Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.dcom.net-analysis > #9 > unrolled thread

Re: Wireless router

Back to article view | Back to comp.dcom.net-analysis

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Wireless router Dan Sutter <dsutNOter@tcSPAM3net.com> - 2013-03-20 18:59 -0400
    Re: Wireless router anyone <ieGJnr4aQXRb!uzEL@z³> - 2013-03-21 00:43 +0000
      Re: Wireless router §ñühwö£f <snuhwolf@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-21 09:56 -0600
        Re: Wireless router, continued... Dan Sutter <dsutNOter@tcSPAM3net.com> - 2013-03-22 19:59 -0400
      Re: Wireless router Dan Sutter <dsutNOter@tcSPAM3net.com> - 2013-03-22 19:30 -0400
        Re: Wireless router anyone <ieGJnr4aQXRb!uzEL@z³> - 2013-03-23 21:52 +0000
        Re: Wireless router anyone <ieGJnr4aQXRb!uzEL@z³> - 2013-03-23 22:10 +0000
        Re: Wireless router (a later follow-up) anyone <jaup@h/WSWLG{nR1³qHe> - 2013-03-25 17:53 +0000
          Re: Wireless router (a later follow-up) Dan Sutter <dsutNOter@tcSPAM3net.com> - 2013-03-25 19:12 -0400
            Re: Wireless router (a later follow-up) anyone <ieGJnr4aQXRb!uzEL@z³> - 2013-03-27 23:24 +0000
              Re: Wireless router (a correction) anyone <ieGJnr4aQXRb!uzEL@z³> - 2013-03-28 03:37 +0000
    Re: Wireless router Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-03-23 00:40 +0000

#9 — Re: Wireless router

On 3/16/2013 11:22 AM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
> Dan Sutter wrote:
>> On 3/6/2013 3:19 PM, fsviatko@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>> I need some advice on what wireless router to purchase.
>>>
>> Well...
>> Maybe it is a good question after all.
>>

>> At work, (my job), during the same time period, We have had Netgear, Linksys and Cisco/Linksys.
>> Today at work, we are using a Cysco/Linksys 3200, for our WI-FI and the customers
>> complain almost every day that they cannot connect! So we reboot it.
>>
> Somethings fishy. How do they authenticate with your AP? Whitelist of MAC addys? OR whut?
>
>> PS. I don't have any experience with DLINK equipment.
>> Dan
> Me neither. But I haint done heard no bad things about em neither :)
§ñühwö£f
>
Thank you §ñühwö£f.

I would like to pursue your "Somethings fishy" comment from above.
Let me tell you the parameters:
1.)	It is in the back kitchen of a restaurant.
2.)	It is on a dedicated circuit breaker.
3.)	It is plugged into an expensive, one socket surge protector.
4.)	It is installed 6 feet from the floor of an 8 foot space, in a corner on top a
	small wire cornered shelf (for it's breathing space).
5.)	The corner is situated so that is as close as we can get to the center of the building.
6.)	It is an AT&T DSL 6MB connection.

We have to be PCI compliant, so that means our WI-FI network is isolated from our in house network, yet
they share the same internet connection.

What do you think?
Can routers be so sensitive to their environment?
I can tell you, that now in the cooler months, we don't even turn on the heat in the back kitchen.
When the waitstaff come in they complain "Man! It is FREEZING back here"!
Although, in the summer months I can loose a few pounds. :)

I will crosspost to:
	comp.dcom.net-management
and	
	comp.dcom.net-analysis

but they don't get a lot of traffic. (What is dcom?)

TIA,
Dan Sutter

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:59:16 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:

> On 3/16/2013 11:22 AM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>> Dan Sutter wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2013 3:19 PM, fsviatko@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>>> I need some advice on what wireless router to purchase.
>>>>
>>> Well...
>>> Maybe it is a good question after all.
>>>
>>>
>>> At work, (my job), during the same time period, We have had Netgear,
>>> Linksys and Cisco/Linksys.
>>> Today at work, we are using a Cysco/Linksys 3200, for our WI-FI and
>>> the customers complain almost every day that they cannot connect! So
>>> we reboot it.
>>>
>> Somethings fishy. How do they authenticate with your AP? Whitelist of
>> MAC addys? OR whut?
>>
>>> PS. I don't have any experience with DLINK equipment.
>>> Dan
>> Me neither. But I haint done heard no bad things about em neither :)
> §ñühwö£f
>>
> Thank you §ñühwö£f.
> 
> I would like to pursue your "Somethings fishy" comment from above.
> Let me tell you the parameters:
> 1.)	It is in the back kitchen of a restaurant.
> 2.)	It is on a dedicated circuit breaker.
> 3.)	It is plugged into an expensive, one socket surge protector.
> 4.)	It is installed 6 feet from the floor of an 8 foot space, in a
> corner on top a
> 	small wire cornered shelf (for it's breathing space).
> 5.)	The corner is situated so that is as close as we can get to the
> center of the building.
> 6.)	It is an AT&T DSL 6MB connection.

Observation:

If 'distance' were a problem, customers who sat nearest the kitchen would find fewer problems than those near the 
most distant wall.  Does everyone have the same level of difficulty?

You don't mention configuration of the WAP, how does it get its IP address?  Is the WAP otherwise configured as 
pass-through, to some controller/switch?

> We have to be PCI compliant, so that means our WI-FI network is isolated
> from our in house network, 

I don't follow you on that one... What do you believe is the implication of PCI compliance and WiFi?

> yet they share the same internet connection.

How are those boxes 'sharing' the same connection?  Does the other box have Network Address Translation?

> What do you think?
> Can routers be so sensitive to their environment?

Yes, that is -possible-.  Depends on the kind and density of objects between the WAP and client, power level and 
antenna configuration on the client machine, and so on.  '...cannot connect...' suggests a setup problem.

> I can tell you, that now in the cooler months, we don't even turn on the
> heat in the back kitchen. When the waitstaff come in they complain "Man!
> It is FREEZING back here"!
> Although, in the summer months I can loose a few pounds. :)
> 
> I will crosspost to:
> 	comp.dcom.net-management
> and
> 	comp.dcom.net-analysis
> 
> but they don't get a lot of traffic. (What is dcom?)

shorthand for "data communication," I expect.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11

anyone wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:59:16 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:
> 
>> On 3/16/2013 11:22 AM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>> Dan Sutter wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2013 3:19 PM, fsviatko@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>>>> I need some advice on what wireless router to purchase.
>>>>> 
>>>> Well... Maybe it is a good question after all.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> At work, (my job), during the same time period, We have had
>>>> Netgear, Linksys and Cisco/Linksys. Today at work, we are using
>>>> a Cysco/Linksys 3200, for our WI-FI and the customers complain
>>>> almost every day that they cannot connect! So we reboot it.
>>>> 
>>> Somethings fishy. How do they authenticate with your AP?
>>> Whitelist of MAC addys? OR whut?
>>> 
>>>> PS. I don't have any experience with DLINK equipment. Dan
>>> Me neither. But I haint done heard no bad things about em neither
>>> :)
>> §ñühwö£f Thank you §ñühwö£f.
>> 
>> I would like to pursue your "Somethings fishy" comment from above. 
>> Let me tell you the parameters: 1.)	It is in the back kitchen of a
>> restaurant. 2.)	It is on a dedicated circuit breaker. 3.)	It is
>> plugged into an expensive, one socket surge protector. 4.)	It is
>> installed 6 feet from the floor of an 8 foot space, in a corner on
>> top a small wire cornered shelf (for it's breathing space). 5.)	The
>> corner is situated so that is as close as we can get to the center
>> of the building. 6.)	It is an AT&T DSL 6MB connection.
> 
> Observation:
> 
> If 'distance' were a problem, customers who sat nearest the kitchen
> would find fewer problems than those near the most distant wall.
> Does everyone have the same level of difficulty?
> 
Exactly. Connect to the AP with a laptop and walk around while checking 
the signal strength. Steel beams and wiring can interfere with signal.

> You don't mention configuration of the WAP, how does it get its IP
> address?  Is the WAP otherwise configured as pass-through, to some
> controller/switch?
> 
Bridge mode?

>> We have to be PCI compliant, so that means our WI-FI network is
>> isolated from our in house network,
> 
> I don't follow you on that one... What do you believe is the
> implication of PCI compliance and WiFi?
> 
>> yet they share the same internet connection.
> 
> How are those boxes 'sharing' the same connection?  Does the other
> box have Network Address Translation?
> 
Should be sure to be using a different channel as well.

>> What do you think? Can routers be so sensitive to their
>> environment?
> 
> Yes, that is -possible-.  Depends on the kind and density of objects
> between the WAP and client, power level and antenna configuration on
> the client machine, and so on.  '...cannot connect...' suggests a
> setup problem.
>
Or RF from some source. Again, gotta walk around and look for hotspots.
I have two AP's in my house. One has a tiny coverage area and the other 
gets all the way out to the garage. I set the preamble on the 2nd one to 
"long" for better linkup. Gotta dig down into the advanced settings a 
bit & start tweakin em. Try a different channel, try setting the AP to 
"open" then hide the BSSID and only give that to the clients. If that 
dont work try WPA. But I'd bet its RF from a source and signal dropouts 
in certain areas.

-- 
http://signon.org/sign/protect-americas-wolves
www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org
    _____  ____  ____ __ /\_/\ __      _ ______   _____
   / __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \  \  __\
  _\ \/    / /_/ / _  / \     / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\  _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/   \_@_/   \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13 — Re: Wireless router, continued...

On 3/21/2013 11:56 AM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
> anyone wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:59:16 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/2013 11:22 AM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>>> Dan Sutter wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2013 3:19 PM, fsviatko@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>>>>> I need some advice on what wireless router to purchase.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well... Maybe it is a good question after all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At work, (my job), during the same time period, We have had
>>>>> Netgear, Linksys and Cisco/Linksys. Today at work, we are using
>>>>> a Cysco/Linksys 3200, for our WI-FI and the customers complain
>>>>> almost every day that they cannot connect! So we reboot it.
>>>>>
>>>> Somethings fishy. How do they authenticate with your AP?
>>>> Whitelist of MAC addys? OR whut?
>>>>
>>>>> PS. I don't have any experience with DLINK equipment. Dan
>>>> Me neither. But I haint done heard no bad things about em neither
>>>> :)
>>> §ñühwö£f Thank you §ñühwö£f.
>>>
>>> I would like to pursue your "Somethings fishy" comment from above. Let me tell you the parameters: 1.)    It is in the back kitchen of a
>>> restaurant. 2.)    It is on a dedicated circuit breaker. 3.)    It is
>>> plugged into an expensive, one socket surge protector. 4.)    It is
>>> installed 6 feet from the floor of an 8 foot space, in a corner on
>>> top a small wire cornered shelf (for it's breathing space). 5.)    The
>>> corner is situated so that is as close as we can get to the center
>>> of the building. 6.)    It is an AT&T DSL 6MB connection.
>>
>> Observation:
>>
>> If 'distance' were a problem, customers who sat nearest the kitchen
>> would find fewer problems than those near the most distant wall.
>> Does everyone have the same level of difficulty?
>>
> Exactly. Connect to the AP with a laptop and walk around while checking the signal strength. Steel beams and wiring can interfere with signal.
>
>> You don't mention configuration of the WAP, how does it get its IP
>> address?  Is the WAP otherwise configured as pass-through, to some
>> controller/switch?
>>
> Bridge mode?
>
>>> We have to be PCI compliant, so that means our WI-FI network is
>>> isolated from our in house network,
>>
>> I don't follow you on that one... What do you believe is the
>> implication of PCI compliance and WiFi?
>>
>>> yet they share the same internet connection.
>>
>> How are those boxes 'sharing' the same connection?  Does the other
>> box have Network Address Translation?
>>
> Should be sure to be using a different channel as well.
>
>>> What do you think? Can routers be so sensitive to their
>>> environment?
>>
>> Yes, that is -possible-.  Depends on the kind and density of objects
>> between the WAP and client, power level and antenna configuration on
>> the client machine, and so on.  '...cannot connect...' suggests a
>> setup problem.
>>
> Or RF from some source. Again, gotta walk around and look for hotspots.
> I have two AP's in my house. One has a tiny coverage area and the other gets all the way out to the garage. I set the preamble on the 2nd one to
> "long" for better linkup. Gotta dig down into the advanced settings a bit & start tweakin em. Try a different channel, try setting the AP to "open"
> then hide the BSSID and only give that to the clients. If that dont work try WPA. But I'd bet its RF from a source and signal dropouts in certain areas.
>

Thanks again §ñühwö£f and anyone,

But you see, once we isolated the WI-FI from the office, the interruptions for our WI-FI clientele continue
even though our service remains intact. (ever since we split access with a third router at the helm.)
I had once proposed to management that we should cut a hole through the wall and put the WI-FI router right in
the dining room where there is a regulated temperature and less cooking vapors.
They said, "let's just see how the new arrangement (1 modem, 1 main router and 2 dependent routers) works.
[not so good]
Again, I ask, Can routers be so sensitive to their environment?

TIA,
Dan Sutter
PS. I do not see my posts in comp.dcom.net-management










--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12

On 3/20/2013 8:43 PM, anyone wrote in response to my post:

> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:59:16 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2013 11:22 AM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>> Dan Sutter wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2013 3:19 PM, fsviatko@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>>>> I need some advice on what wireless router to purchase.
>>>>>
>>>> Well...
>>>> Maybe it is a good question after all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At work, (my job), during the same time period, We have had Netgear,
>>>> Linksys and Cisco/Linksys.
>>>> Today at work, we are using a Cysco/Linksys 3200, for our WI-FI and
>>>> the customers complain almost every day that they cannot connect! So
>>>> we reboot it.
>>>>
>>> Somethings fishy. How do they authenticate with your AP? Whitelist of
>>> MAC addys? OR whut?
>>>
>>>> PS. I don't have any experience with DLINK equipment.
>>>> Dan
>>> Me neither. But I haint done heard no bad things about em neither :)
>> §ñühwö£f
>>>
>> Thank you §ñühwö£f.
>>
>> I would like to pursue your "Somethings fishy" comment from above.
>> Let me tell you the parameters:
>> 1.)	It is in the back kitchen of a restaurant.
>> 2.)	It is on a dedicated circuit breaker.
>> 3.)	It is plugged into an expensive, one socket surge protector.
>> 4.)	It is installed 6 feet from the floor of an 8 foot space, in a
>> corner on top a
>> 	small wire cornered shelf (for it's breathing space).
>> 5.)	The corner is situated so that is as close as we can get to the
>> center of the building.
>> 6.)	It is an AT&T DSL 6MB connection.
>
> Observation:
>
> If 'distance' were a problem, customers who sat nearest the kitchen would find fewer problems than those near the
> most distant wall.  Does everyone have the same level of difficulty?
>

Yes. Nobody can connect to the WI-FI frequently.

> You don't mention configuration of the WAP, how does it get its IP address?  Is the WAP otherwise configured as
> pass-through, to some controller/switch?

I Think so.
We have a DSL modem connected to a router.
The router has two other routers connected to it.
One router is our WAP, The other is our private office network.
Both second routers get their IP address from the the router connected to the modem.
See below...

>
>> We have to be PCI compliant, so that means our WI-FI network is isolated
>> from our in house network,
>
> I don't follow you on that one... What do you believe is the implication of PCI compliance and WiFi?
>
What I believe the implication of PCI Compliance is that our POS server cannot be compromised by our WI-FI users.
Just a few months ago, I called our POS MICROS techs to complain about this very same problem.
At that time, Our WI-FI router connected directly to our modem and our office network router connected to it...
so when the WI-FI failed, so did our entire office network, and so the MICROS server couldn't verify credit card
transactions without reverting to 54k modem access.

Their (our MICROS DEALER) answer was to add an additional router and the split the internet access between
our WI-FI and our office network.
But still... That D@#$%m WI-FI router fails while our office network continues to enjoy access.
That is why I consider the environment of the router.

>> yet they share the same internet connection.
>
> How are those boxes 'sharing' the same connection?  Does the other box have Network Address Translation?
>
NAT? I don't know.

>> What do you think?
>> Can routers be so sensitive to their environment?
>
> Yes, that is -possible-.  Depends on the kind and density of objects between the WAP and client, power level and
> antenna configuration on the client machine, and so on.  '...cannot connect...' suggests a setup problem.
>
There really isn't any density problem(walls, coolers, storage), but heat, cold and "oil vapor"?

>> I can tell you, that now in the cooler months, we don't even turn on the
>> heat in the back kitchen. When the waitstaff come in they complain "Man!
>> It is FREEZING back here"!
>> Although, in the summer months I can loose a few pounds. :)
>>
>> I will crosspost to:
>> 	comp.dcom.net-management
>> and
>> 	comp.dcom.net-analysis
>>
>> but they don't get a lot of traffic. (What is dcom?)
>
> shorthand for "data communication," I expect.
>
Thanks for your questions,
Dan Sutter

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15

I'm trimming this, for readability...

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:30:15 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:

> On 3/20/2013 8:43 PM, anyone wrote in response to my post:
> 
[...]
>> Observation:
>>
>> If 'distance' were a problem, customers who sat nearest the kitchen
>> would find fewer problems than those near the most distant wall.  Does
>> everyone have the same level of difficulty?
>>
>>
> Yes. Nobody can connect to the WI-FI frequently.
> 
>> You don't mention configuration of the WAP, how does it get its IP
>> address?  Is the WAP otherwise configured as pass-through, to some
>> controller/switch?
> 
> I Think so.
> We have a DSL modem connected to a router.
> The router has two other routers connected to it.
> One router is our WAP, The other is our private office network.
> Both second routers get their IP address from the the router connected
> to the modem.

My read, some options:   

You have a 'primary' router, say R1. R1 feeds Internet access to secondary routers, say R2 and R3. One of the 
others is the WAP, say R3. R2 and R3 must get IP addresses for their 'uplink' connections from R1.  R2 and R3 
should be operating in 'bridge' mode, because R1 must assign IP addresses for everything on what are, in effect, 
your two subnets -- if R2 or R3 or both could operate in DHCP, either or both could attempt to assign addresses that 
conflict with whatever R1 attempts to assign.  If there is an address collision, one router or another may simply 
ignore a connection.  Suppose it does that.  The solution to this could be tricky, given available hardware.  Next...

You could test the condition -- temporarily disconnect R2 and R3 (may or may not need a re-boot of R1).  Reconnect 
the WAP router, R3, only.  Do WiFi connections suddenly work?  If so, it seems you have address collision.  Else, 
you need to continue looking. Again, solution(s) could be tricky with the available hardware.

If you have address collision, you could try this:

1. Look for a way to set R2 and R3 into 'bridge' or 'pass through' mode. If that is available, there should be some 
reference to it in the user manual. If R2 and R3 can be set in 'pass through', then R1 manages the entire pool of 
addresses (apart from the DSL modem). Whether that will adequately isolate 'Office' and 'WiFi' is a separate issue.  
Suppose there isn't a way to choose 'pass through'...

2. Go into the setup GUI for R1, manually assign addresses for R2 and R3 -- choose a pair of addresses that are 
outside R1's DHCP pool, of course -- go into the same GUI for R2 and R3, choose static address and enter IPs you 
chose in R1 setup, turn off DHCP for R2 and R3.  Reconnect everything and test Office and WiFi access.  Again, it's 
difficult to know whether that will work, absent more complete review of R2 and R3 capability.

Continuing...   

> See below...
> 
>>> We have to be PCI compliant, so that means our WI-FI network is
>>> isolated from our in house network,
>>
>> I don't follow you on that one... What do you believe is the
>> implication of PCI compliance and WiFi?
>>
> What I believe the implication of PCI Compliance is that our POS server
> cannot be compromised by our WI-FI users.

Ah... then you likely need more sophisticated IP address management.  'Office' on one subnet, 'public WiFi' on 
another. R1 may have that capability, depends on what you find in the user manual.

> Just a few months ago, I called our POS MICROS techs to complain about
> this very same problem.
> At that time, Our WI-FI router connected directly to our modem and our
> office network router connected to it... so when the WI-FI failed, so
> did our entire office network, and so the MICROS server couldn't verify
> credit card transactions without reverting to 54k modem access.
> 
> Their (our MICROS DEALER) answer was to add an additional router and the
> split the internet access between our WI-FI and our office network.
> But still... That D@#$%m WI-FI router fails while our office network
> continues to enjoy access.

That description leaves me thinking it's also address collision, with a somewhat different connection.

>>> yet they share the same internet connection.
>>
>> How are those boxes 'sharing' the same connection?  Does the other box
>> have Network Address Translation?
>>
> NAT? I don't know.

I couldn't follow your earlier description -- there should be only one box connected directly to the external telephone 
line (your DSL) at one time, the remainder of the network must be connected to the other side of that box. It seems 
your DSL modem is operating in pass-through (that's good), and R1 should be managing all IP addresses.  R1 likely 
has built-in NAT, so that all other hardware on your system gets (in effect) direct access to the internet at once. The 
difficulty is whether R2 and R3 are trying to assign IP addresses from their own pool in conflict with whatever R1 is 
doing.

>>> What do you think?
>>> Can routers be so sensitive to their environment?
>>
>> Yes, that is -possible-.  Depends on the kind and density of objects
>> between the WAP and client, power level and antenna configuration on
>> the client machine, and so on.  '...cannot connect...' suggests a setup
>> problem.
>>
> There really isn't any density problem(walls, coolers, storage), but
> heat, cold and "oil vapor"?

Not likely, unless 'heat' is unusually bad -- more than 185F, external -- in the area where all of your hardware resides. 
Most such equipment is meant to tolerate the same environment that people use. OTOH, if the hardware wire-shelf 
were placed directly above a 300F stove, then yes, normal operation could suffer.

I can't tell you the above will work.  It may at least give you better indication of what is happening. Overall, the 
multiple-router configuration seems unusual.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16

A different approach to the problem...

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:30:15 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:

> On 3/20/2013 8:43 PM, anyone wrote in response to my post:
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:59:16 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:
>>
[...]
If you can find them, what are current IP addresses and subnet masks for R1, R2 and R3?
(R1 - primary, R2 - secondary, R3 - secondary, the WAP)

Some useful reading:   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subnetwork

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17 — Re: Wireless router (a later follow-up)

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:30:15 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:

> On 3/20/2013 8:43 PM, anyone wrote in response to my post:
> 
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:59:16 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:
>>
[...]
>> You don't mention configuration of the WAP, how does it get its IP
>> address?  Is the WAP otherwise configured as pass-through, to some
>> controller/switch?
> 
> I Think so.
> We have a DSL modem connected to a router.
> The router has two other routers connected to it.
> One router is our WAP, The other is our private office network.
> Both second routers get their IP address from the the router connected
> to the modem.
> See below...
[...]

On re-thinking the above, I suspect that and my other scheme won't work. The DSL modem can be operated in pass-
through, so it doesn't need an IP address or net mask. Also -- should the question arise -- you cannot successfully 
use a switch between the DSL modem and R1, because the ISP leases you only one public IP address at a time. 
Some routers have 'static route' features, it isn't clear that will help you.   

Next, unless there is some unusual feature built-in to them, it seems all of the other three routers must be on the 
same subnet; the "R2" and "R3" routers must connect to the primary router "R1" through their respective LAN ports, 
and you get 508 usable IP addresses. If you do nothing else, everything on 'Office' could 'see' everything on 'WiFi', 
and the reverse. To get separation between 'Office' and 'WiFi', you could:    

1. Purchase a second IP address lease from your ISP; configure subnets through different addresses and masks   
2. Purchase a second line and DSL modem   
3. Go into the WAP setup, look for "Wireless Isolation". If the feature exists, it may restrict WiFi connections to 
"Internet only", precluding access to any other wired/wireless connection on your network (e.g., Netgear WNDR3700; 
see your user setup manual).    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18 — Re: Wireless router (a later follow-up)

On 3/25/2013 1:53 PM, anyone wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:30:15 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2013 8:43 PM, anyone wrote in response to my post:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:59:16 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:
>>>
> [...]
>>> You don't mention configuration of the WAP, how does it get its IP
>>> address?  Is the WAP otherwise configured as pass-through, to some
>>> controller/switch?
>>
>> I Think so.
>> We have a DSL modem connected to a router.
>> The router has two other routers connected to it.
>> One router is our WAP, The other is our private office network.
>> Both second routers get their IP address from the the router connected
>> to the modem.
>> See below...
> [...]
>
> On re-thinking the above, I suspect that and my other scheme won't work. The DSL modem can be operated in pass-
> through, so it doesn't need an IP address or net mask. Also -- should the question arise -- you cannot successfully
> use a switch between the DSL modem and R1, because the ISP leases you only one public IP address at a time.
> Some routers have 'static route' features, it isn't clear that will help you.
Exactly. A switch after the modem will effectively be useless.

>
> Next, unless there is some unusual feature built-in to them, it seems all of the other three routers must be on the
> same subnet; the "R2" and "R3" routers must connect to the primary router "R1" through their respective LAN ports,
> and you get 508 usable IP addresses. If you do nothing else, everything on 'Office' could 'see' everything on 'WiFi',
> and the reverse. To get separation between 'Office' and 'WiFi', you could:
>
> 1. Purchase a second IP address lease from your ISP; configure subnets through different addresses and masks
> 2. Purchase a second line and DSL modem
> 3. Go into the WAP setup, look for "Wireless Isolation". If the feature exists, it may restrict WiFi connections to
> "Internet only", precluding access to any other wired/wireless connection on your network (e.g., Netgear WNDR3700;
> see your user setup manual).
>

Thank you 'anyone' for your ideas.

I will answer all three post here to save text room.

No. I would say our modem is not in "pass-through" mode. It allows us to get a single IP address from
our AT&T DSL provider and supplies it to our first router, R1.

As I understand it, bridge mode would limit the router to a dumb switch (hub).
By using routers, each router wants to set up their own sub-net. They will take the IP address
they're given and "route" the signals (packets) to their own connections (sub-net).
So, Our modem is given an IP address, and R1 sub-nets (obfuscates?) that address to it's connections.
When you connect other routers that are NOT bridged, they will create their own sub nets from the
IP address they get from R1. Virtually creating NEW networks, unable to communicate directly (as a network).

If I didn't mention so before. The entire office network is hardwired and doesn't rely on
wireless.
The wireless is ONLY for our patrons.

The first line in the artical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subnetwork) you reffered to me is:

	A subnetwork, or subnet, is a logically visible subdivision of an IP network.
	The practice of dividing a network into two or more networks is called subnetting

(In the first sentence above, the word 'visible' is maybe a bad choice.)

Still disappointing our patrons but
thanks for your thoughts,
Dan Sutter

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19 — Re: Wireless router (a later follow-up)

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:12:35 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:

> On 3/25/2013 1:53 PM, anyone wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:30:15 -0400, Dan Sutter wrote:
>>
[...]
> Thank you 'anyone' for your ideas.
> 
> I will answer all three post here to save text room.
> 
> No. I would say our modem is not in "pass-through" mode. It allows us to
> get a single IP address from our AT&T DSL provider and supplies it to
> our first router, R1.

Your description suggests otherwise.  If R1 has all of your ISP login information, and otherwise manages IP 
addresses for machines on its LAN side, then your DSL modem operates in pass-through.  You can't have two 
boxes that manage your ISP login at once.  If your DSL modem manages all of your ISP login information as well as 
IP addresses on its LAN port(s) then R1 likely operates as a switch.  That scheme would be unusual

> By using routers, each router wants to set up their own sub-net. 

Usually, you can configure them to operate as routers or as switches.

> will take the IP address they're given and "route" the signals (packets)
> to their own connections (sub-net).

Usually routers support a choice of DHCP or 'static' IP address on the WAN side; that is determined by your ISP, 
and you configure the box to accept either.  You can choose to configure the LAN side for DHCP (the box then 
assigns IP addresses on a range of 254 possible choices) or static addresses (where you manually assign 
addresses to all of the hardware that is attached to the LAN, again with 254 possible choices). 

> So, Our modem is given an IP address, and R1 sub-nets (obfuscates?) that
> address to it's connections.

That would be unusual.

The only kind of "obfuscation" networks usually have is done through the subnet mask.  The scheme is part of 
Connectionless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR), and in effect, tells the local hardware which part of an IP address it 
should parse.

> When you connect other routers that are NOT bridged, they will create
> their own sub nets from the IP address they get from R1. Virtually
> creating NEW networks, unable to communicate directly (as a network).

Nope, bridging does not constrain operation in that way.

> If I didn't mention so before. The entire office network is hardwired
> and doesn't rely on wireless. The wireless is ONLY for our patrons.

That is what I had understood.

> The first line in the artical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subnetwork)
> you reffered to me is:
> 
> 	A subnetwork, or subnet, is a logically visible subdivision of an IP
> 	network. The practice of dividing a network into two or more networks
> 	is called subnetting
> 
> (In the first sentence above, the word 'visible' is maybe a bad choice.)

No, it is entirely accurate -- 'logical visibility' is convenient shorthand way of describing how a router "sees" whatever 
else may be attached to its network at any time.  Perhaps your best option is to contact an IP admin in your area.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20 — Re: Wireless router (a correction)

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:24:22 +0000, I wrote:

[...]
> Connectionless Inter-Domain Routing
> (CIDR), 

make that 'classless'-IDR, as opposed to 'classful'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14

["Followup-To:" header set to 24hoursupport.helpdesk.]
On 2013-03-20, Dan Sutter <dsutNOter@tcSPAM3net.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2013 11:22 AM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>> Dan Sutter wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2013 3:19 PM, fsviatko@sbcglobal.net wrote:

[...]

> I would like to pursue your "Somethings fishy" comment from above.
> Let me tell you the parameters:
> 1.)	It is in the back kitchen of a restaurant.
> 2.)	It is on a dedicated circuit breaker.
> 3.)	It is plugged into an expensive, one socket surge protector.
> 4.)	It is installed 6 feet from the floor of an 8 foot space, in a 
>       corner on top a small wire cornered shelf (for it's breathing 
>       space).
> 5.)	The corner is situated so that is as close as we can get to the 
>       center of the building.
> 6.)	It is an AT&T DSL 6MB connection.

I'd try replacing the wire shelf with something non-metallic.  Metal things
near any radio aerial can have strange effects on the signal.  That goes
for reinforcing bars or steel framework inside the walls of a building,
too.

Some routers are designed so that they can be hung from one or two nails in
the wall, instead of being stood on a horizontal surface.

It is possible to increase the strength a radio signal in one direction by
putting a 'reflector' near the aerial; there are designs on-line for DIY,
or you can buy ready-made versions.

Make sure your wireless access point is not sharing a channel with any
other nearby routers.  There are apps for smartphones that can show you
what channels all the routers within range are using.  If there are many
routers within range, interference can be a problem on all channels.
Microwave ovens and cordless telephones can also interfere.

Are the access point and routers cabable of handling the number of people
who want to connect at the same time?  Is the DHCP server set to allocate
enough local IP numbers?  How quickly do allocations 'expire'? 

You can ease congestion by installing more wireless access points, but the
router and internet connection might still be bottlenecks.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.dcom.net-analysis

csiph-web