difference - "bridge" vs "access point"

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&prid=432

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

So - what's the difference ???
15 answers Last reply
More about difference bridge access point
  1. 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&prid=432
    >
    > ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pdf/wet11_ug.pdf
    >
    > So - what's the difference ???
    >
    >
    >
  2. 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
  3. 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.html
    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&prid=432
    >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
  4. 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
  5. 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?
  6. 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
  7. 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/switch.html
    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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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,,sid7_gci211707,00.html

    >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
  15. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless Linksys Wireless Networking