Ethernet Bridge - Confusion

Netgear market two products that to me appear very similar.

1. WGE101 is marketed as an Ethernet Bridge
2. WG602 is a 54Mbps Access Point.

I am fairly new to wireless networking but on viewing the data sheets
for both I cannot really see too much difference between them other
than the Ethernet Bridge is promoted as having better range.

Am I on the wrong track - are they completely different?

Geoff Lane

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 07:00:48 +0000, Geoff Lane <bunsen@talk21.com> wrote:
> Netgear market two products that to me appear very similar.
>
> 1. WGE101 is marketed as an Ethernet Bridge
> 2. WG602 is a 54Mbps Access Point.
>
> I am fairly new to wireless networking but on viewing the data sheets
> for both I cannot really see too much difference between them other
> than the Ethernet Bridge is promoted as having better range.
>
> Am I on the wrong track - are they completely different?

An access point can typically be used as AP, client, or bridge (bridge
might only work between similar units). A bridge can be used instead of
wireless pc card, but may have better range due to external antenna.

So if you need something that other wireless clients can connect to, you
need at least 1 AP for them to connect to. The other end can be a
wireless card, bridge, or similar AP (in client or bridge mode).

--
David Efflandt - All spam ignored http://www.de-srv.com/

Hi David

David Efflandt wrote:
>
> An access point can typically be used as AP, client, or bridge (bridge
> might only work between similar units). A bridge can be used instead of
> wireless pc card, but may have better range due to external antenna.
>
> So if you need something that other wireless clients can connect to, you
> need at least 1 AP for them to connect to. The other end can be a
> wireless card, bridge, or similar AP (in client or bridge mode).

I too have a very similar problem: myself new to this WLAN
business.

Presently I have an ADSL connectin with 8 (5 is more accurate)
fix IP addresses.

On one, I have a dual homed Linux machinge giving me a full
LAN in the private address range (say 192.168.1.0/24).

An AP (Linksys WAP11) is connected to my "WAN" switch. The
AP is in "Infrastructure" mode.

In the next building, I have another dual homed machine,
one NIC being a WLAN card. That gives me another private
LAN (say 192.168.2.0/24). But the WLAN NIC consumes a precious
public IP.

Now my question is:
I would like to join the two LANs into one (say 192.168.1.0/24).
Can I move the AP to my first LAN and add a new AP to the
second LAN, thus bridging them?

I have a spare Netgear ME101. Will that communicate with WAP-11?

Will I still be able to roam with a notebook in both
buildings?

Regards
Arun.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:54:20 +0100, Arun Dev <nospam@pleaz.xy> wrote:
> Hi David
>
> David Efflandt wrote:
>>
>> An access point can typically be used as AP, client, or bridge (bridge
>> might only work between similar units). A bridge can be used instead of
>> wireless pc card, but may have better range due to external antenna.
>>
>> So if you need something that other wireless clients can connect to, you
>> need at least 1 AP for them to connect to. The other end can be a
>> wireless card, bridge, or similar AP (in client or bridge mode).
>
> I too have a very similar problem: myself new to this WLAN
> business.
>
> Presently I have an ADSL connectin with 8 (5 is more accurate)
> fix IP addresses.
>
> On one, I have a dual homed Linux machinge giving me a full
> LAN in the private address range (say 192.168.1.0/24).
>
> An AP (Linksys WAP11) is connected to my "WAN" switch. The
> AP is in "Infrastructure" mode.
>
> In the next building, I have another dual homed machine,
> one NIC being a WLAN card. That gives me another private
> LAN (say 192.168.2.0/24). But the WLAN NIC consumes a precious
> public IP.
>
> Now my question is:
> I would like to join the two LANs into one (say 192.168.1.0/24).
> Can I move the AP to my first LAN and add a new AP to the
> second LAN, thus bridging them?

Yes. Since you have a WAP11, another WAP11 may work best. But you could
try the ME101 and see how that works.

> I have a spare Netgear ME101. Will that communicate with WAP-11?
>
> Will I still be able to roam with a notebook in both
> buildings?

Only if the signal is strong enough from your current WAP11. If bridging
works, but too weak for laptop, you might need another AP for the other
building.

--
David Efflandt - All spam ignored http://www.de-srv.com/
http://www.autox.chicago.il.us/ http://www.berniesfloral.net/
http://cgi-help.virtualave.net/ http://hammer.prohosting.com/~cgi-wiz/

Hi David

David Efflandt wrote:
> ...
>
> Yes. Since you have a WAP11, another WAP11 may work best. But you could
> try the ME101 and see how that works.
>
>
>>I have a spare Netgear ME101. Will that communicate with WAP-11?
>>
>>Will I still be able to roam with a notebook in both
>>buildings?
>
>
> Only if the signal is strong enough from your current WAP11. If bridging
> works, but too weak for laptop, you might need another AP for the other
> building.

Many thanks!

I will try it out, in about two weeks since I don't want to keep
the "down time" to a minimum.

Best regards
Arun.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:13:09 +0000 (UTC), efflandt@xnet.com (David
Efflandt) wrote:

>> Netgear market two products that to me appear very similar.
>>
>> 1. WGE101 is marketed as an Ethernet Bridge
>> 2. WG602 is a 54Mbps Access Point.
>>
>> I am fairly new to wireless networking but on viewing the data sheets
>> for both I cannot really see too much difference between them other
>> than the Ethernet Bridge is promoted as having better range.

>So if you need something that other wireless clients can connect to, you
>need at least 1 AP for them to connect to. The other end can be a
>wireless card, bridge, or similar AP (in client or bridge mode).

Right, so I can get my head round the theory.

A Network bridge appears to be a more flexible WiFi adapter allowing
it to connect to a computer or hub/switch and giving Ad Hoc mode
whereas an AP has to be connected to a hub/switch or modem outlet and
has no Ad Hoc.

I appreciate APs are often connected into a hub/switch which makes
them part of a network but if I had two APs (To extend range) and
sited the second on the other side of my house, would both APs need to
be on the same channel as each other.

Geoff Lane

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:39:13 +0000, Geoff Lane <bunsen@talk21.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:13:09 +0000 (UTC), efflandt@xnet.com (David
> Efflandt) wrote:
>
>>> Netgear market two products that to me appear very similar.
>>>
>>> 1. WGE101 is marketed as an Ethernet Bridge
>>> 2. WG602 is a 54Mbps Access Point.
>>>
>>> I am fairly new to wireless networking but on viewing the data sheets
>>> for both I cannot really see too much difference between them other
>>> than the Ethernet Bridge is promoted as having better range.
>
>>So if you need something that other wireless clients can connect to, you
>>need at least 1 AP for them to connect to. The other end can be a
>>wireless card, bridge, or similar AP (in client or bridge mode).
>
> Right, so I can get my head round the theory.
>
> A Network bridge appears to be a more flexible WiFi adapter allowing
> it to connect to a computer or hub/switch and giving Ad Hoc mode
> whereas an AP has to be connected to a hub/switch or modem outlet and
> has no Ad Hoc.

I believe simple wireless bridge needs an AP (or wireless router) to
connect to. But it does not alter the IP or MAC going through it, so it
is effectively a bridge.

For AP to AP, 1 of them can act as client (which is probably how the
simple bridge works). If the 2 are set in bridge mode they can only
wirelessly communicate with each other (ignores any other wireless
traffic). For multi-bridge mode only 1 is set as multi-bridge (others are
set as bridge and connect to it).

There is probably little price difference between wireless bridge and AP,
but the bridge has smaller footprint, and the AP more versitile.

> I appreciate APs are often connected into a hub/switch which makes
> them part of a network but if I had two APs (To extend range) and
> sited the second on the other side of my house, would both APs need to
> be on the same channel as each other.

Multiple APs for roaming should be at least 5 channels apart from adjacent
ones so they do not interfere with each other (channel 1, 6, or 11, or 3
and 8, etc.).

An AP typically connects to a hub/switch with standard patch cable, or
directly to PC nic with crossover cable if you know how to route (which is
what I do).

Not sure what cabling is used for simple bridge (some of which are
intended to connect a single device, but it would not matter if connected
to an auto sensing switch to bridge a network.

--
David Efflandt - All spam ignored http://www.de-srv.com/
http://www.autox.chicago.il.us/ http://www.berniesfloral.net/
http://cgi-help.virtualave.net/ http://hammer.prohosting.com/~cgi-wiz/

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:30:03 +0000 (UTC), efflandt@xnet.com (David
Efflandt) wrote:

>> Right, so I can get my head round the theory.
>>
>> A Network bridge appears to be a more flexible WiFi adapter allowing
>> it to connect to a computer or hub/switch and giving Ad Hoc mode
>> whereas an AP has to be connected to a hub/switch or modem outlet and
>> has no Ad Hoc.

>An AP typically connects to a hub/switch with standard patch cable, or
>directly to PC nic with crossover cable if you know how to route (which is
>what I do).
>
>Not sure what cabling is used for simple bridge (some of which are
>intended to connect a single device, but it would not matter if connected
>to an auto sensing switch to bridge a network.

Thanks for an in depth reply, brain getting the idea now :-))

Geoff Lane

I have a related questions, having bought a WG602 netgear AP - how do
I configure it to work as a bridge as I have a wireless router/modem
(DG834G)in another room?

Do I have to bin it and buy a WGE101 - which obviously I'd rather not
do!




Geoff Lane <bunsen@talk21.com> wrote in message news:<riv1rvgsbj524lmjisfheu94cokikns4ms@4ax.com>. ..
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:30:03 +0000 (UTC), efflandt@xnet.com (David
> Efflandt) wrote:
>
> >> Right, so I can get my head round the theory.
> >>
> >> A Network bridge appears to be a more flexible WiFi adapter allowing
> >> it to connect to a computer or hub/switch and giving Ad Hoc mode
> >> whereas an AP has to be connected to a hub/switch or modem outlet and
> >> has no Ad Hoc.
>
> >An AP typically connects to a hub/switch with standard patch cable, or
> >directly to PC nic with crossover cable if you know how to route (which is
> >what I do).
> >
> >Not sure what cabling is used for simple bridge (some of which are
> >intended to connect a single device, but it would not matter if connected
> >to an auto sensing switch to bridge a network.
>
> Thanks for an in depth reply, brain getting the idea now :-))
>
> Geoff Lane