Re: wireless LAN in place of existing cabled one
On Thursday 13 November 2003 20:15, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> Op do 13-11-2003, om 02:12 schreef BruceG:
>
> <snip>
>
> > For the wireless bridge to work, it would need to connect to a WAP
> > (wireless access point). Since your Server is upstairs, you could do
> > something like this (assuming your cable or DSL is dropped off with an
> > Ethernet connection, not USB):
> >
> > DSL line in to providers DSL Router/modem (with an Ethernet port, not
> > USB!) ---> Ethernet port to a wireless router - Linksys BEFW11S4 costs
> > $69.99 at Amazon.com. Check out the Broadband forums. Linksys forum is
> > here: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/equip,16
> > The router has 2 "connections". An Ethernet port to your DSL
> > modem
> > A wireless connection for your home LAN
> >
> >
> > V
> > Linksys WET11 upstairs. $84.88 at Amazon.com
> >
> > The WET11 bridge has an Ethernet port for your PC, or
> > connect it to a hub or switch to serve multiple PCs.
> >
> > A couple notes: The Wireless router can serve multiple wireless clients.
> > You can connect a couple wireless bridges to it, or a wireless bridge and
> > also support laptops with wireless cards. My WAP54G supports a bridge and
> > a cardbus card. The wireless stuff I support a church has 2 WET11 bridges
> > connected, a total of 5 PCs bridged in. It can support additional
> > wireless clients.
> >
> > 802.11B is 10 MBPS. 802.11G can go to 54MBPS. You may be limited by
> > distance. I figure since my DSL connection is 256Meg or so - 10 Meg is
> > okay on the LAN side, although it can get slow doing backups over
> > wireless.
> >
> > I'm sure D-Link can do the same using the a wireless router downstairs
> > and a wireless bridge upstairs.
>
> If i understand correctly, i could install a wireless router just behind
> the cable modem, plug in such a wireless bridge in eth0 of my server,
> and keep the rest of the network like it is namely: eth1 of the server
> connected to a hub and my pc ( pc1 ) also connected to the hub. This
> would provide internet access to both the server and pc1. Right?
> The eth0 would off course not receive a public ip anymore although that
> would be cool if it could be done.
> And this wouldn't require me to config anything in linux then?
>
> If i want to make sure that all future traffic (laptops or pc not in the
> same room as the hub) goes via the hub, could i plug in a wireless
> access point in the hub and redirect all traffic via that access point
> instead of directly through the router?
>
> Benedict
The wireless router would get it's IP address and DNS servers from your ISP.
It would connect directly to your DSL modem using it's WAN port. The wireless
router would serve as a dhcp server for clients off it's LAN port. Your
server (and all PCs) would talk through the wireless router.
If you want to continue using your server as a dhcp server, proxy server, ...
- you would use a wireless access point (a WAP). If you use a WAP, your
existing LAN would still communicate as it does now. All you would be doing
is replacing your LAN cable between floors with a wirless drop.
Check out the broadband forums (do a google on broad band forums). The folks
on the forums can tell you exactly what you need and how it works. I can tell
you what I use and have configured and how that works - which may be slightly
different.
By the way - I am using:
A Linksys BEFSX41 router (had this when I was going wired)
A Linksys WAP54G (for wireless clients, it "bridges" wireless
clients into the wired LAN)
A Linksys WET11 bridge (for wirelessly bridging in a small wired LAN
upstairs)
A Linksys 54G CadBus card (for my wife's laptop)
You would skip the Linksys router part and continue using your server as the
router. That would mean you would need a WAP and a bridge (or a wireless card
that works in your server - the bridge is MUCH easier to set up and gives a
greater distance).
Reply to: