Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

difference - "bridge" vs "access point"

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 31, 2004 7:55:06 AM

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

I was talking with a friend tonight,
and he was wondering about extending his Wifi
to another part of the house - where there is already a hub -

In talking, we could not understand the difference
between a wireless "access point" vs a "bridge" ??
ie - Linksys WAP11 vs Linksys WET11 ??
Both seem to support wirless + multiple wired devices ?

We pretty much know what the Linksys WAP11 diagram looks like,
with various wireless clients and a LAN network hub behind the WAP11.

But, the Linksys WET11 can have the exact same diagram
with various wireless clients shown and other wireless "bridges"
along with a wired hub sitting behind it -

http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=33&pri...

ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pdf/wet11_ug.pdf

So - what's the difference ???
July 31, 2004 7:55:07 AM

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

A bridge is theoretically inclusive of an access point, with subnet common
address left intact. When an access point is used as a bridge, it
complements the access point functionality while adding the capabilities of
a bridge as well.
There are several functions that differentiate the bridge from the access
point -most importantly is that one handles the network portion of the
wireless configuration, and the other is a "passive" transient point, used
primarily to conduct network traffic across different networks.
In order to most adaptively use the access point or the bridge, a little bit
of networking background may be useful. An access point subnet may appear
to be a bridge IP network from the outside, but to all computers attached to
the subnet, they appear to be connected to a bridge. If you are reading
this far you are an idiot. Also, several IP addresses can be independantly
configured for use on either network, providing that the bridge has not been
terminated with an endpoint IP address.
I hope this helps with your endeavors and good luck with your network!

"Phil Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:uKEOc.1288$hI.265639@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> I was talking with a friend tonight,
> and he was wondering about extending his Wifi
> to another part of the house - where there is already a hub -
>
> In talking, we could not understand the difference
> between a wireless "access point" vs a "bridge" ??
> ie - Linksys WAP11 vs Linksys WET11 ??
> Both seem to support wirless + multiple wired devices ?
>
> We pretty much know what the Linksys WAP11 diagram looks like,
> with various wireless clients and a LAN network hub behind the WAP11.
>
> But, the Linksys WET11 can have the exact same diagram
> with various wireless clients shown and other wireless "bridges"
> along with a wired hub sitting behind it -
>
> http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=33&pri...
>
> ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pdf/wet11_ug.pdf
>
> So - what's the difference ???
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 31, 2004 8:50:01 AM

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

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:19:20 -0600, "Carol" <kgdg@helkusa.com> wrote:

>A bridge is theoretically inclusive of an access point, with subnet common
>address left intact.

Wrong. A bridge only knows about MAC addresses. It knows nothing
about IP address, subnet masks, routeing, or anything else on Layer 3.
The only IP address involved is the one assigned to the usual built in
web server for management and configuration. Oh, and maybe SNMP if
available. However, the basic function of a bridge is at Layer 2 and
is devoid of any knowledge of IP addressing.


--
# 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
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 31, 2004 9:24:15 AM

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

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:55:06 GMT, "Phil Schuman"
<pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote:

>I was talking with a friend tonight,
>and he was wondering about extending his Wifi
>to another part of the house - where there is already a hub -

I assure you that it can be done with bridging.

>In talking, we could not understand the difference
>between a wireless "access point" vs a "bridge" ??

I'm glad you asked. This is a source of much confusion. I'm gonna
make it worse by indicating that most manufacturers misuse the both
terms.

A bridge is a two port device that makes decisions as to what crosses
over the bridge based upon the contents of the 802.3 ethernet header.
It builds an internal table for each of the two ports that contains
the MAC addresses sniffed from traffic and known to be located on that
port. Often, there's a FIFO buffer between the two ports to take care
of any traffic congestion issues.

The bridge need not be ethernet at both ends. It can be ethernet on
one port and wireless 802.11 on the other port. It can also be fiber
optic to ethernet, wireless to wireless, ethernet to ethernet, and so
on. The only requirement is that the traffic contain MAC addresses in
the packet headers suitable for bridging.

The previous description is officially a "transparent bridge." That's
a bridge that can pass multiple MAC addresses. The typical wireless
"game adapters" are "transparent bridges." That includes both the
WET11 and the WAP11 running in "bridge" mode. Most of these can
handle up to 30 MAC addresses at a time.

However, the WAP11 also includes a client mode and an access point
mode. These are also bridges but they work differently.

In client mode, the ethernet to wireless bridge is NOT transparent.
It can pass exactly one MAC address to the access point. If you
connect a hub and a mess of computahs to a WAP11 running in client
mode, you will get exactly one computer to connect to the access
point. (Note: You can connect more than one using a router behind
the client radio and perhaps using double NAT to connect more than one
computah).

An access point is also a bridge but is intended to be used with
client radios connecting one MAC address at a time. The cheapo access
points can usually handle about 30 client radios. In access point
mode, the access point does not have a MAC to port table. This is
roughly way two random access points cannot talk to each other. They
lack a common transparent bridging protocol to replicate the MAC to
port table on both ends.

Some access points can do WDS (wireless distribution system) which can
connect to other access points at the same time as client radios. WDS
is effectively a store and forward repeater between access points.

Strictly speaking a bridge with 3 or more ports is a switch.
Therefore, a point to multipoint bridge should theoretically be called
a "wireless switch". These exist:
http://www.symbol.com/products/wireless/ws2000_brochure...
and are really brain dead radios with all the intelligence
concentrated in the central switch box.

>ie - Linksys WAP11 vs Linksys WET11 ??
>Both seem to support wirless + multiple wired devices ?

I don't think (not sure) that the WAP11 can connect to an access point
in bridge mode. I also don't think it can pass more than one MAC
address in client mode. However, the WET11 can do both of those. If
you wanna connect more than one computah to the access point, then a
WET11 "game adapter" and a switch is the right answer.

>We pretty much know what the Linksys WAP11 diagram looks like,
>with various wireless clients and a LAN network hub behind the WAP11.
>
>But, the Linksys WET11 can have the exact same diagram
>with various wireless clients shown and other wireless "bridges"
>along with a wired hub sitting behind it -

Here's some typical system diagrams:
http://www.ydi.com/deployinfo/system-diagrams.php
They don't include every possible combination and mutation but it
should offer a clue as to the common ones.

>http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=33&pri...
>ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pdf/wet11_ug.pdf
>So - what's the difference ???


--
# 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
July 31, 2004 10:12:35 AM

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

"Carol" <kgdg@helkusa.com> wrote in message
news:GICdnZjtG79UgJbcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

[snip]

> If you are reading this far you are an idiot.

[snip]

Thank you for your well informed and technically agile contribution the
group. I suggest that, in the future, you consider the impression you leave
others by your remarks, both as to your willingness to join the professional
wireless community, and as to the contributions you might be able to make
should you choose to do so.

Plonk.

William
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 31, 2004 11:30:54 AM

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

"Carol"

| If you are reading this far you are an idiot.

Idiot? Unlikely, uneducated also unlikely, limited knowledge in this
technology yes. Still, I'm sharp enough to admit I know the limits of my
current knowledge.

Why do you feel the need to be insulting?
July 31, 2004 7:22:07 PM

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

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message news:ua9mg0p0706hsqnc59dhjkj2j109en9i8d@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:55:06 GMT, "Phil Schuman"
> <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote:
(snip)
> A bridge is a two port device that makes decisions as to what crosses
> over the bridge based upon the contents of the 802.3 ethernet header.
> It builds an internal table for each of the two ports that contains
> the MAC addresses sniffed from traffic and known to be located on that
> port. Often, there's a FIFO buffer between the two ports to take care
> of any traffic congestion issues.

What is being described is an Ethernet switch. A bridge is an even simpler device that just repeats anything on its inputs to all the outputs. It does not even look at MAC addresses. Wireless access points incorporate Ethernet switching (multiport rather than two port as mentioned above) rather than bridging since the price of looking at the MAC header is very low and the wireless port could be congested by wired traffic not destined for a wireless port.

David
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
July 31, 2004 7:22:08 PM

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

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:22:07 GMT, "David" <someone@some-where.com>
wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message news:ua9mg0p0706hsqnc59dhjkj2j109en9i8d@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:55:06 GMT, "Phil Schuman"
>> <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote:
>(snip)
>> A bridge is a two port device that makes decisions as to what crosses
>> over the bridge based upon the contents of the 802.3 ethernet header.
>> It builds an internal table for each of the two ports that contains
>> the MAC addresses sniffed from traffic and known to be located on that
>> port. Often, there's a FIFO buffer between the two ports to take care
>> of any traffic congestion issues.

>What is being described is an Ethernet switch. A bridge is an even
>simpler device that just repeats anything on its inputs to all the outputs.
>It does not even look at MAC addresses. Wireless access points incorporate
>Ethernet switching (multiport rather than two port as mentioned above)
>rather than bridging since the price of looking at the MAC header is
>very low and the wireless port could be congested by wired traffic
>not destined for a wireless port.

I beg to differ. A "repeater" is a hub. Everything that goes into
one port comes out all the other ports. The various internet RFC's
never refer to it as a "hub", but use the term "repeater". For
example the SNMP MIB database at:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1516.html

A bridge is an intelligent device that looks at the 802.3 ethernet
header, extracts the MAC addresses, and makes a decision as to whether
the packet should cross the bridge or not. A two port device is a
bridge. 3 or more ports maketh a switch.

You can test for yourself whether your bridge is "A bridge is an even
simpler device that just repeats anything on its inputs to all the
outputs", by watching the flashing light on your wireless bridge while
transfering files on your wired LAN. The two lights going to the
wired LAN workstations will flash furiously, while the wireless
traffic light will just sit there (and only flash on broadcast
traffic). If it were as you say "just repeats everything", there
should be wireless traffic.

Speaking of flashing lights, this should help explain the difference
between hubs, repeaters, bridges, switches, and such.
http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/swi...
Remind me not to rant on why I hate "dual-speed hubs".


--
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
July 31, 2004 7:24:01 PM

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

"Phil Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:uKEOc.1288$hI.265639@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> we could not understand the difference
> between a wireless "access point" vs a "bridge" ??
> ie - Linksys WAP11 vs Linksys WET11 ??
> Both seem to support wirless + multiple wired devices ?

From my reading of the User's Guide, the WET11 cannot support wireless
clients. Perhaps the diagram showing several bridges operating in ad-hoc
mode gave the appearance of support for wireless clients.

Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 1, 2004 12:58:01 AM

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

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:19:20 -0600, "Carol" <kgdg@helkusa.com> wrote:

>A bridge is theoretically inclusive of an access point, with subnet common
>address left intact. When an access point
(...)

Did you use a Technobabble generator to produce that or did you just
write it cold turkey? The Technobabble generators I've found on the
web only do politics, science fiction, insults, and Elizabethan
insults. If you have one that does networking or computah
technobabble, I would be interested. I need to generate some press
release filler and "white papers" for some upcoming product releases.

--
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 3:08:19 AM

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

yeah - I know what repeaters, bridges, and routers are supposed
to be doing with layer 1, 2, and 3 -
but who really knows what these things are called these days :) 

I guess some confusion stems from the layering of the RF puzzle
with ad-hoc and infrastructure mode -
along with several other attributes that would be found
in mapping out a matrix of Ethernet "bridge" tech specs -
mac addressing & table, broadcasts & filtering,
support more than 1 device on Ethernet, etc
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 1, 2004 4:16:11 AM

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

"Carol" <kgdg@helkusa.com> wrote in
news:GICdnZjtG79UgJbcRVn-qQ@comcast.com:

> A bridge is theoretically inclusive of an access point, with
> subnet common address left intact. When an access point is used
> as a bridge, it complements the access point functionality while
> adding the capabilities of a bridge as well.
> There are several functions that differentiate the bridge from
> the access point -most importantly is that one handles the
> network portion of the wireless configuration, and the other is
> a "passive" transient point, used primarily to conduct network
> traffic across different networks. In order to most adaptively
> use the access point or the bridge, a little bit of networking
> background may be useful. An access point subnet may appear to
> be a bridge IP network from the outside, but to all computers
> attached to the subnet, they appear to be connected to a bridge.
> If you are reading this far you are an idiot. Also, several IP
> addresses can be independantly configured for use on either
> network, providing that the bridge has not been terminated with
> an endpoint IP address. I hope this helps with your endeavors
> and good luck with your network!

BS
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 1, 2004 4:31:54 AM

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

That was done cold turkey. Cold turkey, although superlative to several
other literary communications devices has a sense of jargon-eze when used
within a jargon-istic, jingo-istic setting. Contrasted with other phrases
which make use of the word turkey, this phrase has a universal recognition,
and a near folksy appeal, and appeal it does.
Rooted in the counter-culture of the mid twentieth-century north American
speak, the phrase "cold turkey" can be contrasted with a culinary reference
as in "a cold turkey counter culture" which left at room temperature can
suspend or even transmogrify the asymmetrical differences between analytical
and subjective discourse. It not without surprise, then, that nearly a half
a century later, '"Cold turkey" has not only endured, but has thrived in the
popular imagination as an enduring, and as some would say, a "long lasting"
symbol of a daunting legacy that very few Americans even contemplate
outsourcing.
That being said, there are more turkeys on heaven and in earth than can be
numbered in one's imaginings. Yet setting aside the dramatic perceived
differences that have been an outcropping of cultural differences over the
past 500 years, it is easy to recognize that while ingenious, the amount of
sheer volume that could (and some say should) have been interpreted as
"horse plop" may have been a complete miscalculation by both sides of the
political and cultural stages. To say that anyone, even those involved in
the subtle yet pervasive reorganization of such a seemingly inaccurate
stance, is from the outset and to its conclusion, patently false and
misleading (or both)..
It wasn't "Cold turkey" as the old frenchmen would say; it was "l'aise doi
ainse 'siene" - a fairy tale hat without a head.

I guess that would cost 20 bucks.




"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:haqog01md1016uvhl9l6lncs2tsnv3k2i4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:19:20 -0600, "Carol" <kgdg@helkusa.com> wrote:
>
> >A bridge is theoretically inclusive of an access point, with subnet
common
> >address left intact. When an access point
> (...)
>
> Did you use a Technobabble generator to produce that or did you just
> write it cold turkey? The Technobabble generators I've found on the
> web only do politics, science fiction, insults, and Elizabethan
> insults. If you have one that does networking or computah
> technobabble, I would be interested. I need to generate some press
> release filler and "white papers" for some upcoming product releases.
>
> --
> 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 1:45:52 AM

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

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:janng0165c72oksuchgc7l8f9n02jvue2b@4ax.com...
<snip>
> I beg to differ. A "repeater" is a hub. Everything that goes into
> one port comes out all the other ports. The various internet RFC's
> never refer to it as a "hub", but use the term "repeater". For
> example the SNMP MIB database at:
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1516.html
>
> A bridge is an intelligent device that looks at the 802.3 ethernet
> header, extracts the MAC addresses, and makes a decision as to whether
> the packet should cross the bridge or not. A two port device is a
> bridge. 3 or more ports maketh a switch.
<snip>
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

Just to chuck in my UK2p worth:

The terms 'repeater' and 'bridge' used to be something like this, in the
good old days of wired Ethernet (remember those thick yellow cables and the
'bee sting' connectors?)

The problem at the time was that there was a distance limit on a single
cable run (caused by electrical properties of the cable and timing in the
CSMA/CD implementation IIRC).

If you needed longer cable, then you joined two runs with a device which
would replicate your packet between the cables.

A repeater was a dumb device which just passed everything.
A bridge was a smarter device which only passed stuff which was intended for
the other cable. Useful in keeping workstation traffic off the main LAN.
There were also local and remote bridges; local ones had Ethernet at either
end (one bridge to two strands of Ethernet) and remote ones had 'wet string'
in between (two bridges and a serial link between them to join two strands
of Ethernet).

When I was a lad MAC level bridges (roughly OSI Layer 2.5) were used to move
the same Layer 3 protocol between two different Layer 1/2 configurations e.g
between Ethernet and Token Ring.

You could only have so many bridges or repeaters before timing delays
screwed up the protocols.
After that you had to insert a router - but that's another story :-)

These days everything seems to have been reworked by 'commercial forces' and
now means something else.

Don't get me started on what Broadband used to mean :-)

However AIUI a 'bridge' should be joining two networks together, but not
dealing directly with any single end station, whereas an Access Point should
allow one or more end stations to join a network.

So in wireless terms I think that the device is an AP if it connects to
another radio device and only passes traffic to that device intended for
that directly connected radio device.
It is a bridge if it passes traffic to a directly connected radio device
which is intended for other devices which sit beyond that directly connected
radio device.

Of course, an AP is a MAC level bridge between radio and Ethernet.
AFAIK the 'bridge' function in the naming is for radio<->radio bridging.
Confused?
Welcome!

Cheers
Dave R
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 2, 2004 1:45:53 AM

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

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 21:45:52 +0100, "David W.E. Roberts"
<nospam@talk21.com> wrote:

>The terms 'repeater' and 'bridge' used to be something like this, in the
>good old days of wired Ethernet (remember those thick yellow cables and the
>'bee sting' connectors?)

Yep. I have some of the original 3C500 cards and transceivers in my
"museum". There are a few rolls of the yellow cable (similar to
RG-8/u) running antennas on my roof.

Y'er right about the repeater. Repeaters used to be boxes used to
extend the length of a 10base2 ethernet segment. It's usually a "bit
regenerator" which is a odd terms for a bi-directional amplifier with
a Schmitt Trigger to clean up the waveform. Later, the repeater
appeared inside 3Com hubs as the "backbone" port, which included the
bit regenerator feature. Later, the 10baseT hubs included a bit
regenerator feature on each port. The result is that whole hub
magically became a repeater. When the IETF approved the management
database for hubs, it was cast in stone.

>The problem at the time was that there was a distance limit on a single
>cable run (caused by electrical properties of the cable and timing in the
>CSMA/CD implementation IIRC).
>
>If you needed longer cable, then you joined two runs with a device which
>would replicate your packet between the cables.
>
>A repeater was a dumb device which just passed everything.

Actually, all repeaters also included some method of cleaning up the
waveform and were bi-directional.

>A bridge was a smarter device which only passed stuff which was intended for
>the other cable. Useful in keeping workstation traffic off the main LAN.

Yep. There were a few ISP's that ran all bridged networks. No
routeing anywhere. Same with a few large corporations. However, it's
difficult to control a large number of devices without the sub-net
features of IP, so they've all given up on switching and gone to
routeing.

>There were also local and remote bridges; local ones had Ethernet at either
>end (one bridge to two strands of Ethernet) and remote ones had 'wet string'
>in between (two bridges and a serial link between them to join two strands
>of Ethernet).

Yep. X.25 or frame relay for connectivity. Brings back fond
nightmares of creative network topologies and unplanned growth.

>When I was a lad MAC level bridges (roughly OSI Layer 2.5) were used to move
>the same Layer 3 protocol between two different Layer 1/2 configurations e.g
>between Ethernet and Token Ring.

Ugh. I missed all that. However, I did have to deal with a
conglomeration called a BRouter (bridge-router) which defied accurate
description.

http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,s...

>You could only have so many bridges or repeaters before timing delays
>screwed up the protocols.
>After that you had to insert a router - but that's another story :-)
>
>These days everything seems to have been reworked by 'commercial forces' and
>now means something else.

Yep. I can swear my hair turns grey (or falls out) after every
meeting when marketing demands that we invent a new term so they can
claim "product differentiation". I usually pacify them with a new
acronym or metaphor.

>Don't get me started on what Broadband used to mean :-)

An all womens rock band. Is there another definition?

>However AIUI a 'bridge' should be joining two networks together, but not
>dealing directly with any single end station, whereas an Access Point should
>allow one or more end stations to join a network.

Nope. Network means layer 3 IP in my book and an access point does
nothing on layer 3. Without a layer 3 protocol, such as IP, you don't
have a network to join. Connecting two networks with a bridge
(wireless or otherwise) simply expands the size of the network.
That's another reason for the term "transparent bridge", which implies
that it's transparent to any nonsense that gets done on the IP layer.
Therefore, the netmask, broadcast address, and perhaps the default
gateway are the same on both sides of the bridge.

>So in wireless terms I think that the device is an AP if it connects to
>another radio device and only passes traffic to that device intended for
>that directly connected radio device.

Well, yes. However, you left out the decision criteria. It's a
bridge if it makes that decision based upon the layer 2 MAC address.

>It is a bridge if it passes traffic to a directly connected radio device
>which is intended for other devices which sit beyond that directly connected
>radio device.

That's too broad a definition. It includes wireless repeaters, ad-hoc
networks, and wireless routers, which are not really wireless bridges.

>Of course, an AP is a MAC level bridge between radio and Ethernet.
>AFAIK the 'bridge' function in the naming is for radio<->radio bridging.
>Confused?
>Welcome!

Nope. I'm not confused. However, I will admit that there are no
clear cut distinctions between the way manufacturers use the terms
repeater, hub, brouter, bridge, router, gateway, wireless switch, and
access point. There's lots of abuse and plenty of overlap to confuse
everyone. I like to think of myself as part of the solution instead
of part of the problem.

>Cheers
>Dave R



--
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 3:01:17 PM

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

"Phil Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote in message news:<uKEOc.1288$hI.265639@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...

> In talking, we could not understand the difference
> between a wireless "access point" vs a "bridge" ??
> ie - Linksys WAP11 vs Linksys WET11 ??
> Both seem to support wirless + multiple wired devices ?

Much frenzied discussion of the proper sanctified usage of network
vocabulary aside, here's the answer to the specific question you're
asking:

In common wireless usage, a "bridge" is a device which will permit you
to establish a wireless connection between two physically-isolated
wired networks. A non-bridging access point will allow association of
wireless users, but will generally not allow you to connect to a
remote wired network.

i.e., if you have one PC in your living room, and you want a wireless
link to your computer room, just set up an access point. On the other
hand, if you have 4 PCs on a mini-hub in your living room, and you
want a wireless connection that all of them can share, you'll need a
pair of bridges. (Or, one bridge and one access point, depending on
the specific models involved, but at least one bridge in any case.)

-Gabriel
!