Multiple routers for wireless connection?

[Saab Dastard]

I don't want the locals setting up their deckchairs in rows at the gate to take advantage of my generosity!

What do you think WPA / WPA2 security is for?

SD

[green granite]

I could try for a super-range antenna which each guest could use on their laptop but I don't want the locals setting up their deckchairs in rows at the gate to take advantage of my generosity!

You could use a simple encryption code, easy to feed into a laptop but sufficient to deter the free-wheelers.

[Keef]

Super-range antennas don't produce any more power, or any greater overall coverage.

The good ones just squirt the RF in one direction, giving more range in that direction (and far less in other directions). The snakeoil ones do nothing at all.

If you have three-phase mains and the plug devices won't work, you're back to the other options: Cat5 cables to WAPs around the place, or wireless repeaters.

[HandyAndy]

I know other posters have mentioned the homeplugs - I use them all around the (not so small) house and it gives me effectively a lan outlet in every room.

I have the box in front of me:
- a portable ethernet cable
- faster and easier to set up than wi-fi
- transform power socket into network point
- no problems with thick walls and blind spots
- perfect for home networking

I am not sure how the "phases" which has been mentioned affects me and the box doesn't stipulate anything about the electrical circuit but it just works and works well, exactly as described on the box.

(edited for ridiculous typo..)

[green granite]

I am not sure how the "phases" which has been mentioned affects me and the box doesn't stipulate anything about the electrical circuit but it just works and works well, exactly as described on the box.

There are 3 phases in an electricity supply system, in most cases a house is only supplied by a single phase so no problems as these devices can only connect to each other if they are on the same phase.

For more in depth info go to: 3 Phase Electricity - The 3 Phase Power Resource Site

[Mike-Bracknell]

There are 3 phases in an electricity supply system, in most cases a house is only supplied by a single phase so no problems as these devices can only connect to each other if they are on the same phase.

For more in depth info go to: 3 Phase Electricity - The 3 Phase Power Resource Site

As regards Powerline, this doesn't map 1:1 onto phases. Different types of distribution board can interrupt the signal, as can a bunch of other things.

However, there are subtly different flavours of Powerline, and whilst one flavour might not work, another might. My Netgear XE104s have been working non-stop with no issue for 5-6 years (as well they should, seeing as i'm a Netgear Powershift Partner )

Anyway, I would recommend Powerline over wireless bridging for this application. Also I would recommend NOT re-using another combined router/AP at the other end, as the inclusion of another set of NAT into the equation is liable to cause more headaches than remove them. Just either get a pair of these and a standalone AP like a Netgear WG102 (my preference), or get a set of WGXB102s and you should be sorted

Incidentally, before you try all this, are you sure your existing wireless is not just competing for channel bandwidth with a bunch of other APs in the vicinity? i.e. can you see other wireless networks when you do a search? Setting your AP to a non-blocking channel would also help (there's only 4 wireless channels which don't interfere with each other, despite there being 13 to choose from).

HTH. PM me if you need any more help.
Mike.

[Saab Dastard]

Also I would recommend NOT re-using another combined router/AP at the other end, as the inclusion of another set of NAT into the equation is liable to cause more headaches than remove them

You can bypass the router functionality (e.g. NAT) by not using the WAN port on the AP/router. I.E. connect into one of the LAN switch ports. Elementary stuff, and exactly as GG specified in post#2.

SD

[Mike-Bracknell]

You can bypass the router functionality (e.g. NAT) by not using the WAN port on the AP/router. I.E. connect into one of the LAN switch ports. Elementary stuff, and exactly as GG specified in post#2.

SD

Dependent upon router. There ARE (cheap & nasty) routers out there which will attempt to introduce NAT into the equation irrespective of whether it's connected to a LAN port.

/voe.

[Saab Dastard]

There ARE (cheap & nasty) routers out there which will attempt to introduce NAT into the equation irrespective of whether it's connected to a LAN port.

Name one!

It would be quite an achievement.

SD

[Mike-Bracknell]

Name one!

It would be quite an achievement.

SD

I know it *should* be quite an achievement, yet there have been more than one that I have come across. However, they are usually very beige boxes with little or no markings. i.e. not a "reputable" manuf.

I can tell you're doubting me from the posts here, but I shouldn't need to post reams of experience-related waffle purely to make a point. It exists, I have come across at least 3 in the last few years, but given that I deal with on average 2 (usually different) customer routers a month and have worked extensively in networking for decades, please just accept what i'm telling you - that a standalone AP is less hassle than an all-in-one.

To fulfil your point though, a Netgear DGFV338 with early release firmware exhibits this situation intermittently.

The cause is usually domestic CPE built to a price with cobbled-together open-source software from varying sources.

[Jofm5]

please just accept what i'm telling you

Very Very dodgy - anyone that says that just raises my suspicion even more.

On a bog standard consumer Cable/DSL/Router the NAT traversal is performed on the route through the WAN interface (Cable/DSL modem) as SAAB has pointed out, there is no requirement for NAT on either the WIFI or LAN ports - indeed it does not make any sense to do that in any situation where there is no reason to hide addresses from devices on the same network as it would just complicate issues.

What I believe you are claiming is that on some devices there is similar to a PIX firewall between the LAN and Wifi Segments - whilst this is a possible requirement when joining two disparete networks in a corporate environment it is not something a home consumer would require and would be very expensive to implement for a reasonable priced device as you would typically find at someones home.

The cause is usually domestic CPE built to a price with cobbled-together open-source software from varying sources.

Never heard of a domestic household having custom built CPE to a price, especially when off the shelf devices are so cheap - each to their own, however this is of little relevance to the OP's question.

Please note - not all of us that post on these forums are just aviation nuts - some of us work in IT too, so please treat those professionals on here with the respect you would like to be treated with.

[Saab Dastard]

I think that this hole has been well and truly dug, and the sides reinforced! Enough squirming, let's draw a veil over this and move on.

SD

[Mike-Bracknell]

Very Very dodgy - anyone that says that just raises my suspicion even more.

On a bog standard consumer Cable/DSL/Router

There is NO SUCH THING. As I explained, a fair percentage of these are designed to a price, not to any standards save a scant wafting through of the RFCs. Indeed, there ARE NO STANDARDS for the innards of a cheap router save for the ones written by the production teams for the specific devices.

the NAT traversal is performed on the route through the WAN interface (Cable/DSL modem) as SAAB has pointed out, there is no requirement for NAT on either the WIFI or LAN ports - indeed it does not make any sense to do that in any situation where there is no reason to hide addresses from devices on the same network as it would just complicate issues.

I KNOW it doesn't make sense. I'm not claiming for it to make sense. I'm claiming that i've seen it happen, more than once.

What I believe you are claiming is that on some devices there is similar to a PIX firewall between the LAN and Wifi Segments - whilst this is a possible requirement when joining two disparete networks in a corporate environment it is not something a home consumer would require and would be very expensive to implement for a reasonable priced device as you would typically find at someones home.

A Cisco PIX is somewhat more expensive than the specific devices i'm talking about, and way beyond the means for 99%+ of the populace to deploy, short of taking a crash course in IOS configuration.

What i'm talking about here are the "hokey-cokey 2000" brand routers favoured by people who go to the local PC World-esque places to pick up something to do the job, not caring what brand it is. It is these types of items that I have seen where the wifi stack has been noted to sit in varying places amongst other things such as the code for the NAT and stateful firewall, dependent upon which release of the firmware you happen to be running on the box at the time, the type of boot of the device, the time of day and whether venus is rising in the east.

THAT is what i'm on about.

Never heard of a domestic household having custom built CPE to a price, especially when off the shelf devices are so cheap

Who said "custom"? this is "off the shelf" we're talking about here, and my comment is based upon the far east fab plants that knock out these devices, on production lines next to the ones for the well-known Linksys, Netgear, Cisco, Belkin, etc routers.

Please note - not all of us that post on these forums are just aviation nuts - some of us work in IT too, so please treat those professionals on here with the respect you would like to be treated with.

Well, hail fellow well met then! I am a director of an IT support company, with extensive in-depth experience of this specific topic which i'm trying to impart, and enough experience and relevant technical contacts that I would hope not to be summarily dismissed with such remarks as:

Elementary stuff, and exactly as GG specified in post#2

Name one!

and

I think that this hole has been well and truly dug, and the sides reinforced! Enough squirming, let's draw a veil over this and move on.

...so I assume that respect should go both ways then?

[Fly-by-Wife]

Dear oh dear, Mike-Bracknell!

You seem to be utterly unable to lose face.

You've jumped from:

Also I would recommend NOT re-using another combined router/AP at the other end, as the inclusion of another set of NAT into the equation is liable to cause more headaches than remove them

To a general discourse on dodgy production lines in the Far East!

Just admit that a throw-away remark has been seen to be bollocks, there's a good chap. Take a few days off so we can all forget about it; maybe go fishing - then you can tell us all about the enormous one that got away.

To err is human. Putting your hand up and admitting it is manly. Strenuously denying it just makes you seem like a... politician (and that's most uncomplimentary right now!).

FBW

[Mike-Bracknell]

Dear oh dear, Mike-Bracknell!

You seem to be utterly unable to lose face.

You've jumped from:
Quote:
Also I would recommend NOT re-using another combined router/AP at the other end, as the inclusion of another set of NAT into the equation is liable to cause more headaches than remove them
To a general discourse on dodgy production lines in the Far East!

Just admit that a throw-away remark has been seen to be bollocks, there's a good chap. Take a few days off so we can all forget about it; maybe go fishing - then you can tell us all about the enormous one that got away.

To err is human. Putting your hand up and admitting it is manly. Strenuously denying it just makes you seem like a... politician (and that's most uncomplimentary right now!).

FBW

Fair enough, the initial quote is slightly misleading as it is not the purposeful inclusion of NAT (or of any of the other code modules into the networking within the router that causes the problems, but rather the fact that they are included modules within the network stack of the device in question, and as such in certain situations (such as the situation I cite with the DGFV338 and early code release), these modules have been seen to interact badly within the router and thus cause symptoms such as:

- The loss of ability to authenticate an 802.11 connection
- The loss of ability to reach anywhere other than the wifi stack on the device in question
- Specific inabilities to reach random network ports and protocols on the LAN when the device is used as a secondary AP

Therefore, the original quote should ideally be:

Also I would recommend NOT re-using another combined router/AP at the other end, as the inclusion of another set of code modules into the equation is liable to cause more headaches than remove them

Does THAT make it a little easier for you to understand now?

I'll make it patently clear for you:

Just because YOU haven't experienced the issue, does NOT mean it doesn't exist

or is it standard form on PPRuNe for people to attack someone purely based on lack of post count and irrespective of message?

Finally - the message to the OP is that spending £50 on a dedicated AP is likely over the lifetime of the product to cause you less grief (and hence less cash) than re-using any unbranded AP/router combined product that's been stashed away in a cupboard. That's it, pure and simple.

[Fly-by-Wife]

or is it standard form on PPRuNe for people to attack someone purely based on lack of post count and irrespective of message?

No, mainly based on bull****.

The purpose of this forum is (I believe) to assist with ITC related issues, not to peddle FUD and half-truths, as these are not at all helpful.

FBW

[Mike-Bracknell]

No, mainly based on bull****.

The purpose of this forum is (I believe) to assist with ITC related issues, not to peddle FUD and half-truths, as these are not at all helpful.

That's just how I see it too, which is a relief.

Now if you could kindly indicate what work you have done in this respect to confirm or deny your assertation of the above, we'll move on.

What would be really helpful in this respect would be evidence on your behalf that what I say is BS....rather than the condescending tripe i've had to endure so far.

[Saab Dastard]

Mike-Bracknell, F-B-W,

Enough already!

I'm not going to waste any more bandwidth on this - if you want to go wave your willies at each other, take 'em outside.

I don't think this thread is heading anywhere useful.

SD