Prev: Call for papers: CCN-10, USA, July 2010
Next: NEWS: Nokia tops iPhone and BlackBerry (again), Apple as NickClegg
From: Char Jackson on 17 May 2010 17:38
On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:53:29 -0700, Mike Easter <MikeE(a)ster.invalid>
wrote:

>Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> Exercise 1: I want to attach the device via the ethernet port of a
>> computer and access a wireless network.
>
>I was only able to do that open, no security. I could not successfully
>configure for WPA or WEP. That is, I could configure for that, but I
>could not achieve connectivity.

I've done that with an open connection and a WEP-encrypted connection.
I haven't tried anything more secure than that.

>> Exercise 2: I want to attach the device via the ethernet port (WAN or
>> LAN) of a router2.

I'd probably have to go back to your OP to see what you're trying to
accomplish here. This brief description doesn't make any sense to me.

>I was not able to do this at all. I used the WAN port on the router to
>ethernet the 431 and a computer to a LAN port. That situation is very
>difficult to troubleshoot, because the 431 is 'invisible' in the middle,
>so none of the troubleshooting tools I was using did any good.

I wasn't able to follow what you're trying to do here.

>The troubleshooting only went as far as from the computer to the router,
>which was working just fine. That is, the computer had a local
>connection to the router and the computer which was wirelessly equipped
>could also see the router's wireless. It seemed that the router had an
>IP which I assumed came from the 431 which was connect to the other
>network's AP, but maybe it didn't.

There should be only one DHCP server per subnet, (if you use DHCP at
all), thereby not only eliminating IP conflicts but also eliminating
all doubt as to where IP address assignments are coming from.

>In any case, the computer couldn't get 'past' the router to see the
>internet. Or the 431 which was ethernetted to the router's WAN.

I thought the 431 was the AP, but since it's cabled to the router's
WAN port it's obviously not configured as an AP. I'm easily confused.

>In the configuration of the 431, one option was to configure it as a WDS
>or as a WDS with accesspoint. I configured it 'just' as a WDS.

I very briefly played with WDS quite awhile back but was not impressed
with its performance at all. I'm sure there are situations where it's
well suited, but it wasn't what I needed.

From: Char Jackson on 17 May 2010 17:51
On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:56:19 -0700, Mike Easter <MikeE(a)ster.invalid>
wrote:

>Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> In the ~23 years that I've been playing with networking, I haven't
>> bothered to power down any equipment when I make cabling changes.
>> Perhaps I've been lucky, I don't know.
>
>The other day I was trying to find out something in the wikipedia about
>keyboard and mouse connections and I learned that there was potential
>'danger' to the mobo from the PS/2 hot swap. The risk factor isn't
>high, but it isn't zero either.
>
>I have never been sure about hotswapping ethernets. I have made changes
>hot, but in this case, the switch I was using to configure the 431 was
>the same switch that was connecting for the access point which was
>(also) being reconfigured for open vs wep vs wpa. I wanted to be sure
>that the switch was 'straight' with the network so that there wasn't one
>more source of confusion when I couldn't get connectivity.

My switches get rebooted whenever we lose power here, which I believe
has happened 2 or 3 times since 2001. When I shuffle cables on a
switch, it seems to recover within a second or two.

>So, I figured I might as well powercycle the switch and since it was
>being power cycled, the poweroff stage might as well be the part when I
>was switching cables.
>
>The other 'normal' AP in the mix, the 421, would sometimes 'act up' when
>it would be rebooted by software saving a new configuration, and it
>would also then need to be powercycled because its lights would go
>whacky and its webpage become unaccessible.
>
>> No question, you aren't making this easy for yourself.
>
>At each step, I thought I was 'just about thru' so I didn't bother
>killing the integrated wireless on the test laptop.
>
>> I've done (and am doing) everything you're trying to do, but I'm using
>> multiple Linksys WRT54GL's so my experience probably doesn't apply, at
>> least from a step by step perspective. Hang in there, you'll get it.
>
>Actually I would like to hear about what you've done with the linksys,
>because I'm getting ready to dd-wrt (or some other firmware mod) the
>little Fry's router. Maybe it could have more capability than what I'm
>trying with this airlink multifunction + trendnet router. I'm not
>actually so very happy with all I've accomplished so far.

I'm currently using several Linksys WRT54GL's + dd-wrt as an access
point (open, WEP, WPA, and WPA2), as a wireless client (open, WEP),
and as a wireless client bridge (open, WEP). The wireless client
bridge didn't work until I upgraded to a newer beta version of the
firmware.

>I could use the 431 as a remote AP in the particular situation I'll be
>in the next week or so because I believe that wireless is just open, but
>I was hoping to be able to make a subnet off that AP as a bridge.

I'm not able to parse your last line above. An AP is already a bridge,
and it will be a member of whichever subnet it's attached to, so if
you want the AP to be on a new subnet you'd create that new subnet on
the device to which the AP is attached, right?

From: Mike Easter on 17 May 2010 18:38
Char Jackson wrote:
> Mike Easter

>>> Exercise 2: I want to attach the device via the ethernet port (WAN or
>>> LAN) of a router2.
>
> I'd probably have to go back to your OP to see what you're trying to
> accomplish here. This brief description doesn't make any sense to me.

Here's the rest

Exercise 2: I want to attach the device via the ethernet port (WAN or
LAN) of a router2. I want the router2 to be the heart of a sub-network.
The AP (or Bridge) will be communicating wirelessly to the AP (or
router1 integrated AP) of the other network, and the computers connected
to the router2 wired or wirelessly will be getting their NAT IPs from
router2.

>> I was not able to do this at all. I used the WAN port on the router to
>> ethernet the 431 and a computer to a LAN port. That situation is very
>> difficult to troubleshoot, because the 431 is 'invisible' in the middle,
>> so none of the troubleshooting tools I was using did any good.
>
> I wasn't able to follow what you're trying to do here.

What I'm calling using the 431 as a 'bridge' is that the network which
is NATed from the airlink router1 is connected AP to AP - wirelessly -
so that the other router2 is able to NAT for the computers connected to
it wired and wirelessly. In this case, the router2 is a Trendnet.

> There should be only one DHCP server per subnet, (if you use DHCP at
> all), thereby not only eliminating IP conflicts but also eliminating
> all doubt as to where IP address assignments are coming from.

I'll pay closer attention to the DHCP configuration. I assumed that I
would be using the trendnet router2's dhcp for the subnetwork.

> I thought the 431 was the AP, but since it's cabled to the router's
> WAN port it's obviously not configured as an AP. I'm easily confused.

The airlink docs were very scanty about how to configure the 431 as a
bridge.

The reason I thought I should connect it to the trendnet router2's WAN
is because that is where the trendnet and its 'family' would be getting
their connectivity from.

But I think I recall that the airlink people said I should connect it to
the LAN of a router, but that didn't make any sense to me in my
configuration. Then the router2's WAN port would be empty. Is that the
way it is supposed to be when there is a subnet situation?




--
Mike Easter
From: Mike Easter on 17 May 2010 18:52
Char Jackson wrote:
> Mike Easter

>> I could use the 431 as a remote AP in the particular situation I'll be
>> in the next week or so because I believe that wireless is just open, but
>> I was hoping to be able to make a subnet off that AP as a bridge.
>
> I'm not able to parse your last line above. An AP is already a bridge,
> and it will be a member of whichever subnet it's attached to, so if
> you want the AP to be on a new subnet you'd create that new subnet on
> the device to which the AP is attached, right?
>
Here's what I mean when I say AP in the 'primary' sense of both of these
multifunction devices 421 (functioning for me as a AP proper) and 431 -
functioning as a AP client in experiment 1 and as a bridge in experiment 2.

To me, an AP proper is serving as a way - a radio-antenna access point -
for devices like wireless nics to connect to. To me, that proper AP is
just like the - or another - antenna/radio on a wireless router. The
wireless nics which connect to the network via the AP or the router's
antenna are just trying to get connected to the router - the router that
the AP proper is ethernetted to.

Then, in these other functions, the AP client is instead acting like a
radio/antenna extension of a ethernet nic, and/but the AP bridge
function is not exactly like either.

The AP bridge is trying to act like a radio/antenna to connect
wirelessly with a 'wireless' IP which is connected to the wired
WAN/internet of LAN network1. Its 'backend' - the ethernet part is
connected to the LAN of network2 via a connection to router2.

The reason I'm expressing myself in so many words is because it isn't
working for me. Maybe I'm trying to get this hardware to do something
it can't do.

--
Mike Easter
From: Char Jackson on 17 May 2010 19:53
On Mon, 17 May 2010 15:38:42 -0700, Mike Easter <MikeE(a)ster.invalid>
wrote:

>Char Jackson wrote:
>> Mike Easter
>
>>>> Exercise 2: I want to attach the device via the ethernet port (WAN or
>>>> LAN) of a router2.
>>
>> I'd probably have to go back to your OP to see what you're trying to
>> accomplish here. This brief description doesn't make any sense to me.
>
>Here's the rest
>
>Exercise 2: I want to attach the device via the ethernet port (WAN or
>LAN) of a router2. I want the router2 to be the heart of a sub-network.
> The AP (or Bridge) will be communicating wirelessly to the AP (or
>router1 integrated AP) of the other network, and the computers connected
>to the router2 wired or wirelessly will be getting their NAT IPs from
>router2.

One way to accomplish that is to configure the 431 as a "wireless
client bridge", in dd-wrt terms. The 431 will connect wirelessly to
the existing router1/AP. Connect an Ethernet cable from one of the
431's LAN ports to Router2's WAN port. Connecting the 431 to a LAN
port on Router2 would simply extend the existing subnet rather than
creating a new subnet. The new subnet will be isolated from the
existing subnet, which seems to be what you want. The WAN port on the
431 will be unused.

Using a device with dd-wrt, I believe you can use a single network
device to accomplish the role of the 431 and router2. Wireless Client
mode should do it, or Wireless Client Bridge mode if you need to keep
router2 in the mix.


>>> I was not able to do this at all. I used the WAN port on the router to
>>> ethernet the 431 and a computer to a LAN port. That situation is very
>>> difficult to troubleshoot, because the 431 is 'invisible' in the middle,
>>> so none of the troubleshooting tools I was using did any good.
>>
>> I wasn't able to follow what you're trying to do here.
>
>What I'm calling using the 431 as a 'bridge' is that the network which
>is NATed from the airlink router1 is connected AP to AP - wirelessly -
>so that the other router2 is able to NAT for the computers connected to
>it wired and wirelessly. In this case, the router2 is a Trendnet.
>
>> There should be only one DHCP server per subnet, (if you use DHCP at
>> all), thereby not only eliminating IP conflicts but also eliminating
>> all doubt as to where IP address assignments are coming from.
>
>I'll pay closer attention to the DHCP configuration. I assumed that I
>would be using the trendnet router2's dhcp for the subnetwork.
>
>> I thought the 431 was the AP, but since it's cabled to the router's
>> WAN port it's obviously not configured as an AP. I'm easily confused.
>
>The airlink docs were very scanty about how to configure the 431 as a
>bridge.
>
>The reason I thought I should connect it to the trendnet router2's WAN
>is because that is where the trendnet and its 'family' would be getting
>their connectivity from.
>
>But I think I recall that the airlink people said I should connect it to
>the LAN of a router, but that didn't make any sense to me in my
>configuration. Then the router2's WAN port would be empty. Is that the
>way it is supposed to be when there is a subnet situation?

If you're simply extending an existing subnet, then you'd connect to a
LAN port on router2 and leave the WAN port unused, but if you're
trying to create a new subnet under router2 you'd use its WAN port.

There's a lot more information on this topic in the Wireless Wiki, to
which a link is posted in this group pretty often. I just don't happen
to have it handy at the moment, unfortunately.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Call for papers: CCN-10, USA, July 2010
Next: NEWS: Nokia tops iPhone and BlackBerry (again), Apple as NickClegg