On Nov 17, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Macs R We <macs...@macsrwe.com> wrote: > The architecture of your in-house switch/wifi/router will easily affect your > traffic rates inside the RV. Obviously, it won't do anything for access to > the greater internet. Sounds like you know this.
Yeah, I figured if I had the WiFiRanger router connected via 100BaseT to a gigabit switch and everything else connected to the gigabit switch (Mini via gigabit cable, laptops and iDevices via 802.11n with a gigabit connection to the switch…then since the switch remembers MAC addresses of what is connected to it then traffic from the wireless (or the gigabyte switch/wireless combo) to the mini only traverses the gigabit portion of the LAN and hence the slower 100BaseT connection from the gig switch to the WiFi Ranger router won't make any difference. > I have never played with a WiFi Ranger. Most SOHO wifi routers allow you to > turn the radio totally off. If not, just give it a name like "do not use" > and a long garbage password, and keep it on an unpopular channel (which you > may have to change, depending on each campground). I currently have the wifi on the WiFi Ranger disabled since it doesn't do 802.11n. or WPA. > > $300 is a scary figure. Turns out, if you're not married to Apple gear, you > can do everything you want with the following $75 box: > > http://routerboard.com/RB751G-2HnD I'm not necessarily married to Apple's gear but can't really swap out the WiFi Ranger as the router out to the internet. Since I need to have multiple possible inputs (wifi from the campground, a Verizon air card for cellular internet, and potentially either a cable modem feed or ethernet feed from the campground) I really need to use the WiFi Ranger as the router/failover between various internet connections device. > > Five gigabit ports and a 802.11b/g/n radio (1W!) with internal antennas. > Their simple configurator (Quick Set) will allow you to set it up as a > standard SOHO router with one screen, but the product is really made so you > can crawl under the canned stuff and set it up any way you like (in your > case, as a switch box with builtin AP and no DHCP). I'm sure this router can be set up in bridge mode (otherwise I have to get into double routing and a much more complicated network)…do you know if it can be operated in bridge mode with the switch ports active at the same time? If so, I could use it in 802.11n bridge mode for the wireless clients and plug the wired clients directly into it. Sort of like the following diagram (it looks kinda of cheesy in ascii. internet sources ----wifi ranger router with wireless off ----Mikrotiks in bridge mode --wireless clients | | |----wired gigabit clients I'll go see if I can find a manual for the router to see if it supports this; but I have to admit I never plugged anything into the switch port of a wireless point that was in bridge mode…I suppose the ports are still active but have no idea really; it wasn't something I ever needed to try for a client. Back to the original question though; any idea how much of an improvement in throughput I would see between the wireless and wired clients by going gigabit instead of 100BaseT for the connections? Obviously it would be faster since it's clearly limited by the 100BaseT ethernet currently but I don't really know what the real world 802.11n throughput is like. > If you like this idea but are daunted by the learning curve, I'll be happy to > whip up the initial configuration file you need and email it to you. I may take you up on that but as long as I can web browse into the Mikrotk then setting it up for bridge mode should be pretty simple (at least assuming the ports are still active in that mode. Heck, maybe I'll order the router and give it a try to see if it improves things if they have a decent return policy. Thanks for the suggestions; I'll think on them a bit._______________________________________________ MacOSX-talk mailing list MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
