it be able to bridge to that as well?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 27, 2004 11:49:43 AM

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

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:49:06 -0400, Adam Steiner spoketh

>
>"Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
>news:p d7bg0tg7745j7gpcij2r93c9fsvhu2bhj@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:07:44 -0400, Adam Steiner spoketh
>>
>>
>>
>> The Linksys WAP54 in bridging mode supports multi-point bridging.
>> However, in repeater mode, it's point to point.
>>
>> From the help page:
>> "Select Wireless Bridge to create a wireless connection between two or
>> more wired networks. This mode connects the physically separated, wired
>> networks using multiple access points. In the Remote Wireless Bridge¡¦s
>> LAN MAC Addresses fields, enter the LAN MAC addresses of the remote
>> access points.
>> Note: Wireless Bridge mode will work with another Linksys WAP11 and
>> WAP54G only. "
>>
>
>Right, but as WAP11 and WAP54G are AP's, how will that work with a router
>(ie WRT54G or 54GS). Will it be able to bridge to that as well?
>

From what I can tell, no.


Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 27, 2004 4:49:03 PM

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

Adam Steiner <adam@NOstudent-SPAMcomputers.THANKScom> wrote:

> I'm not sure which companies offer built in point to
> multipoint bridging on their routers and access points, I just know that
> Linksys does not (their bridging support is point to point, not sure about
> the 3rd party firmware). Does anyone have recommendations?

Buffalo base stations can do WDS with up to six others while also
serving wireless clients. See
<http://www.buffalotech.com/support/faq.php#21&gt;.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 27, 2004 10:53:05 PM

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

"Neill Massello" <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1ghkkq8.1b4c45x19lmhc0N%neillmassello@earthlink.net...
> Adam Steiner <adam@NOstudent-SPAMcomputers.THANKScom> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure which companies offer built in point to
> > multipoint bridging on their routers and access points, I just know that
> > Linksys does not (their bridging support is point to point, not sure
about
> > the 3rd party firmware). Does anyone have recommendations?
>
> Buffalo base stations can do WDS with up to six others while also
> serving wireless clients. See
> <http://www.buffalotech.com/support/faq.php#21&gt;.
>

Hmm, very good.
Thanks,
Adam
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 1, 2004 4:01:02 PM

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

Does anyone happen to know of a single solution which has bridging *and* an
access point? I'd prefer to stay away from WDS because of the halving of
bandwidth per hop through an AP.

--Adam


"Neill Massello" <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1ghkkq8.1b4c45x19lmhc0N%neillmassello@earthlink.net...
> Adam Steiner <adam@NOstudent-SPAMcomputers.THANKScom> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure which companies offer built in point to
> > multipoint bridging on their routers and access points, I just know that
> > Linksys does not (their bridging support is point to point, not sure
about
> > the 3rd party firmware). Does anyone have recommendations?
>
> Buffalo base stations can do WDS with up to six others while also
> serving wireless clients. See
> <http://www.buffalotech.com/support/faq.php#21&gt;.
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 1, 2004 4:01:03 PM

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

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 12:01:02 -0400, "Adam Steiner"
<adam@NOstudent-SPAMcomputers.THANKScom> wrote:

>Does anyone happen to know of a single solution which has bridging *and* an
>access point? I'd prefer to stay away from WDS because of the halving of
>bandwidth per hop through an AP.

Yes, but you won't like the price. The bottom of the line 6
port/radio version is $1900 list. What you're describing is a
"wireless switch"[1].

http://www.symbol.com/products/wireless/symbol_wireless...
http://www.symbol.com/products/wireless/ws5000_wireless...
http://www.symbol.com/products/wireless/ws_5000_v1_0__1...

This is where the radios are almost brain dead and where *ALL* the
bridging and routeing is done in the central switch unit, where it all
the wiz bang features (VLAN, traffic management, access control,
authentication, ad infinitum) can be easily mismanaged. Trying to
accomplish the same thing in 3 seperate boxes requires distributed
intelligence, which is difficult to impliment. WDS "solves" the
problem by passing both the packets and the responsibility to another
access point via a store-n-forward repeater function. See
http://www.tomsnetworking.com/Sections-article78-page9....
which shows that the WDS performance hit is far worse than 50%.

You can probably build your own with a high end ethernet switch and a
bunch of brain dead radios. However, that means you'll need to run
CAT5 between the central switch and the various radios. That's
usually not convenient or possible with high end systems.

Some more vendors and notes:
http://www.legra.com/product_family.htm
http://www.airespace.com/products/AS_4000.php


[1] A "switch" is a "bridge" with 3 or more ports.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 1, 2004 4:01:04 PM

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

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 09:44:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>You can probably build your own with a high end ethernet switch and a
>bunch of brain dead radios. However, that means you'll need to run
>CAT5 between the central switch and the various radios. That's
>usually not convenient or possible with high end systems.

Ugh. Change that to:
...usually not convenient or possible with home systems.
Remind me to get a new proof reader.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 2, 2004 9:43:03 PM

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

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:o 46qg0d84id9etpuh8ck0vdoq531tpoe10@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 12:01:02 -0400, "Adam Steiner"
> <adam@NOstudent-SPAMcomputers.THANKScom> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone happen to know of a single solution which has bridging *and*
an
> >access point? I'd prefer to stay away from WDS because of the halving
of
> >bandwidth per hop through an AP.
>
> Yes, but you won't like the price. The bottom of the line 6
> port/radio version is $1900 list. What you're describing is a
> "wireless switch"[1].
>
> http://www.symbol.com/products/wireless/symbol_wireless...
> http://www.symbol.com/products/wireless/ws5000_wireless...
> http://www.symbol.com/products/wireless/ws_5000_v1_0__1...
>
> This is where the radios are almost brain dead and where *ALL* the
> bridging and routeing is done in the central switch unit, where it all
> the wiz bang features (VLAN, traffic management, access control,
> authentication, ad infinitum) can be easily mismanaged. Trying to
> accomplish the same thing in 3 seperate boxes requires distributed
> intelligence, which is difficult to impliment. WDS "solves" the
> problem by passing both the packets and the responsibility to another
> access point via a store-n-forward repeater function. See
> http://www.tomsnetworking.com/Sections-article78-page9....
> which shows that the WDS performance hit is far worse than 50%.
>
> You can probably build your own with a high end ethernet switch and a
> bunch of brain dead radios. However, that means you'll need to run
> CAT5 between the central switch and the various radios. That's
> usually not convenient or possible with high end systems.
>
> Some more vendors and notes:
> http://www.legra.com/product_family.htm
> http://www.airespace.com/products/AS_4000.php
>
>
> [1] A "switch" is a "bridge" with 3 or more ports.
>

Ouch. $1,900 is pretty steep, especially for a home system...
What I might do then is see if I can find a WDS solution on a 108Mbps
system. Even if the throughput penalty is 60% that should still leave
enough bandwidth.

Thanks for the info Jeff. I heard they were going to include a proofreader
with Longhorn, but, like the file system... ;-)

--Adam
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 3, 2004 6:21:04 AM

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

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:43:03 -0400, "Adam Steiner"
<adam@NOstudent-SPAMcomputers.THANKScom> wrote:

>Ouch. $1,900 is pretty steep, especially for a home system...
>What I might do then is see if I can find a WDS solution on a 108Mbps
>system. Even if the throughput penalty is 60% that should still leave
>enough bandwidth.

You're dreaming. 108Mbits/sec is science fiction. You might get
108Mbits/sec under absolutely ideal conditions. I've never seen
anything close on boxes I've tested. For a typical room, you'll get
about 30Mbits/sec. That will drop with reflections, distance,
interference, 802.11b radios, microwave ovens, cordless phones, etc.

See the WRT54G review at:
http://www.tomsnetworking.com/Reviews-142-ProdID-WRT54G...
for performance estimates. For most of the test, they were running
around 33Mbits/sec at 6ft and dropped to 7Mbits/sec at 50ft (through a
wall). See:
http://www.tomsnetworking.com/Sections-article26-page1....
for test conditions.

Cut everything in half for store-n-forward WDS repeaters.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 4, 2004 4:21:08 AM

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

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:6sstg09mijc0nlfoohte7iomtb6fjt42ne@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:43:03 -0400, "Adam Steiner"
> <adam@NOstudent-SPAMcomputers.THANKScom> wrote:
>
> You're dreaming. 108Mbits/sec is science fiction. You might get
> 108Mbits/sec under absolutely ideal conditions. I've never seen
> anything close on boxes I've tested. For a typical room, you'll get
> about 30Mbits/sec. That will drop with reflections, distance,
> interference, 802.11b radios, microwave ovens, cordless phones, etc.
>

Oh, that much I know. What I meant to say was I'd rather have WDS cut a
theoretical 108mbps connection in half than cut a theoretical 54mbps
connection in half. Might as well play every card I can.

--Adam
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 4, 2004 9:58:20 AM

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

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 00:21:08 -0400, "Adam Steiner"
<adam@NOstudent-SPAMcomputers.THANKScom> wrote:

>What I meant to say was I'd rather have WDS cut a
>theoretical 108mbps connection in half than cut a theoretical 54mbps
>connection in half. Might as well play every card I can.
>--Adam

Please substitute "science fiction" or perhaps "marketing hyped" for
"theoretical".

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS
!