In article ,
says...
My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge. So, if you already have
wireless client(s) using the WAP, that means you need two more pieces of
HW, not one :( That's why I so badly wanted to use a linksys WAP as a
AP client and bridge some stuff upstairs to it, but not at the expense
of using WEP :(

I don't know if it can connect to another WAP or not as I have never tried,
but a bridge, specifically the Linksys ones, can connect to devices other
than bridges, namely directly to a router. Doesn't have to be bridge to
bridge.

I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...

"Dan Swartzendruber" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...

Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his house
he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the pool
house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.

"Mark Rathgeber" wrote in message
. ..
Okay, another question: I have a Netgear router that I have been trying
to
configure for this purpose, and haven't been able to get it to work. Tell
me what I need to look for or consider regarding "subnet/forwarding."

My home network is simple: Two desktops, connected (wired) through a US
Robotics 8054 wireless router. The wireless is necessary for a roaming
laptop. I have tried to connect my TiVo, via WiFi, but all of the USB
adapters quit after about 20 minutes or so. Now, I have a wired adapter
connected to a network cable that I string from the living room, where the
TiVo is, to the computer room, but this can't be a permanent solution,
'cause it's really ugly, and dear wife doesn't like it (neither do I).
So,
if there's a way to configure the Netgear, I would like to try, but I
haven't had any luck so far. If I don't get it working within few days,
it's going back to Best Buy. The Netgear is a WGR614v5.

Neither of your routers will act as a bridge. The wireless routers get their
internet connection from the wired side. Bridges will only work with
compatible routers.

You can look for 802.11g range extenders, there may be one that works with
your one the USR. You can also try playing with the antennas to increase the
range. Here are some examples: http://wireless.hackaday.com/

Brad Houser

In article ,
Dan Swartzendruber wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article ,
"Mark Rathgeber" wrote:

Thanks to both of you guys for your comments, especially that it's hard
to
know before you buy. I still stand by a comment I made in another post
last
night: TiVo's updates aren't very "up to date." Why in the world would
you
come up with an option (TiVo ToGo) with such inadequate 802.11g
capability,
when the rest of the world is pretty much "g?" I also read in lots of
forums that using a wireless adapter is frequently impossible, at least
for
transfers.

Works fine for me with the Linksys WET54G Bridge. If one has an 802.11b
setup, and it downshifts speed to maintain a connection, transfer rates
can be abysmal.

My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge.

I know thats not true, as I have my Bridge connecting to my Wireless
Router.



So, if you already have
wireless client(s) using the WAP, that means you need two more pieces of
HW, not one :( That's why I so badly wanted to use a linksys WAP as a
AP client and bridge some stuff upstairs to it, but not at the expense
of using WEP :(

In article ,
(Dave Platt) wrote:

Devices which can operate as 802.11b clients, and Ethernet-level
bridges ("wireless bridges" in marketing-speak) don't *need* to be
more expensive than normal 802.11b WAPs - they use the same radio,
pretty much the same firmware, and they both implement the same
Ethernet-level bridging functions. Arguably they're technically
easier to implement, since their firmware doesn't need to implement
access-point functionality. However, for reasons that I suspect have
to do with the low number which are sold, they're uncommon and
expensive. Very few vendors seem to bother building this
functionality into their standard WAPs, although it's not technically
difficult to do.

Perhaps also Bridges cost more as they generate more support calls.

Devices which can operate as 802.11b clients, and Ethernet-level
bridges ("wireless bridges" in marketing-speak) don't *need* to be
more expensive than normal 802.11b WAPs - they use the same radio,
pretty much the same firmware, and they both implement the same
Ethernet-level bridging functions. Arguably they're technically
easier to implement, since their firmware doesn't need to implement
access-point functionality. However, for reasons that I suspect have
to do with the low number which are sold, they're uncommon and
expensive. Very few vendors seem to bother building this
functionality into their standard WAPs, although it's not technically
difficult to do.

Perhaps also Bridges cost more as they generate more support calls.

That could very well be the case. The secondary cost of providing
client-bridge capability (support calls, extra pages written up and
maintained in the manual, a more complex user interface for the
onboard HTTP-based configuration server) could easily be more than the
actual low-level engineering cost of adding client-mode support.

Then again it may be a matter of not cannibalizing your own market.
"Hey, Bob, we're selling this 802.11 client bridge for $100. Why
are you talking about adding this capability to our SOHO WAP/router
which is regularly being discounted for $40 minus rebate? None of
our competitors have this capability in their WAPs - what's the
justification for adding it to ours? You're gonna cost me my sales
bonus for the quarter, dude!"

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

In article ,
says...
My only objection to using a bridge is that you can't use a bridge to
connect to a WAP, it has to be another bridge.

I know thats not true, as I have my Bridge connecting to my Wireless
Router.

This is a linksys router? And it's not in bridge mode? If so, that's
pretty surprising, as their own documentation says you have to pick a
mode to operate the WAP in - and if you pick "bridge" mode, it won't
associate with any roaming clients.

In article ,
says...
"Dan Swartzendruber" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...

Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his house
he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the pool
house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.

You misunderstood me, I think. Presenting an actual configuration that
works counts as proof in my book :) I do have to admit to being
surprised though...

In article ,
says...
In article ,
says...
"Dan Swartzendruber" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units can
function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...

Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his house
he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the pool
house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.

I was just reading the docs for the WET11. As another poster said, I
think we had a terminology problem here. Linksys was being more than a
little sloppy in their use of the term "bridge". If you set the WET11
in "ad hoc" mode, it sounds like it expects to talk to another WET11
(what I and the other poster think of as a bridge), whereas if you set
it to "infrastructure mode", it expects to talk to a WAP of some sort,
which is what linksys also refers to as "wireless access point client
mode". Still doesn't support WPA though :(

"Dan Swartzendruber" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
"Dan Swartzendruber" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,

says...

I think you're misreading the product literature. The linksys units
can
function in several different modes, including as a bridge, but when
doing so, they are acting as a bridge, and can only connect to another
bridge (and a linksys one to boot, I'm pretty sure.) If you can prove
otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong...

Well, without you going on a road trip with me, I'm not really sure how I
can "prove" it, other than to say I hooked on up for a client. In his
house
he has a BEFW11S4 servicing his wired and wireless clients, and in the
pool
house a WET11 to connect 2 more devices to the main LAN.

You misunderstood me, I think. Presenting an actual configuration that
works counts as proof in my book :) I do have to admit to being
surprised though...

Well, some people don't think anything has been proven until they physically
see it with their own eyes and touch it...

I try not to guess at which camp people are in.