Sorry if this is a little disjointed. I'm half asleep (which is usually when I get ideas - always a dangerous thing especially when I'm half asleep). ;-) Every summer the CLL at the Aboriginal Centre shuts down for the month of August. Normally I ask the owners of the parent company (a recycler) if I can borrow some equipment for both July and August so I can learn more about specific computer related things. Normally they are topics discussed here or at the MUUG meetings. I know it is only almost April but why wait until the last second... The owners (Alvin and Karen) usually like me to have some clear goals in mind when I propose a project. As a result I thought I'd bounce a few ideas off the pros and semi-pros here... Thanks to Rob D. I think I finally have my head wrapped around the concept of port forwarding. A couple of months ago he asked me to set up a Minecraft server for development purposes and so far things seem to work. My current physical assets are a D-Link 655 wireless router, and a (Debian) LAMP server running on a G4 server (which I should update soon), a USB "N" dongle which may or may not work, a Mac Mini which can connect to the router via the "G" protocol, and an external antenna for the router. Oh and I have those two Check Point wired routers. Chris H. says when the router is running the "N" protocol in the house the range is the edge of the property in the front and can not be picked up from the back. Inside the house was no problem. The router was located on the ground floor near the front of the house. The guys from the seniors radio club think it might be because of the stucco on the house. I could re-position the antenna to be in front of the front window. Anyhow the ideas I had were to try a bit more on the port forwarding thing by having second machine connected to the router and use the router as the main method of connecting to the services I am running. As before this would not be connected to the internet. The method I used last time was to connect to the IP of the LAMP server (eg. 192.168.X.Y instead of the router at 192.168.X.1 port 80). Then I'd try to extend the range to the back yard by using a second router at the back of the house. The second router would get the wireless signal from the first and repeat it. I'd like to know if there are any routers, custom built or out of the box, which will say transmit with the "G" AND "N" protocols as opposed to the "G" OR "N" protocols. The D-Link router will allow the first connection to determine subsequent connections. For example of the first connection is a "G" connection those wishing to connect with the "N" protocol only will not be able to do so. My temporary solution is to limit the router to "N" only. This means my Mac Mini can't connect since it doesn't support "N". With some fancy wiring I suppose I could use a couple of wireless routers together and have each do a different protocol. Since the Lab is switching the classroom to Windows 7 and half the machines are running cards which don't have new drivers (and don't work) I may be able to snag some "G" cards for testing under Linux. Are there any G/N cards people here would recommend to the parent company? I'm thinking if they are going to order a bunch they may as well order some spares (and I can use one for testing). So far I'm looking to request a PC (to run Ubuntu Server and Minecraft) and an "N" router. Maybe a couple of PCI NICs and another external antenna. Do folks here think my ideas are clear enough to bring to the owners? I had half a dozen more ideas when I started but forgot most of them when I turned on the computer. ;-) Is there anything more which would be worth checking out given I am a slow learner with a high level of frustration at the moment? Later Mike
-Routers have options to be forced to run only G, only N, or auto select G/N based on the client. Most wireless chipsets will automatically select the best protocol based on signal level and RF environment. There is the option to flash a highly-featured OS like DD/OpenWRT for more control, although most Dlinks use a chipset that's less supported. -Usually N protocol should have more range than G, if not it's likely a router bug, in that case setting your router to run everything G-only will only cost you performance. -Wireless range extension is a bad idea - the only somewhat-good way is to have an extender with 2 radios on different frequencies. If you try to to do it with a device with one radio, throughput is cut in at least half because the radio is receiving and transmitting the same data, often it's cut more because that radio's transmissions are causing retransmittions at your main AP and vice-versa. -Best option to extend wireless range is a second AP on a different channel wired to the first, or increase the antenna size or directionality at your main AP. -Are you sure you found cards with a chipset that's not supported under Win7? There's only like a dozen different series of chipsets, you may need to find a driver from a supported card from a different brand with the same chipset. -Atheros is generally the best wifi chipset. Cards can be gotten online or at MX very cheaply. -If you're doing testing, won't the machines be next to each other? If so gigabit equipment is the same price as wifi and gives you 6-15x the speed of N wifi equipment for the same price; even much more when you consider total intranetwork speed. On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Mike Pfaiffer <high.res.mike@gmail.com>wrote:
Sorry if this is a little disjointed. I'm half asleep (which is usually when I get ideas - always a dangerous thing especially when I'm half asleep). ;-)
Every summer the CLL at the Aboriginal Centre shuts down for the month of August. Normally I ask the owners of the parent company (a recycler) if I can borrow some equipment for both July and August so I can learn more about specific computer related things. Normally they are topics discussed here or at the MUUG meetings. I know it is only almost April but why wait until the last second... The owners (Alvin and Karen) usually like me to have some clear goals in mind when I propose a project. As a result I thought I'd bounce a few ideas off the pros and semi-pros here...
Thanks to Rob D. I think I finally have my head wrapped around the concept of port forwarding. A couple of months ago he asked me to set up a Minecraft server for development purposes and so far things seem to work.
My current physical assets are a D-Link 655 wireless router, and a (Debian) LAMP server running on a G4 server (which I should update soon), a USB "N" dongle which may or may not work, a Mac Mini which can connect to the router via the "G" protocol, and an external antenna for the router. Oh and I have those two Check Point wired routers.
Chris H. says when the router is running the "N" protocol in the house the range is the edge of the property in the front and can not be picked up from the back. Inside the house was no problem. The router was located on the ground floor near the front of the house. The guys from the seniors radio club think it might be because of the stucco on the house. I could re-position the antenna to be in front of the front window.
Anyhow the ideas I had were to try a bit more on the port forwarding thing by having second machine connected to the router and use the router as the main method of connecting to the services I am running. As before this would not be connected to the internet. The method I used last time was to connect to the IP of the LAMP server (eg. 192.168.X.Y instead of the router at 192.168.X.1 port 80).
Then I'd try to extend the range to the back yard by using a second router at the back of the house. The second router would get the wireless signal from the first and repeat it.
I'd like to know if there are any routers, custom built or out of the box, which will say transmit with the "G" AND "N" protocols as opposed to the "G" OR "N" protocols. The D-Link router will allow the first connection to determine subsequent connections. For example of the first connection is a "G" connection those wishing to connect with the "N" protocol only will not be able to do so. My temporary solution is to limit the router to "N" only. This means my Mac Mini can't connect since it doesn't support "N". With some fancy wiring I suppose I could use a couple of wireless routers together and have each do a different protocol.
Since the Lab is switching the classroom to Windows 7 and half the machines are running cards which don't have new drivers (and don't work) I may be able to snag some "G" cards for testing under Linux. Are there any G/N cards people here would recommend to the parent company? I'm thinking if they are going to order a bunch they may as well order some spares (and I can use one for testing).
So far I'm looking to request a PC (to run Ubuntu Server and Minecraft) and an "N" router. Maybe a couple of PCI NICs and another external antenna. Do folks here think my ideas are clear enough to bring to the owners?
I had half a dozen more ideas when I started but forgot most of them when I turned on the computer. ;-) Is there anything more which would be worth checking out given I am a slow learner with a high level of frustration at the moment?
Later Mike
______________________________**_________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/**listinfo/roundtable<http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable>
On 13-03-29 11:01 AM, Colin Stanners wrote:
-Routers have options to be forced to run only G, only N, or auto select G/N based on the client. Most wireless chipsets will automatically select the best protocol based on signal level and RF environment. There is the option to flash a highly-featured OS like DD/OpenWRT for more control, although most Dlinks use a chipset that's less supported.
This D-Link has such a chipset. Auto select in this case will select on the first client connected rather than the best protocol.
-Usually N protocol should have more range than G, if not it's likely a router bug, in that case setting your router to run everything G-only will only cost you performance.
Both N and G work within the house. I'd like to see something I can access from outside. So far the only option is to relocate the router.
-Wireless range extension is a bad idea - the only somewhat-good way is to have an extender with 2 radios on different frequencies. If you try to to do it with a device with one radio, throughput is cut in at least half because the radio is receiving and transmitting the same data, often it's cut more because that radio's transmissions are causing retransmittions at your main AP and vice-versa.
Last spring I read this particular model of D-Link can be configured as a secondary AP.
-Best option to extend wireless range is a second AP on a different channel wired to the first, or increase the antenna size or directionality at your main AP.
Considering most of the equipment I can get comes from a recycler (for free) only the wired option is likely. Then I would have to get something to run from the front of the house to the back...
-Are you sure you found cards with a chipset that's not supported under Win7? There's only like a dozen different series of chipsets, you may need to find a driver from a supported card from a different brand with the same chipset.
Yup. SMCWLAN-G. There are Vista drivers but the installers DEMAND installing Vista first before we can access the drivers. Two of us spent all afternoon (and part of the morning) looking. We came really close but no joy.
-Atheros is generally the best wifi chipset. Cards can be gotten online or at MX very cheaply.
I'll pass this along. This should be very useful.
-If you're doing testing, won't the machines be next to each other? If so gigabit equipment is the same price as wifi and gives you 6-15x the speed of N wifi equipment for the same price; even much more when you consider total intranetwork speed.
"Next to" is a relative term. None the less you are correct. I could go with gigabit but that wouldn't increase my knowledge of wireless tech. The recycler is more likely to have wireless stuff they can lend me for a while than they would have gigabit stuff. Thanks for the info. It clears up a couple of things I wasn't sure about. Later Mike
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Mike Pfaiffer <high.res.mike@gmail.com <mailto:high.res.mike@gmail.com>> wrote:
Sorry if this is a little disjointed. I'm half asleep (which is usually when I get ideas - always a dangerous thing especially when I'm half asleep). ;-)
Every summer the CLL at the Aboriginal Centre shuts down for the month of August. Normally I ask the owners of the parent company (a recycler) if I can borrow some equipment for both July and August so I can learn more about specific computer related things. Normally they are topics discussed here or at the MUUG meetings. I know it is only almost April but why wait until the last second... The owners (Alvin and Karen) usually like me to have some clear goals in mind when I propose a project. As a result I thought I'd bounce a few ideas off the pros and semi-pros here...
Thanks to Rob D. I think I finally have my head wrapped around the concept of port forwarding. A couple of months ago he asked me to set up a Minecraft server for development purposes and so far things seem to work.
My current physical assets are a D-Link 655 wireless router, and a (Debian) LAMP server running on a G4 server (which I should update soon), a USB "N" dongle which may or may not work, a Mac Mini which can connect to the router via the "G" protocol, and an external antenna for the router. Oh and I have those two Check Point wired routers.
Chris H. says when the router is running the "N" protocol in the house the range is the edge of the property in the front and can not be picked up from the back. Inside the house was no problem. The router was located on the ground floor near the front of the house. The guys from the seniors radio club think it might be because of the stucco on the house. I could re-position the antenna to be in front of the front window.
Anyhow the ideas I had were to try a bit more on the port forwarding thing by having second machine connected to the router and use the router as the main method of connecting to the services I am running. As before this would not be connected to the internet. The method I used last time was to connect to the IP of the LAMP server (eg. 192.168.X.Y instead of the router at 192.168.X.1 port 80).
Then I'd try to extend the range to the back yard by using a second router at the back of the house. The second router would get the wireless signal from the first and repeat it.
I'd like to know if there are any routers, custom built or out of the box, which will say transmit with the "G" AND "N" protocols as opposed to the "G" OR "N" protocols. The D-Link router will allow the first connection to determine subsequent connections. For example of the first connection is a "G" connection those wishing to connect with the "N" protocol only will not be able to do so. My temporary solution is to limit the router to "N" only. This means my Mac Mini can't connect since it doesn't support "N". With some fancy wiring I suppose I could use a couple of wireless routers together and have each do a different protocol.
Since the Lab is switching the classroom to Windows 7 and half the machines are running cards which don't have new drivers (and don't work) I may be able to snag some "G" cards for testing under Linux. Are there any G/N cards people here would recommend to the parent company? I'm thinking if they are going to order a bunch they may as well order some spares (and I can use one for testing).
So far I'm looking to request a PC (to run Ubuntu Server and Minecraft) and an "N" router. Maybe a couple of PCI NICs and another external antenna. Do folks here think my ideas are clear enough to bring to the owners?
I had half a dozen more ideas when I started but forgot most of them when I turned on the computer. ;-) Is there anything more which would be worth checking out given I am a slow learner with a high level of frustration at the moment?
Later Mike
_________________________________________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca <mailto:Roundtable@muug.mb.ca> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/__listinfo/roundtable <http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable>
_______________________________________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
I couldn't find SMCWLAN-G but I found SMCWPCI-G; there's apparently 2 versions of the card, one with Atheros 5005G chipset (well supported under all OSes incl Win7) and one with RTL8185L chipset - support of that under Win7 is debated. Which cards do you have? Also since most drivers are supplied as .INFs they shouldn't be able to ask for a specific OS?
On 13-03-29 02:25 PM, Colin Stanners wrote:
I couldn't find SMCWLAN-G but I found SMCWPCI-G; there's apparently 2 versions of the card, one with Atheros 5005G chipset (well supported under all OSes incl Win7) and one with RTL8185L chipset - support of that under Win7 is debated. Which cards do you have? Also since most drivers are supplied as .INFs they shouldn't be able to ask for a specific OS?
Now that I think about it you are correct with your version of the name. The one I was having trouble with is likely to be the RTL chipset. That driver actually installed but did nothing. We'll have to check next Friday to see if we have a mix or just a single chipset... Worst case we just remove the ones which don't work and have a wired connection to those machines until replacements arrive. I'll pass this info along as well. We have two volunteers living in the area who sometimes drop by during the week. They can check it out during the class breaks. Later Mike
In this forum they state they got the XP x64 version of the Realtek drivers to work on Win7: http://www.geekstogo.com/forum/topic/313539-realtek-rtl8185-troubles-with-wi... On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Mike Pfaiffer <high.res.mike@gmail.com>wrote:
On 13-03-29 02:25 PM, Colin Stanners wrote:
I couldn't find SMCWLAN-G but I found SMCWPCI-G; there's apparently 2 versions of the card, one with Atheros 5005G chipset (well supported under all OSes incl Win7) and one with RTL8185L chipset - support of that under Win7 is debated. Which cards do you have? Also since most drivers are supplied as .INFs they shouldn't be able to ask for a specific OS?
Now that I think about it you are correct with your version of the name. The one I was having trouble with is likely to be the RTL chipset. That driver actually installed but did nothing. We'll have to check next Friday to see if we have a mix or just a single chipset... Worst case we just remove the ones which don't work and have a wired connection to those machines until replacements arrive.
I'll pass this info along as well. We have two volunteers living in the area who sometimes drop by during the week. They can check it out during the class breaks.
Later Mike
______________________________**_________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/**listinfo/roundtable<http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable>
Last spring I read this particular model of D-Link can be configured as a secondary AP.
Don't do that - that's exactly what Colin is warning against doing. Instead, set it up as another AP that happens to have the same SSID, and connect the two APs via their LAN ports. (And remember to disable DHCP on the 2nd one.)
Considering most of the equipment I can get comes from a recycler (for free) only the wired option is likely. Then I would have to get something to run from the front of the house to the back...
Those D-Links are 100Mit, not gigabit, so ordinary Cat5 will work fine (no need for Cat5e). I've been throwing out all the Cat5 I run across because it's useless to me now... I'm sure *someone* here can divert a single 50' Cat5 patch cord from the garbage can!
Yup. SMCWLAN-G. There are Vista drivers but the installers DEMAND installing Vista first before we can access the drivers. Two of us spent all afternoon (and part of the morning) looking. We came really close but no joy.
Do you mean SMCWLAN-CG, SMCWPCIT-G or SMCWUSB-G? There's no such product (AFAIK) as an SMCWLAN-G. -Adam
Also make sure the secondary router-turned-AP is on a diffrent frequency (5 wifi channels away from the first one), has an IP not interfering with your router/AP, and preferably UPNP is turned off so no client PCs are confused. On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adam Thompson <athompso@athompso.net>wrote:
Last spring I read this particular model of D-Link can be configured as a secondary AP.
Don't do that - that's exactly what Colin is warning against doing. Instead, set it up as another AP that happens to have the same SSID, and connect the two APs via their LAN ports. (And remember to disable DHCP on the 2nd one.)
Considering most of the equipment I can get comes from a recycler (for free) only the wired option is likely. Then I would have to get something to run from the front of the house to the back...
Those D-Links are 100Mit, not gigabit, so ordinary Cat5 will work fine (no need for Cat5e). I've been throwing out all the Cat5 I run across because it's useless to me now... I'm sure *someone* here can divert a single 50' Cat5 patch cord from the garbage can!
Yup. SMCWLAN-G. There are Vista drivers but the installers DEMAND installing Vista first before we can access the drivers. Two of us spent all afternoon (and part of the morning) looking. We came really close but no joy.
Do you mean SMCWLAN-CG, SMCWPCIT-G or SMCWUSB-G? There's no such product (AFAIK) as an SMCWLAN-G.
-Adam
_______________________________________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
On 13-03-29 03:21 PM, Colin Stanners wrote:
Also make sure the secondary router-turned-AP is on a diffrent frequency (5 wifi channels away from the first one), has an IP not interfering with your router/AP, and preferably UPNP is turned off so no client PCs are confused.
This should be OK (assuming I can get a router from the recycler). Apparently there is only one other wireless router in the area and that is set up for channel 6. Later Mike
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adam Thompson <athompso@athompso.net <mailto:athompso@athompso.net>> wrote:
> Last spring I read this particular model of D-Link can be > configured as a secondary AP.
Don't do that - that's exactly what Colin is warning against doing. Instead, set it up as another AP that happens to have the same SSID, and connect the two APs via their LAN ports. (And remember to disable DHCP on the 2nd one.)
> Considering most of the equipment I can get comes from a > recycler (for > free) only the wired option is likely. Then I would have to get > something to run from the front of the house to the back...
Those D-Links are 100Mit, not gigabit, so ordinary Cat5 will work fine (no need for Cat5e). I've been throwing out all the Cat5 I run across because it's useless to me now... I'm sure *someone* here can divert a single 50' Cat5 patch cord from the garbage can!
> Yup. SMCWLAN-G. There are Vista drivers but the installers > DEMAND installing Vista first before we can access the drivers. Two > of us spent all afternoon (and part of the morning) looking. We came > really close but no joy.
Do you mean SMCWLAN-CG, SMCWPCIT-G or SMCWUSB-G? There's no such product (AFAIK) as an SMCWLAN-G.
-Adam
_______________________________________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca <mailto:Roundtable@muug.mb.ca> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
_______________________________________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
On 13-03-29 03:16 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
Last spring I read this particular model of D-Link can be configured as a secondary AP.
Don't do that - that's exactly what Colin is warning against doing. Instead, set it up as another AP that happens to have the same SSID, and connect the two APs via their LAN ports. (And remember to disable DHCP on the 2nd one.)
That sounds easy enough. The tough part will be to get permission from my father to string a cord from one end of the house to the other. It is his house you see...
Considering most of the equipment I can get comes from a recycler (for free) only the wired option is likely. Then I would have to get something to run from the front of the house to the back...
Those D-Links are 100Mit, not gigabit, so ordinary Cat5 will work fine (no need for Cat5e). I've been throwing out all the Cat5 I run across because it's useless to me now... I'm sure *someone* here can divert a single 50' Cat5 patch cord from the garbage can!
The one I have claims to be gigabit. But, for the size of what I'm doing 100mbit should be fine. The plan is just to set it for myself and anyone who drops by (and maybe a neighbour or two). If I use a single cable and remain on the same floor I'd be looking at close to 100'. If I take it to the basement I can use a hub/switch and get by with some shorter cables. Plus the cables will be out of the way... It's something to think about. BTW, if you or anyone have some Cat5 cables to get rid of there should be a number of us at the next MUUG meeting who can take them. Just so long as we aren't overwhelmed. The non-functional ones can go to the recycler and the rest we can probably find uses for or give out to our more advanced students.
Yup. SMCWLAN-G. There are Vista drivers but the installers DEMAND installing Vista first before we can access the drivers. Two of us spent all afternoon (and part of the morning) looking. We came really close but no joy.
Do you mean SMCWLAN-CG, SMCWPCIT-G or SMCWUSB-G? There's no such product (AFAIK) as an SMCWLAN-G.
The more I think about it the more I think Colin was correct. It is probably an SMCWPCI-G. The second chipset he mentioned also rings a bell. We'll have to check it out and remember it for Friday.
-Adam
Later Mike
You can use $2 monoprice couplers to attach cables together. I ordered 10 on my last MP order so I can give you a few if you want. Most houses have some way to hide a cable from one end to the other - tiled ceiling / air return ducts / under baseboard just coming out to go to the next room through a hole in the wall. On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Mike Pfaiffer <high.res.mike@gmail.com>wrote:
On 13-03-29 03:16 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
Last spring I read this particular model of D-Link can be
configured as a secondary AP.
Don't do that - that's exactly what Colin is warning against doing. Instead, set it up as another AP that happens to have the same SSID, and connect the two APs via their LAN ports. (And remember to disable DHCP on the 2nd one.)
That sounds easy enough. The tough part will be to get permission from my father to string a cord from one end of the house to the other. It is his house you see...
Considering most of the equipment I can get comes from a recycler
(for free) only the wired option is likely. Then I would have to get something to run from the front of the house to the back...
Those D-Links are 100Mit, not gigabit, so ordinary Cat5 will work fine (no need for Cat5e). I've been throwing out all the Cat5 I run across because it's useless to me now... I'm sure *someone* here can divert a single 50' Cat5 patch cord from the garbage can!
The one I have claims to be gigabit. But, for the size of what I'm doing 100mbit should be fine. The plan is just to set it for myself and anyone who drops by (and maybe a neighbour or two).
If I use a single cable and remain on the same floor I'd be looking at close to 100'. If I take it to the basement I can use a hub/switch and get by with some shorter cables. Plus the cables will be out of the way... It's something to think about.
BTW, if you or anyone have some Cat5 cables to get rid of there should be a number of us at the next MUUG meeting who can take them. Just so long as we aren't overwhelmed. The non-functional ones can go to the recycler and the rest we can probably find uses for or give out to our more advanced students.
Yup. SMCWLAN-G. There are Vista drivers but the installers DEMAND
installing Vista first before we can access the drivers. Two of us spent all afternoon (and part of the morning) looking. We came really close but no joy.
Do you mean SMCWLAN-CG, SMCWPCIT-G or SMCWUSB-G? There's no such product (AFAIK) as an SMCWLAN-G.
The more I think about it the more I think Colin was correct. It is probably an SMCWPCI-G. The second chipset he mentioned also rings a bell. We'll have to check it out and remember it for Friday.
-Adam
Later Mike
______________________________**_________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/**listinfo/roundtable<http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable>
On 13-03-29 03:43 PM, Colin Stanners wrote:
You can use $2 monoprice couplers to attach cables together. I ordered 10 on my last MP order so I can give you a few if you want.
That sounds like it'll solve a lot of problems. For that price I'm sure I could pay you for a couple. No rush for me since I'm planning about four months in advance. We can talk more about it at the next UG meeting you have time to attend.
Most houses have some way to hide a cable from one end to the other - tiled ceiling / air return ducts / under baseboard just coming out to go to the next room through a hole in the wall.
This is an older 50's style house. Plaster all over the place. The best way to deal with the cables would be to send them through the existing holes in the floor which got drilled when they installed cable TV. Now the tough part is to find all the holes. ;-) Later Mike
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Mike Pfaiffer <high.res.mike@gmail.com <mailto:high.res.mike@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 13-03-29 03:16 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
Last spring I read this particular model of D-Link can be configured as a secondary AP.
Don't do that - that's exactly what Colin is warning against doing. Instead, set it up as another AP that happens to have the same SSID, and connect the two APs via their LAN ports. (And remember to disable DHCP on the 2nd one.)
That sounds easy enough. The tough part will be to get permission from my father to string a cord from one end of the house to the other. It is his house you see...
Considering most of the equipment I can get comes from a recycler (for free) only the wired option is likely. Then I would have to get something to run from the front of the house to the back...
Those D-Links are 100Mit, not gigabit, so ordinary Cat5 will work fine (no need for Cat5e). I've been throwing out all the Cat5 I run across because it's useless to me now... I'm sure *someone* here can divert a single 50' Cat5 patch cord from the garbage can!
The one I have claims to be gigabit. But, for the size of what I'm doing 100mbit should be fine. The plan is just to set it for myself and anyone who drops by (and maybe a neighbour or two).
If I use a single cable and remain on the same floor I'd be looking at close to 100'. If I take it to the basement I can use a hub/switch and get by with some shorter cables. Plus the cables will be out of the way... It's something to think about.
BTW, if you or anyone have some Cat5 cables to get rid of there should be a number of us at the next MUUG meeting who can take them. Just so long as we aren't overwhelmed. The non-functional ones can go to the recycler and the rest we can probably find uses for or give out to our more advanced students.
Yup. SMCWLAN-G. There are Vista drivers but the installers DEMAND installing Vista first before we can access the drivers. Two of us spent all afternoon (and part of the morning) looking. We came really close but no joy.
Do you mean SMCWLAN-CG, SMCWPCIT-G or SMCWUSB-G? There's no such product (AFAIK) as an SMCWLAN-G.
The more I think about it the more I think Colin was correct. It is probably an SMCWPCI-G. The second chipset he mentioned also rings a bell. We'll have to check it out and remember it for Friday.
-Adam
Later Mike
_________________________________________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca <mailto:Roundtable@muug.mb.ca> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/__listinfo/roundtable <http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable>
_______________________________________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
On 2013-03-29 Colin Stanners wrote:
Most houses have some way to hide a cable from one end to the other - tiled ceiling / air return ducts / under baseboard just coming out to go to the next room through a hole in the wall.
If you use ducts (for sure!) or go between floors (maybe, Adam?) you should really use plenum rated cable. You won't find any pre-made plenum cables. If you're in a pinch, I can sell you bare plenum-rated CAT6 in whatever length you need, and the price isn't too bad. I must buy in 1000 feet, but you can buy from me in any-feet (ie. 50). I find going down to the basement works best. Or, simply position both your AP's in the basement and never go upstairs. You can place them near the ceiling, most AP's have little screw holes in the back for wall mounting. As for the sane-ness of the whole plan, there are a number of AP's that can do repeating, without cables. I know Apple makes one (though I would never recommend an Apple product). I have personally seen these setups working in houses quite fine. How they both send and receive without tripping over themselves is beyond me, though if you talk to AP-1 on ch 1 and talk to network AP-2 on ch 11 then why not? As for N/G: I've heard people say that N may not give you longer range or even better speeds. I think Sean Cody used to say that. Perhaps the older N gear suffers from this but newer gear doesn't? Personally, I've dealt with more crap N gear that never seems to work quite right than G gear. The moral of the story: if N seems to crap out, try tweaking all AP's down to G.
participants (4)
-
Adam Thompson -
Colin Stanners -
Mike Pfaiffer -
Trevor Cordes