Cisco Wireless [7:74157]
Is there a utility/software available to sniff wireless communication to confirm for instance that the 128bit encryption is doing what it suppose to do? This e-mail may contain confidential information and may be legally privileged and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you may not use, distribute or copy this document in any manner whatsoever. Kindly also notify the sender immediately by telephone, and delete the e-mail. When addressed to clients of the company from where this e-mail originates (the sending company ) any opinion or advice contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable terms of business or client engagement letter . The sending company does not accept liability for any damage, loss or expense arising from this e-mail and/or from the accessing of any files attached to this e-mail. At present, the integrity of e-mail across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. The recipient should scan any attached files for viruses. All liability arising as a result of the use of this medium to transmit information by or to e-Innovation is excluded to the extent permitted by law. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74157t=74157 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: Cisco Wireless [7:74157]
IIRC, AirSnort should be able to do this. Best regards, Dom Stocqueler SysDom Technologies Visit our website - www.sysdom.org -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 August 2003 09:31 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cisco Wireless [7:74157] Is there a utility/software available to sniff wireless communication to confirm for instance that the 128bit encryption is doing what it suppose to do? This e-mail may contain confidential information and may be legally privileged and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you may not use, distribute or copy this document in any manner whatsoever. Kindly also notify the sender immediately by telephone, and delete the e-mail. When addressed to clients of the company from where this e-mail originates (the sending company ) any opinion or advice contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable terms of business or client engagement letter . The sending company does not accept liability for any damage, loss or expense arising from this e-mail and/or from the accessing of any files attached to this e-mail. At present, the integrity of e-mail across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. The recipient should scan any attached files for viruses. All liability arising as a result of the use of this medium to transmit information by or to e-Innovation is excluded to the extent permitted by law. **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74162t=74157 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: Cisco Wireless [7:74157]
If you want check that the association is encrypted, try checking the association table. For checking that traffic is encrypted try Airopeek, Airsnort etc. Martijn -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Johan Bornman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: dinsdag 19 augustus 2003 10:31 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Cisco Wireless [7:74157] Is there a utility/software available to sniff wireless communication to confirm for instance that the 128bit encryption is doing what it suppose to do? This e-mail may contain confidential information and may be legally privileged and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you may not use, distribute or copy this document in any manner whatsoever. Kindly also notify the sender immediately by telephone, and delete the e-mail. When addressed to clients of the company from where this e-mail originates (the sending company ) any opinion or advice contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable terms of business or client engagement letter . The sending company does not accept liability for any damage, loss or expense arising from this e-mail and/or from the accessing of any files attached to this e-mail. At present, the integrity of e-mail across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. The recipient should scan any attached files for viruses. All liability arising as a result of the use of this medium to transmit information by or to e-Innovation is excluded to the extent permitted by law. **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74161t=74157 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: Cisco Wireless [7:74157]
Johan Bornman wrote: Is there a utility/software available to sniff wireless communication to confirm for instance that the 128bit encryption is doing what it suppose to do? Is it WEP? Then it is not likely doing what it is supposed to do. With a tool such as AirSnort or Kismet and enough traffic (4 million packets or so), a hacker can determine the WEP key. See here for one of many articles on the problem. It also has links to AirSnort and Kismet info. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/excerpt/wirlsshacks_chap1/index.html Priscilla This e-mail may contain confidential information and may be legally privileged and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you may not use, distribute or copy this document in any manner whatsoever. Kindly also notify the sender immediately by telephone, and delete the e-mail. When addressed to clients of the company from where this e-mail originates (the sending company ) any opinion or advice contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable terms of business or client engagement letter . The sending company does not accept liability for any damage, loss or expense arising from this e-mail and/or from the accessing of any files attached to this e-mail. At present, the integrity of e-mail across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. The recipient should scan any attached files for viruses. All liability arising as a result of the use of this medium to transmit information by or to e-Innovation is excluded to the extent permitted by law. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74194t=74157 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
Very true. The clients are the most vulnerable before the VPN session is established. Without PSPF enabled clients can attack other clients on an access point. Even with PSPF enabled an attacker could put up a rogue with the same SSID and WEP key if used and try to attack/trojan the client. It's interesting though, the new IOS firmware has crypto map statements available. I wonder if Cisco will eventually allow VPN sessions to terminate directly on the access points. That would be pretty cool. Much like what Colubris does right now. Reimer, Fred wrote: Hmm, PSPF definitely sounds interesting, but I'd recommend requiring the integrated Cisco firewall in the VPN client, and not allowing split tunneling. Also, there is apparently a working group working on VPN multicast... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Charlie Wehner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 4:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988] One more quick note on using VPN solutions. If your using a VPN solution with a Cisco AP be sure to enable PSPF. Everyone misses that setting... but it's important. :) **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74074t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
One more quick note on using VPN solutions. If your using a VPN solution with a Cisco AP be sure to enable PSPF. Everyone misses that setting... but it's important. :) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74049t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
Hmm, PSPF definitely sounds interesting, but I'd recommend requiring the integrated Cisco firewall in the VPN client, and not allowing split tunneling. Also, there is apparently a working group working on VPN multicast... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Charlie Wehner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 4:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988] One more quick note on using VPN solutions. If your using a VPN solution with a Cisco AP be sure to enable PSPF. Everyone misses that setting... but it's important. :) **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74052t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
Being in healthcare, I have some strong views on this topic. Unfortunately, I'm cramming for the CSI test I have tomorrow, and I still have two chapters to go through on the KnowledgeNet course. So, you will just have to wait... LOL Expect some comments on EAP-TLS, WPA, and assorted technologies. For now, I have to get some sleep, and study ;-) Priscilla - Send me your email address... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988] For a large campus network that has a need for wireless access in conference rooms, cafeterias, etc., would it be overkill to require wireless clients to use VPN IPSec software to access the campus network? This is for a customer who is paranoid about security and understands the tradeoff of ease-of-use versus security. There are othere downsides with requiring VPN software, of course, including the usual issues of incompatibility with some apps, the lack of support for protocols other than IP, and the lack of support for multicast applications (from what I understand). Also, we have to consider the scalability of the current VPN solution and whether it can support numerous transient wireless users, but we think it can. There are many advantages with IPSec too, like support for encryption that actually works... What do you all think? Do any of you require your campus wireless users to use VPN software? Sorry if it's a stupid question. Priscilla **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74002t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
.. not a stupid question at all. The issues we ran into: 1. We put the wireless users on a completely untrusted segment 2. We needed to permit DHCP+DNS to clients pre-VPN connection DHCP to get an IP, obviously DNS because our VPN Profiles used DNS names 3. We needed to also permit access to the concentrator(s) (seems obvious, but you'd be surprised ... ) 4. We used CS-ACS for the auth., this works reasonably well for us. (aside from not being able to apply service packs to Win2k in a timely fashiondammit) Other issues: 1. Make sure your WAP's and VPN Concentrators are able to handle double the expected load . 2. Make sure you have good WAP coverage - once they can get wireless access from anywhere users will be miffed if they can't get access from their favorite corner of the lunchroom. 3. Maybe someone else has a answer for this - but one problem we do have is when a user roams from one WAP-area to another their VPN gets dropped. 4. If using all one brand you can go for other security options (e.g.-LEAP) 5. If it is a static, reasonably small user population you could also go for mac filtering. (I know - you can get around this, but ... think layers) The truly surprising part is that the client is willing to consider making a performance/ease-of-use sacrifices for security! You should run with it. Thanks! TJ -Original Message- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988] For a large campus network that has a need for wireless access in conference rooms, cafeterias, etc., would it be overkill to require wireless clients to use VPN IPSec software to access the campus network? This is for a customer who is paranoid about security and understands the tradeoff of ease-of-use versus security. There are othere downsides with requiring VPN software, of course, including the usual issues of incompatibility with some apps, the lack of support for protocols other than IP, and the lack of support for multicast applications (from what I understand). Also, we have to consider the scalability of the current VPN solution and whether it can support numerous transient wireless users, but we think it can. There are many advantages with IPSec too, like support for encryption that actually works... What do you all think? Do any of you require your campus wireless users to use VPN software? Sorry if it's a stupid question. Priscilla ** The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system. ** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74013t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
Reimer, Fred wrote: Being in healthcare, I have some strong views on this topic. Unfortunately, I'm cramming for the CSI test I have tomorrow, and I still have two chapters Good luck on the test. to go through on the KnowledgeNet course. So, you will just have to wait... LOL Expect some comments on EAP-TLS, WPA, and assorted technologies. Sounds great. I'd love to hear your comments on EAP-TLS, WPA, (RSN?) Thanks in advance and thanks to everyone else who answered too. For now, I have to get some sleep, and study ;-) Priscilla - Send me your email address... I can do that, but please post comments for all to see so everyone benefits. Thanks. Priscilla Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988] For a large campus network that has a need for wireless access in conference rooms, cafeterias, etc., would it be overkill to require wireless clients to use VPN IPSec software to access the campus network? This is for a customer who is paranoid about security and understands the tradeoff of ease-of-use versus security. There are othere downsides with requiring VPN software, of course, including the usual issues of incompatibility with some apps, the lack of support for protocols other than IP, and the lack of support for multicast applications (from what I understand). Also, we have to consider the scalability of the current VPN solution and whether it can support numerous transient wireless users, but we think it can. There are many advantages with IPSec too, like support for encryption that actually works... What do you all think? Do any of you require your campus wireless users to use VPN software? Sorry if it's a stupid question. Priscilla **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74027t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
Well, I thought for sure I was going to fail, but I passed the CSI test with a score of 902. Needed 825 out of 1000... After giving it some thought, I think it's probably better if I don't comment on the wireless questions at this point. I had typed up quite a bit of observations that I just deleted, before I realized that this is one of the key areas where we sell our products (in my group). It would probably not be the wisest decision to provide free RD to our competitors. If anyone has specific questions on anything, then by all means ask away, but I opened up the original question a little more than I intended. But some answers to the original question (personal views only): 1) VPNs, specifically IPsec VPNs, will always be more secure than WEP, or Cisco's proprietary CCKM or the WPA standard. 2) I don't think it is unreasonable. Especially since you can have auto-initiate with the VPN 3000 Client so that the VPN is automatically connected and the users don't even need to be aware that it is there. Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74033t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
For a large campus network that has a need for wireless access in conference rooms, cafeterias, etc., would it be overkill to require wireless clients to use VPN IPSec software to access the campus network? This is for a customer who is paranoid about security and understands the tradeoff of ease-of-use versus security. There are othere downsides with requiring VPN software, of course, including the usual issues of incompatibility with some apps, the lack of support for protocols other than IP, and the lack of support for multicast applications (from what I understand). Also, we have to consider the scalability of the current VPN solution and whether it can support numerous transient wireless users, but we think it can. There are many advantages with IPSec too, like support for encryption that actually works... What do you all think? Do any of you require your campus wireless users to use VPN software? Sorry if it's a stupid question. Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=73988t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
Are they concerned about what is in the traffic going back and forth from the wireless users to the wired network? In other words interception of the signal. Or is it a desire to isolate the wireless from the wired side of the network. If isolation is what is needed, it would seem a lot easier to put the wireless users in their own network and implement security where the wireless and wired networks join. If they are concerned with the traffic going back and forth over the wireless network, what about encrypting all of their traffic by default? If they use a VPN solution, it does nothing for the rogue access point problem. A group of users could setup their own wireless network and not have to use a VPN. Whereas if all PCs encrypt their traffic, even over the wired network, they could bypass the interception problem. Now I cannot say I have ever attempted to encrypt traffic this way. What are the problems with this approach? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 6:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988] For a large campus network that has a need for wireless access in conference rooms, cafeterias, etc., would it be overkill to require wireless clients to use VPN IPSec software to access the campus network? This is for a customer who is paranoid about security and understands the tradeoff of ease-of-use versus security. There are othere downsides with requiring VPN software, of course, including the usual issues of incompatibility with some apps, the lack of support for protocols other than IP, and the lack of support for multicast applications (from what I understand). Also, we have to consider the scalability of the current VPN solution and whether it can support numerous transient wireless users, but we think it can. There are many advantages with IPSec too, like support for encryption that actually works... What do you all think? Do any of you require your campus wireless users to use VPN software? Sorry if it's a stupid question. Priscilla **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=73996t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Re: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: For a large campus network that has a need for wireless access in conference rooms, cafeterias, etc., would it be overkill to require wireless clients to use VPN IPSec software to access the campus network? This is for a customer who is paranoid about security and understands the tradeoff of ease-of-use versus security. There are othere downsides with requiring VPN software, of course, including the usual issues of incompatibility with some apps, the lack of support for protocols other than IP, and the lack of support for multicast applications (from what I understand). Also, we have to consider the scalability of the current VPN solution and whether it can support numerous transient wireless users, but we think it can. There are many advantages with IPSec too, like support for encryption that actually works... What do you all think? Do any of you require your campus wireless users to use VPN software? Sorry if it's a stupid question. Priscilla **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html I'll take a swing: It Depends. Really, I think it does. This campus network may have wireless access in areas where traffic should be encrypted (is there a health clinic? think HIPAA; will HR or Finance be using wireless from these conference rooms?). But there may also be many areas, if not most, where it is overkill. Security is always a balancing act between convenience/ease of use and the cost incurred if information is somehow violated (lost, compromised, kidnapped--it can happen, heavens--it has). If the wireless is being added for low-value use and convenience, I don't see a need for IPSec, though I would certainly be careful to segregate the wirelss from the wired and control wireless access into significant segments of the wired network. I would look very hard at the design issues of what apps and what data will be transiting where, and protect those areas which carry sensitive data. And I would pay especial attention to Layer 8 issues [grin]. Annlee Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=73991t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: Wireless [7:73494]
I did some nice jobs with 350 (not eol?) AP and WB (max 8 mac-addresses) with external directional antennas, AIR-ANT1949 is good. Maybe you'l need 2 real bridges because of the 8mac-address limit. 4 pc's laptops, jetdirect etc... http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/752/qrg/cpqrg_ch3_wirelesslan.shtml Cisco Aironet 350 Series Wireless Bridge High-speed, high-power radios, delivering building-to-building links of up to 25 miles (40.2 km) A metal case for durability and plenum rating Supports both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint configurations Broad range of support antennas Simplified installation, improved performance, and upgradeable firmware, ensuring investment protection IEEE 802.11b WATCH THE HARDWARE ASSOCIATION MATRIX. need cco login http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk722/tk809/technologies_tech_note09 186a0080094652.shtml#topic1 AP-AP only repeater(e0 dead) AP-WGB GO WB-WB GO Martijn matrix.gif -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Johan Bornman [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: dinsdag 5 augustus 2003 8:00 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Wireless [7:73494] I want to connect to a building with Cisco wireless technology. I want to know what product to source for this. The remote site will be 4 PC's browsing the Internet and accessing e-mail. The distance is 200m. Thanks is advance This e-mail may contain confidential information and may be legally privileged and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you may not use, distribute or copy this document in any manner whatsoever. Kindly also notify the sender immediately by telephone, and delete the e-mail. When addressed to clients of the company from where this e-mail originates (the sending company ) any opinion or advice contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable terms of business or client engagement letter . The sending company does not accept liability for any damage, loss or expense arising from this e-mail and/or from the accessing of any files attached to this e-mail. At present, the integrity of e-mail across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. The recipient should scan any attached files for viruses. All liability arising as a result of the use of this medium to transmit information by or to e-Innovation is excluded to the extent permitted by law. **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=73497t=73494 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
RE: wireless security and VPN software? [7:73988]
What type of applications do they need to support? What devices and OS's do they need to support? -Watch out for PDAs. Most PDAs have limited support for VPN clients. What type of users are they? (Techie or basic AOL users?) These are the main questions in my opinion. VPNs aren't so bad. I know quite a few enterprises that are currently using VPN solutions for wireless. I honestly don't think most users notice the performance hit. Also, some VPN clients can be setup very seemlessly so there aren't multiple logins. I would also look into PEAP, EAP-TLS and LEAP. PEAP is pretty secure if setup correctly. The PEAP client is already built into WinXP and PPC 2003. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=73998t=73988 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Wireless [7:73494]
I want to connect to a building with Cisco wireless technology. I want to know what product to source for this. The remote site will be 4 PC's browsing the Internet and accessing e-mail. The distance is 200m. Thanks is advance This e-mail may contain confidential information and may be legally privileged and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you may not use, distribute or copy this document in any manner whatsoever. Kindly also notify the sender immediately by telephone, and delete the e-mail. When addressed to clients of the company from where this e-mail originates (the sending company ) any opinion or advice contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable terms of business or client engagement letter . The sending company does not accept liability for any damage, loss or expense arising from this e-mail and/or from the accessing of any files attached to this e-mail. At present, the integrity of e-mail across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. The recipient should scan any attached files for viruses. All liability arising as a result of the use of this medium to transmit information by or to e-Innovation is excluded to the extent permitted by law. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=73494t=73494 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Wireless LAN Design Specialist exam - 950-576 [7:73036]
Took and passed this test today. If you take the recommended classroom training, this is more than adequate preparation. If you don't have the time to take a week off for the classroom training, I recommend using CCO resources plus spending the few dollars for the B*O*S*O*N Wireless SE practice test. The practice tests themselves are probably overkill, at least for the exam I saw. However, Dennis Laganiere did an excellent job not only with the questions, but with explanations and links to web pages both on CCO and elsewhere for background material. It's not that wireless is all that difficult. Like BGP, once you dig into it, things aren't so mysterious. With wireless, the keys appear to be FCC regs, radio RF behaviour, Cisco product line, antennas, wireless vocabulary, and of course, security aspects. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=73036t=73036 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72296]
The router has 802.11b? Not exactly clear on your setup, but you could try something like creating a tunnel over the 802.11b. If the tunnel goes down (out of range of the 802.11b wireless) then you switch over to using the satellite... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Duncan Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72270] Has anyone run into an scenario like this before. I have a router that is mobile. It is connected to a workgroup switch of a few laptops. I have two other interfaces (internet connections) that are connected to a satellite (128k) and an 802.11b access point. What I want to do is utilize the satellite link when I am out in the field. When I return to my base area, I would like it to automatically cutover to the wireless link, as well as back to the satellite when I roam away from the base area. (I get charged by the minute for my satellite, plus the wireless is faster) I feel like this should be pretty easy, but for the life of me can't figure out how to proceed... Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72296t=72296 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Automatic cutover between wireless and satelli [7:72274]
Does the routing table entries point to the same networks for both interfaces or they point to 0.0.0.0. Cos what happens to the maximum paths allowed on the router. I think u might end up with a load balancing scenario using the default setting of 4 paths. U might have to limit the number of max paths to 1. I will go with Priscs recommendation of floating static entry. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72303t=72274 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72322]
The only way I can think of to do this would be to use a routing protocol with weighted routes. Because you are using an access point the wireless connection will look to you like an ethernet. This being said the interfaces will never go down. The way you may be able to solve this would be to use a routing protocol that sends hello packect across the wireless network. This would then detect when you get out of range and then switch routing to the satellite. You could use a floating static to do the routing so you don't have to send routing packets across the satellite network. (this would be very much like a dial-backup type of solution. -Geoff Kuchera The router has 802.11b? Not exactly clear on your setup, but you could try something like creating a tunnel over the 802.11b. If the tunnel goes down (out of range of the 802.11b wireless) then you switch over to using the satellite... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Duncan Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72270] Has anyone run into an scenario like this before. I have a router that is mobile. It is connected to a workgroup switch of a few laptops. I have two other interfaces (internet connections) that are connected to a satellite (128k) and an 802.11b access point. What I want to do is utilize the satellite link when I am out in the field. When I return to my base area, I would like it to automatically cutover to the wireless link, as well as back to the satellite when I roam away from the base area. (I get charged by the minute for my satellite, plus the wireless is faster) I feel like this should be pretty easy, but for the life of me can't figure out how to proceed... Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72322t=72322 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72326]
Exactly, the physical interface would never go down, even if out of range. That's why I suggested creating a tunnel interface over the wireless, and use that as the default route. If you go out of range the tunnel interface should go down (because it can't reach the other router), and a higher administrative cost static default would then switch you over to using the satellite. You could use a dynamic routing protocol also, but the likelihood of having a dynamic routing protocol working with multiple ISP vendors is slim. Not necessarily due to whether it is technically possible or not, but more to do with egos, policy, and other political issues. Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Geoff Kuchera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72296] The only way I can think of to do this would be to use a routing protocol with weighted routes. Because you are using an access point the wireless connection will look to you like an ethernet. This being said the interfaces will never go down. The way you may be able to solve this would be to use a routing protocol that sends hello packect across the wireless network. This would then detect when you get out of range and then switch routing to the satellite. You could use a floating static to do the routing so you don't have to send routing packets across the satellite network. (this would be very much like a dial-backup type of solution. -Geoff Kuchera The router has 802.11b? Not exactly clear on your setup, but you could try something like creating a tunnel over the 802.11b. If the tunnel goes down (out of range of the 802.11b wireless) then you switch over to using the satellite... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Duncan Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72270] Has anyone run into an scenario like this before. I have a router that is mobile. It is connected to a workgroup switch of a few laptops. I have two other interfaces (internet connections) that are connected to a satellite (128k) and an 802.11b access point. What I want to do is utilize the satellite link when I am out in the field. When I return to my base area, I would like it to automatically cutover to the wireless link, as well as back to the satellite when I roam away from the base area. (I get charged by the minute for my satellite, plus the wireless is faster) I feel like this should be pretty easy, but for the life of me can't figure out how to proceed... Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72326t=72326 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Automatic cutover between wireless and satelli [7:72326]
I got the impression that the router itself is actually mobile. While on base it connects to an 802.11b access point which somehow has access to the Internet. I think his second message implies that it goes to another router that has T1. I don't know if there's actually a wireless bridge link in the mix or what. When in the field, he doesn't have that access. But he does have a satellite link. Anyway, I think he moves the router?? Which implies he disconnects the Ethernet that goes to the access point, so it is down. In that case, he doesn't need anything too fancy since routing out that interface will stop. The floating static route idea with the satellite link floating will work. I may have read too much into his statements about the router being mobile though :-) If he has the more normal problem that the Ethernet is up even though the wireless really isn't, then the solutions suggested below would be necessary. Priscilla Reimer, Fred wrote: Exactly, the physical interface would never go down, even if out of range. That's why I suggested creating a tunnel interface over the wireless, and use that as the default route. If you go out of range the tunnel interface should go down (because it can't reach the other router), and a higher administrative cost static default would then switch you over to using the satellite. You could use a dynamic routing protocol also, but the likelihood of having a dynamic routing protocol working with multiple ISP vendors is slim. Not necessarily due to whether it is technically possible or not, but more to do with egos, policy, and other political issues. Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Geoff Kuchera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72296] The only way I can think of to do this would be to use a routing protocol with weighted routes. Because you are using an access point the wireless connection will look to you like an ethernet. This being said the interfaces will never go down. The way you may be able to solve this would be to use a routing protocol that sends hello packect across the wireless network. This would then detect when you get out of range and then switch routing to the satellite. You could use a floating static to do the routing so you don't have to send routing packets across the satellite network. (this would be very much like a dial-backup type of solution. -Geoff Kuchera The router has 802.11b? Not exactly clear on your setup, but you could try something like creating a tunnel over the 802.11b. If the tunnel goes down (out of range of the 802.11b wireless) then you switch over to using the satellite... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Duncan Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72270] Has anyone run into an scenario like this before. I have a router that is mobile. It is connected to a workgroup switch of a few laptops. I have two other interfaces (internet connections) that are connected to a satellite (128k) and an 802.11b access point. What I want to do is utilize the satellite link when I am out in the field. When I return to my base area, I would like it to automatically cutover to the wireless link, as well as back to the satellite when I roam away from the base area. (I get charged by the minute for my satellite, plus the wireless is faster) I feel like this should be pretty easy, but for the life of me can't
re[2]: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite [7:72345]
All good points and ideas. I am in the process of adding the wireless aspect to the present satellite setup. I'll keep you all posted on my progress. Thanks, Duncan Exactly, the physical interface would never go down, even if out of range. That's why I suggested creating a tunnel interface over the wireless, and use that as the default route. If you go out of range the tunnel interface should go down (because it can't reach the other router), and a higher administrative cost static default would then switch you over to using the satellite. You could use a dynamic routing protocol also, but the likelihood of having a dynamic routing protocol working with multiple ISP vendors is slim. Not necessarily due to whether it is technically possible or not, but more to do with egos, policy, and other political issues. Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Geoff Kuchera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72296] The only way I can think of to do this would be to use a routing protocol with weighted routes. Because you are using an access point the wireless connection will look to you like an ethernet. This being said the interfaces will never go down. The way you may be able to solve this would be to use a routing protocol that sends hello packect across the wireless network. This would then detect when you get out of range and then switch routing to the satellite. You could use a floating static to do the routing so you don't have to send routing packets across the satellite network. (this would be very much like a dial-backup type of solution. -Geoff Kuchera The router has 802.11b? Not exactly clear on your setup, but you could try something like creating a tunnel over the 802.11b. If the tunnel goes down (out of range of the 802.11b wireless) then you switch over to using the satellite... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Duncan Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72270] Has anyone run into an scenario like this before. I have a router that is mobile. It is connected to a workgroup switch of a few laptops. I have two other interfaces (internet connections) that are connected to a satellite (128k) and an 802.11b access point. What I want to do is utilize the satellite link when I am out in the field. When I return to my base area, I would like it to automatically cutover to the wireless link, as well as back to the satellite when I roam away from the base area. (I get charged by the minute for my satellite, plus the wireless is faster) I feel like this should be pretty easy, but for the life of me can't figure out how to proceed... Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Duncan Wallace Sr. Systems Engineer Pacific Star Communications 15714 SW 72nd Ave. Portland, OR 97224 Work:503-403-3000 Cell:971-506-8164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72345t=72345 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72270]
Has anyone run into an scenario like this before. I have a router that is mobile. It is connected to a workgroup switch of a few laptops. I have two other interfaces (internet connections) that are connected to a satellite (128k) and an 802.11b access point. What I want to do is utilize the satellite link when I am out in the field. When I return to my base area, I would like it to automatically cutover to the wireless link, as well as back to the satellite when I roam away from the base area. (I get charged by the minute for my satellite, plus the wireless is faster) I feel like this should be pretty easy, but for the life of me can't figure out how to proceed... Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72270t=72270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72274]
Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but I would think that you could do this simply by running EIGRP and manually setting up the bandwidth statements to match each link's bandwidth. When the 802.11b link is available, your router should use it as the EIGRP preferred route. If anyone thinks I'm wrong in this, please correct me. Geoff Mossburg -Original Message- From: Duncan Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72270] Has anyone run into an scenario like this before. I have a router that is mobile. It is connected to a workgroup switch of a few laptops. I have two other interfaces (internet connections) that are connected to a satellite (128k) and an 802.11b access point. What I want to do is utilize the satellite link when I am out in the field. When I return to my base area, I would like it to automatically cutover to the wireless link, as well as back to the satellite when I roam away from the base area. (I get charged by the minute for my satellite, plus the wireless is faster) I feel like this should be pretty easy, but for the life of me can't figure out how to proceed... Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72274t=72274 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72276]
Hi, what does cutover mean? In other words, how does the satellite provider determine that you are using the link (I guess it's not traffic as you said it's per minute)? Is it like a dialup connection? What is on the other side of the 802.11b access point? Is there a router there to which your router is talking to? If not, how do you expect the router to realize that the wireless link went down? Or did I misunderstand and the wireless interface is in the router? If so, what kind of router are we talking about? Thanks, Zsombor At 10:22 PM 7/14/2003 +, Duncan Wallace wrote: Has anyone run into an scenario like this before. I have a router that is mobile. It is connected to a workgroup switch of a few laptops. I have two other interfaces (internet connections) that are connected to a satellite (128k) and an 802.11b access point. What I want to do is utilize the satellite link when I am out in the field. When I return to my base area, I would like it to automatically cutover to the wireless link, as well as back to the satellite when I roam away from the base area. (I get charged by the minute for my satellite, plus the wireless is faster) I feel like this should be pretty easy, but for the life of me can't figure out how to proceed... Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72276t=72276 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Automatic cutover between wireless and satelli [7:72274]
Mossburg, Geoff (MAN-Corporate) wrote: Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but I would think that you could do this simply by running EIGRP and manually setting up the bandwidth statements to match each link's bandwidth. When the 802.11b link is available, your router should use it as the EIGRP preferred route. If anyone thinks I'm wrong in this, please correct me. Geoff Mossburg Would EIGRP require coordination with other routers, though? They would have to be running EIGRP too? How about static routes with a floating static route? Make the satellite a floater with a high administrative distance so that it only gets used when the other option (802.11b) isn't available? (when in the field??) I may not have understood the problem, though. Never worked with a mobile router!? :-) Priscilla -Original Message- From: Duncan Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Automatic cutover between wireless and satellite internet [7:72270] Has anyone run into an scenario like this before. I have a router that is mobile. It is connected to a workgroup switch of a few laptops. I have two other interfaces (internet connections) that are connected to a satellite (128k) and an 802.11b access point. What I want to do is utilize the satellite link when I am out in the field. When I return to my base area, I would like it to automatically cutover to the wireless link, as well as back to the satellite when I roam away from the base area. (I get charged by the minute for my satellite, plus the wireless is faster) I feel like this should be pretty easy, but for the life of me can't figure out how to proceed... Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72275t=72274 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wireless [7:71781]
Hi, I used Cisco's Parter E-Learning Connection. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/pec/peclogin.html You need a valid CCO login account. Most of the training is free with a couple of hands-on LABS (350 Series). I had to fork out about $395-00 for the Advanced Wireless On-line VOD course. This course covers most of the requirements. Thats's all I used to pass. Check out the exam blueprint on CCO for exactly what you need to know for the exam. Colin Tetluk (CCIE#5767) -Original Message- From: Vijay Anand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 July 2003 06:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: wireless [7:71781] hello all i want to know ,,how is Cisco wireless exam 9E0-581 WLANFE, what abt the study material or books is any one who already took this exam pls tell me the details abt this.. thanx a lot in advance VijayAnand SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. ** Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of MultiChoice Africa is proprietary to the company. Any view or opinion expressed in this message may be the view of the individual and should not automatically be ascribed to the company. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and destroy the original message. ** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71900t=71781 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wireless [7:71781]
I had a little bit of practical experience with other manufacture's equipment, but not Cisco. I picked up an Aironet access point on ebay so I could play with the interface for a bit (and sold it again later for more than I paid for it), but that wasn't really necessary to pass the SE (but useful for the FE). Helpful? The WB On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 12:24, Catherine Wu wrote: WB, Do you take any trainings or do you already have lots of experiences in the field? thanks for your opinion. Catherine -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Weaselboy Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: wireless [7:71781] I passed both the SE and FE exams first time out using the CWNA book and bosons. Between these two sources you should have everything you need. Take the SE first (its a little easier). The WB On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 09:23, Vijay Anand wrote: hello all i want to know ,,how is Cisco wireless exam 9E0-581 WLANFE, what abt the study material or books is any one who already took this exam pls tell me the details abt this.. thanx a lot in advance VijayAnand SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71915t=71781 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wireless [7:71781]
Hi, I used Cisco's Parter E-Learning Connection. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/pec/peclogin.html You need a valid CCO login account. Most of the training is free with a couple of hands-on LABS (350 Series). I had to fork out about $395-00 for the Advanced Wireless On-line VOD course. This course covers most of the requirements. Thats's all I used to pass. Check out the exam blueprint on CCO for exactly what you need to know for the exam. Colin Tetluk (CCIE#5767) -Original Message- From: Vijay Anand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 July 2003 06:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: wireless [7:71781] hello all i want to know ,,how is Cisco wireless exam 9E0-581 WLANFE, what abt the study material or books is any one who already took this exam pls tell me the details abt this.. thanx a lot in advance VijayAnand SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. ** Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of MultiChoice Africa is proprietary to the company. Any view or opinion expressed in this message may be the view of the individual and should not automatically be ascribed to the company. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and destroy the original message. ** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71819t=71781 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wireless [7:71781]
I needed to pad out my resume with a few good certs before I renew my CCNP and start the CCIE track. Wireless is a hot topic, and these were two pretty easy one-test resume fillers (and kinda fun to play with). SE = (wireless) System Engineer FE = (wireless) Field Engineer Here are links to the CCO with descriptions of both (watch the wrap) http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current_exams/9E0-576.html http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current_exams/9E0-581.html I probably spent a total of three weeks to study for both (there's a lot of overlap). I posted the link for the book and bosons in another e-mail yesterday, but let me know if you didn't get it. Between reading the book and taking the boson, I had no problem. Make sure and take the SE first, because that's the easier one. The WB What CWNA book did you use? Cisco press? What's the title? What's SE ? FE ?? This is Cisco Cert ? right? -edgar CCNP of late On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 15:11, Edgar A. Howard wrote: I passed both the SE and FE exams first time out using the CWNA book and bosons. Between these two sources you should have everything you need. Take the SE first (its a little easier). The WB, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71836t=71781 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wireless [7:71781]
Is Fiber considered wireless? -Original Message- From: Weaselboy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: wireless [7:71781] I needed to pad out my resume with a few good certs before I renew my CCNP and start the CCIE track. Wireless is a hot topic, and these were two pretty easy one-test resume fillers (and kinda fun to play with). SE = (wireless) System Engineer FE = (wireless) Field Engineer Here are links to the CCO with descriptions of both (watch the wrap) http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current_exam s/9E0-576.html http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current_exam s/9E0-581.html I probably spent a total of three weeks to study for both (there's a lot of overlap). I posted the link for the book and bosons in another e-mail yesterday, but let me know if you didn't get it. Between reading the book and taking the boson, I had no problem. Make sure and take the SE first, because that's the easier one. The WB What CWNA book did you use? Cisco press? What's the title? What's SE ? FE ?? This is Cisco Cert ? right? -edgar CCNP of late On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 15:11, Edgar A. Howard wrote: I passed both the SE and FE exams first time out using the CWNA book and bosons. Between these two sources you should have everything you need. Take the SE first (its a little easier). The WB, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71843t=71781 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wireless [7:71781]
is a wireless bridge the same as an ethernet bridge? DeVoe, Charles (PKI) wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Is Fiber considered wireless? -Original Message- From: Weaselboy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: wireless [7:71781] I needed to pad out my resume with a few good certs before I renew my CCNP and start the CCIE track. Wireless is a hot topic, and these were two pretty easy one-test resume fillers (and kinda fun to play with). SE = (wireless) System Engineer FE = (wireless) Field Engineer Here are links to the CCO with descriptions of both (watch the wrap) http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current_exam s/9E0-576.html http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current_exam s/9E0-581.html I probably spent a total of three weeks to study for both (there's a lot of overlap). I posted the link for the book and bosons in another e-mail yesterday, but let me know if you didn't get it. Between reading the book and taking the boson, I had no problem. Make sure and take the SE first, because that's the easier one. The WB What CWNA book did you use? Cisco press? What's the title? What's SE ? FE ?? This is Cisco Cert ? right? -edgar CCNP of late On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 15:11, Edgar A. Howard wrote: I passed both the SE and FE exams first time out using the CWNA book and bosons. Between these two sources you should have everything you need. Take the SE first (its a little easier). The WB, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71855t=71781 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wireless [7:71781]
hello all i want to know ,,how is Cisco wireless exam 9E0-581 WLANFE, what abt the study material or books is any one who already took this exam pls tell me the details abt this.. thanx a lot in advance VijayAnand SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71781t=71781 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wireless [7:71781]
I passed both the SE and FE exams first time out using the CWNA book and bosons. Between these two sources you should have everything you need. Take the SE first (its a little easier). The WB On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 09:23, Vijay Anand wrote: hello all i want to know ,,how is Cisco wireless exam 9E0-581 WLANFE, what abt the study material or books is any one who already took this exam pls tell me the details abt this.. thanx a lot in advance VijayAnand SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71790t=71781 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wireless [7:71781]
I had a little bit of practical experience with other manufacture's equipment, but not Cisco. I picked up an Aironet access point on ebay so I could play with the interface for a bit (and sold it again later for more than I paid for it), but that wasn't really necessary to pass the SE (but useful for the FE). Helpful? The WB On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 12:24, Catherine Wu wrote: WB, Do you take any trainings or do you already have lots of experiences in the field? thanks for your opinion. Catherine -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Weaselboy Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: wireless [7:71781] I passed both the SE and FE exams first time out using the CWNA book and bosons. Between these two sources you should have everything you need. Take the SE first (its a little easier). The WB On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 09:23, Vijay Anand wrote: hello all i want to know ,,how is Cisco wireless exam 9E0-581 WLANFE, what abt the study material or books is any one who already took this exam pls tell me the details abt this.. thanx a lot in advance VijayAnand SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71796t=71781 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wireless [7:71781]
Here's the links: http://www.cwne.com/products/cwnasg_look.html http://www.boson.com/products/70216.htm The WB On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 13:49, Catherine Wu wrote: WB, Thank you. I will need CWNA book and Boson to prepare for the SE. Catherine -Original Message- From: Weaselboy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:42 PM To: Catherine Wu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: wireless [7:71781] I had a little bit of practical experience with other manufacture's equipment, but not Cisco. I picked up an Aironet access point on ebay so I could play with the interface for a bit (and sold it again later for more than I paid for it), but that wasn't really necessary to pass the SE (but useful for the FE). Helpful? The WB On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 12:24, Catherine Wu wrote: WB, Do you take any trainings or do you already have lots of experiences in the field? thanks for your opinion. Catherine -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Weaselboy Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: wireless [7:71781] I passed both the SE and FE exams first time out using the CWNA book and bosons. Between these two sources you should have everything you need. Take the SE first (its a little easier). The WB On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 09:23, Vijay Anand wrote: hello all i want to know ,,how is Cisco wireless exam 9E0-581 WLANFE, what abt the study material or books is any one who already took this exam pls tell me the details abt this.. thanx a lot in advance VijayAnand SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71797t=71781 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: wireless [7:71781] - WLANFE [7:71802]
Definitely agree...I used Building a Cisco Wireless LAN, CWNA, plus, luckily I had an 1100 to play with. Know the basics, but also know the products (AP's and the interface, antennas, and client cards) HTH Duncan Wallace Sr. Systems Engineer Pacific Star Communications 15714 SW 72nd Ave. Portland, OR 97224 Work:503-403-3000 Cell:971-506-8164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] hello all i want to know ,,how is Cisco wireless exam 9E0-581 WLANFE, what abt the study material or books is any one who already took this exam pls tell me the details abt this.. thanx a lot in advance VijayAnand Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71802t=71802 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 What about layer 3 segmentation? You do not want to shoot broadcasts trough all your repaters. The problem is, using repeaters wil give you a hub-like environment. When using bridges full frames are stored and forwarded. Martijn - - -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Williamson, Paul Verzonden: woensdag 26 maart 2003 19:15 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270] Anyone know the maximum number of Wireless AP's you can chain of a single wireless bridge ie Switch ---copper--- AP ~~~air~~~ AP ~~~air~~~ AP Does cisco make an AP that supports this Thanks - - -Paul PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender immediately. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus infection, for which Nomura International plc accepts no responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Nomura International plc. This email is intended for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. Nomura International plc is regulated by the Financial Services Authority and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. Version: PGP 8.0 iQA/AwUBPvh+lHdq56XWk+VyEQLx/wCeLUTgVcjRlPouIme3QkH6hr2XANQAoPeT G+DzAbnjMoAjam8DNxM6VlKP =BLub - -END PGP SIGNATURE- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0 iQA/AwUBPvh+oXdq56XWk+VyEQIWigCgs/FTfryrjL/4f+I/rArOJBg0uN0An08m fLRgnpDia8HH7io5k5clhDzF =uWDp -END PGP SIGNATURE- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71258t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 What about layer 3 segmentation? You do not want to shoot broadcasts trough all your repaters. The problem is, using repeaters wil give you a hub-like environment. When using bridges full frames are stored and forwarded. Martijn - -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Williamson, Paul Verzonden: woensdag 26 maart 2003 19:15 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270] Anyone know the maximum number of Wireless AP's you can chain of a single wireless bridge ie Switch ---copper--- AP ~~~air~~~ AP ~~~air~~~ AP Does cisco make an AP that supports this Thanks - -Paul PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender immediately. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus infection, for which Nomura International plc accepts no responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Nomura International plc. This email is intended for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. Nomura International plc is regulated by the Financial Services Authority and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. Version: PGP 8.0 iQA/AwUBPvh+lHdq56XWk+VyEQLx/wCeLUTgVcjRlPouIme3QkH6hr2XANQAoPeT G+DzAbnjMoAjam8DNxM6VlKP =BLub -END PGP SIGNATURE- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71257t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wireless field engineer practice test? [7:71011]
with cco in cisco website (partner learning connection) have one lab to this test. Best Regards Joao Medeiros Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71159t=71011 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wireless field engineer practice test? [7:71011]
I passed both the Wireless SE and FE exams using the CWNA book and the bosons. The two exams have about 70% overlap, I'd go ahead and take them both to double certify. Since the SE is easier, I'd do that one first. Just my $.02 The WB On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 11:03, Joao Medeiros wrote: with cco in cisco website (partner learning connection) have one lab to this test. Best Regards Joao Medeiros Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71184t=71011 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wireless field engineer practice test? [7:71011]
I am looking for practice tests on the web but can't seem find any. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71011t=71011 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless problem [7:70674]
sorry for the sarcasm, but it's late and I really should be doing more important things like sleeping. Don Kanicki wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the responces. All of our machines are used for email\web with the exception of the accounting pc which is not on the network.Im going to look into some kind of software firewall for our network and I can only assume the other offices will do the same. OK. just wanted to be sure that things wotrth protecting were being protected. :- All offices are on the same floor and next to each other. The largest of the two is the one with the 4 pcs and the distance between their AP and ours is less than 50' separated by 2 standard walls (no concrete or block). still - you never can tell. You need to do a walk around with a laptop just to see what kind of signal strength you get in the necessary locations. Our office is all ethernet to a switch which our AP and router connect to.The office with 4 machines is all ethernet to a hub which their AP connects to.and the other office with 1 pc is a stand alone box that will connect via wireless nic. I wasnt thrilled about this idea from the word go but my boss sees this as a way to cover some of the cost of the circuit as hes charging them a monthly fee. pointy hair? dolt? hate to knock a guy whose doing his best to make a buck and provide jobs for people If I have both APs act as bridges to link the larger office will the small single pc office still be able to connect or would that require a separate AP? yep - need a wireless bridge pair for each connection. Or you can go to Proxim ( www.proxim.com ) and look for point-to-multipoint bridges - but they cost big time. hell... a couple hundred bucks per AP / bridge - why bother? ask your new found friends to kick in. Hey, Priscilla, see what I mean? Design is DEAD! Expedience is EVERYTHING! TIA Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70713t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless problem [7:70674]
Thanks everyone. Very much apreciated. Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70719t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless problem [7:70674]
The Road Goes Ever On wrote: sorry for the sarcasm, but it's late and I really should be doing more important things like sleeping. Don Kanicki wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the responces. All of our machines are used for email\web with the exception of the accounting pc which is not on the network.Im going to look into some kind of software firewall for our network and I can only assume the other offices will do the same. OK. just wanted to be sure that things wotrth protecting were being protected. :- All offices are on the same floor and next to each other. The largest of the two is the one with the 4 pcs and the distance between their AP and ours is less than 50' separated by 2 standard walls (no concrete or block). still - you never can tell. You need to do a walk around with a laptop just to see what kind of signal strength you get in the necessary locations. Our office is all ethernet to a switch which our AP and router connect to.The office with 4 machines is all ethernet to a hub which their AP connects to.and the other office with 1 pc is a stand alone box that will connect via wireless nic. I wasnt thrilled about this idea from the word go but my boss sees this as a way to cover some of the cost of the circuit as hes charging them a monthly fee. pointy hair? dolt? hate to knock a guy whose doing his best to make a buck and provide jobs for people If I have both APs act as bridges to link the larger office will the small single pc office still be able to connect or would that require a separate AP? Why is he considering bridging at all? Why can't the 4 PCs use the access point connected to the hub in their office? I haven't followed the entire discussion, so maybe that's not appropriate, but it has me wondering. yep - need a wireless bridge pair for each connection. Or you can go to Proxim ( www.proxim.com ) and look for point-to-multipoint bridges - but they cost big time. hell... a couple hundred bucks per AP / bridge - why bother? ask your new found friends to kick in. Hey, Priscilla, see what I mean? Design is DEAD! Expedience is EVERYTHING! Chuck, I think you have developed tunnel vision since you're in sales. What a shame. You should think about what your customers did to get to the point where they need to buy products from you. In most cases, product purchases come after a lot of systems analysis, project planning, software development, site surveys, bandwidth usage analysis, and other design work. There are many books that you could read on the topic to help you. Somebody just gave me a copy of Systems Analysis and Design, 4th edition, by Kendall Kendall. Great book. It's a classic. The other option is to talk to your customers more, or perhaps it's time to find another job. Do you really want to just push boxes on people for a living? You need to do something to recover from your tunnel vision, bitterness, and silly competetiveness. Someone also just sent me a URL to this newspaper article that points out the importance of learning business practices, not just particular technologies. It's a good read: http://www.startribune.com/stories/789/3936460.html So, you got a reaction, Chuck. Now, would you please stop it. Please do not use my name in your replies. Priscilla TIA Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70745t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless problem [7:70674]
Good article. I'm always amazed at how many times I see a network that doesn't work well, but is too expensive to fix. The problem falls to whoever designed it not understanding that it had to serve the business, not the technology. All business assets, including the network, are there to add value in some form or other, and that value must exceed the cost. That's always the plan, but delivering on that depends on the degree of thought put in much more than whether the technology is the newest. A wise fighter pilot (aka, he survived some hairy experiences) liked to say, Better is the enemy of good enough. I would add, --but it better *be* good enough. And that, to me, is the point of design. Annlee Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Road Goes Ever On wrote: sorry for the sarcasm, but it's late and I really should be doing more important things like sleeping. Don Kanicki wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the responces. All of our machines are used for email\web with the exception of the accounting pc which is not on the network.Im going to look into some kind of software firewall for our network and I can only assume the other offices will do the same. OK. just wanted to be sure that things wotrth protecting were being protected. :- All offices are on the same floor and next to each other. The largest of the two is the one with the 4 pcs and the distance between their AP and ours is less than 50' separated by 2 standard walls (no concrete or block). still - you never can tell. You need to do a walk around with a laptop just to see what kind of signal strength you get in the necessary locations. Our office is all ethernet to a switch which our AP and router connect to.The office with 4 machines is all ethernet to a hub which their AP connects to.and the other office with 1 pc is a stand alone box that will connect via wireless nic. I wasnt thrilled about this idea from the word go but my boss sees this as a way to cover some of the cost of the circuit as hes charging them a monthly fee. pointy hair? dolt? hate to knock a guy whose doing his best to make a buck and provide jobs for people If I have both APs act as bridges to link the larger office will the small single pc office still be able to connect or would that require a separate AP? Why is he considering bridging at all? Why can't the 4 PCs use the access point connected to the hub in their office? I haven't followed the entire discussion, so maybe that's not appropriate, but it has me wondering. yep - need a wireless bridge pair for each connection. Or you can go to Proxim ( www.proxim.com ) and look for point-to-multipoint bridges - but they cost big time. hell... a couple hundred bucks per AP / bridge - why bother? ask your new found friends to kick in. Hey, Priscilla, see what I mean? Design is DEAD! Expedience is EVERYTHING! Chuck, I think you have developed tunnel vision since you're in sales. What a shame. You should think about what your customers did to get to the point where they need to buy products from you. In most cases, product purchases come after a lot of systems analysis, project planning, software development, site surveys, bandwidth usage analysis, and other design work. There are many books that you could read on the topic to help you. Somebody just gave me a copy of Systems Analysis and Design, 4th edition, by Kendall Kendall. Great book. It's a classic. The other option is to talk to your customers more, or perhaps it's time to find another job. Do you really want to just push boxes on people for a living? You need to do something to recover from your tunnel vision, bitterness, and silly competetiveness. Someone also just sent me a URL to this newspaper article that points out the importance of learning business practices, not just particular technologies. It's a good read: http://www.startribune.com/stories/789/3936460.html So, you got a reaction, Chuck. Now, would you please stop it. Please do not use my name in your replies. Priscilla TIA Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70761t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless problem [7:70674]
Good article reference. It's the same old story -- the network, like every other business asset, exists to serve a business purpose, expected to generate added value greater than cost. Otherwise, it won't be put in. Actually delivering on the added value is another question, of course, but from what I've seen, solutions that are well-designed for the business problem to be solved -- not necessarily the technology du jour, perhaps, but good enough -- deliver. Hasty ones usually don't, but they too often don't get fixed because the fix has become too expensive. Design doesn't forget -- Better is the enemy of good enough, but it better be good enough. Annlee Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Road Goes Ever On wrote: sorry for the sarcasm, but it's late and I really should be doing more important things like sleeping. Don Kanicki wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the responces. All of our machines are used for email\web with the exception of the accounting pc which is not on the network.Im going to look into some kind of software firewall for our network and I can only assume the other offices will do the same. OK. just wanted to be sure that things wotrth protecting were being protected. :- All offices are on the same floor and next to each other. The largest of the two is the one with the 4 pcs and the distance between their AP and ours is less than 50' separated by 2 standard walls (no concrete or block). still - you never can tell. You need to do a walk around with a laptop just to see what kind of signal strength you get in the necessary locations. Our office is all ethernet to a switch which our AP and router connect to.The office with 4 machines is all ethernet to a hub which their AP connects to.and the other office with 1 pc is a stand alone box that will connect via wireless nic. I wasnt thrilled about this idea from the word go but my boss sees this as a way to cover some of the cost of the circuit as hes charging them a monthly fee. pointy hair? dolt? hate to knock a guy whose doing his best to make a buck and provide jobs for people If I have both APs act as bridges to link the larger office will the small single pc office still be able to connect or would that require a separate AP? Why is he considering bridging at all? Why can't the 4 PCs use the access point connected to the hub in their office? I haven't followed the entire discussion, so maybe that's not appropriate, but it has me wondering. yep - need a wireless bridge pair for each connection. Or you can go to Proxim ( www.proxim.com ) and look for point-to-multipoint bridges - but they cost big time. hell... a couple hundred bucks per AP / bridge - why bother? ask your new found friends to kick in. Hey, Priscilla, see what I mean? Design is DEAD! Expedience is EVERYTHING! Chuck, I think you have developed tunnel vision since you're in sales. What a shame. You should think about what your customers did to get to the point where they need to buy products from you. In most cases, product purchases come after a lot of systems analysis, project planning, software development, site surveys, bandwidth usage analysis, and other design work. There are many books that you could read on the topic to help you. Somebody just gave me a copy of Systems Analysis and Design, 4th edition, by Kendall Kendall. Great book. It's a classic. The other option is to talk to your customers more, or perhaps it's time to find another job. Do you really want to just push boxes on people for a living? You need to do something to recover from your tunnel vision, bitterness, and silly competetiveness. Someone also just sent me a URL to this newspaper article that points out the importance of learning business practices, not just particular technologies. It's a good read: http://www.startribune.com/stories/789/3936460.html So, you got a reaction, Chuck. Now, would you please stop it. Please do not use my name in your replies. Priscilla TIA Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70760t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless problem [7:70674]
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Road Goes Ever On wrote: snip a few things for brevety If I have both APs act as bridges to link the larger office will the small single pc office still be able to connect or would that require a separate AP? Why is he considering bridging at all? Why can't the 4 PCs use the access point connected to the hub in their office? I haven't followed the entire discussion, so maybe that's not appropriate, but it has me wondering. an access point can operate in one of two modes - as an access point ( or hub, if you will ) to which end stations access the wired network, or as a point-to-point bridge ( connecting one AP to another ) in the case mentioned here, two access points will not communicate data in the manner required. it's kinda like asking a hub to be a router or visa versa. my own estimation - Outside_Network--hub/switch--AP(acting as bridge)AP(acting as bridgehub/switch---services HTH yep - need a wireless bridge pair for each connection. Or you can go to Proxim ( www.proxim.com ) and look for point-to-multipoint bridges - but they cost big time. hell... a couple hundred bucks per AP / bridge - why bother? ask your new found friends to kick in. snip irrelevant things that should have been addressed privately Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70766t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless problem [7:70674]
I got it working. Linksys gives you the option to make the AP behave as an AP,Client,Bridge or Multipoint bridge.I made the remote AP a client and it came right up. Thanks for the help Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70773t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wireless problem [7:70674]
Hello all. Our office has a T1 connection to the internet that my boss wants to share with some of the other offices in our building (distances under 300').One office will have only 1 pc and the other will have 4.I figured wireless would be the easiest way to go since runing cable from our equipment to these offices would be a nitemare. I picked up an 802.11b (Linksys) access point and patched it through to my switch,set the SSID,and derived a wep key.The office with 4 devices in an attempt to save money bought an 802.11b (Linksys) access point as well.I provided their admin with all pertinent information (SSID,WEP key,IP\mask)and the access points do not seem to associate.Now I am by no means well versed in wireless but I assumed that as long as the SSID,WEP keys,and IP information was correct it would work.Im not sure what my problem is here and Im at a loss. Any help apreciated Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70674t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless problem [7:70674]
Sorry forgot to mention some info that may be relevant. The office with 4 devices has their access point patched through into a hub that all 4 devices also connect to. Both access points are set to act as access points. The office with one PC will also need to connect to my AP but will do so with a wireless nic. TIA Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70675t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VoIP over Aironet Wireless [7:70679]
Hi Guys, I have two sites connected with Aironet Wireless Bridges. We have implemented VoIP between these sites over this wireless link.Considering the Bandwidth of 11 Mbps for 802.11b , it should not have been a problem for a few IP phones.Even if we consider the throughput of the Wireless link actually is close to 4.5 Mbps, the bandwidth should be sufficient for a few g729 calls or even a few g711 calls, but to contrary the call quality is not good. Anybody experienced the same kind of situation. Any comments? Thanks, neil FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless problem [7:70674]
I'm not quite sure what your final network looks like. Are you saying that you have: switch AP - AP - 4 PCs?? I'm not sure that the Linksys can do an AP - AP connection. On the page for BEFW11S4, which is a Wireless Access Point router, you can click on Where it fits into my network. It doesn't connect to other APs, just clients. The same with the WRT54G, as well as the WAP55G - clients only. A new Linksys, the WET54G is a bridge which means that you use 2 just like you already tried. (or a bridge and an AP) http://www.linksys.com/splash/wet54g_splash.asp Kevin Wigle - Original Message - From: Don Kanicki To: Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 2:22 PM Subject: Wireless problem [7:70674] Hello all. Our office has a T1 connection to the internet that my boss wants to share with some of the other offices in our building (distances under 300').One office will have only 1 pc and the other will have 4.I figured wireless would be the easiest way to go since runing cable from our equipment to these offices would be a nitemare. I picked up an 802.11b (Linksys) access point and patched it through to my switch,set the SSID,and derived a wep key.The office with 4 devices in an attempt to save money bought an 802.11b (Linksys) access point as well.I provided their admin with all pertinent information (SSID,WEP key,IP\mask)and the access points do not seem to associate.Now I am by no means well versed in wireless but I assumed that as long as the SSID,WEP keys,and IP information was correct it would work.Im not sure what my problem is here and Im at a loss. Any help apreciated Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70684t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VoIP over Aironet Wireless [7:70679]
We have always had good luck with it.Are you using newer code that can at least prioritize the voice packets in the queue to get them out first ?? You can do this in the AP's now, also if there is a lot of traffic we have run parrellel bridges, one set for IPT and the other for data. d- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of neil_k11 Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 4:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: VoIP over Aironet Wireless [7:70679] Hi Guys, I have two sites connected with Aironet Wireless Bridges. We have implemented VoIP between these sites over this wireless link.Considering the Bandwidth of 11 Mbps for 802.11b , it should not have been a problem for a few IP phones.Even if we consider the throughput of the Wireless link actually is close to 4.5 Mbps, the bandwidth should be sufficient for a few g729 calls or even a few g711 calls, but to contrary the call quality is not good. Anybody experienced the same kind of situation. Any comments? Thanks, neil FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70687t=70679 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless problem [7:70674]
This is correct. With almost all wireless implementations, you cannot connect an AP to an AP. You have to connect an AP -- Client or AP -- Bridge. The bridge would then attach to the hub. Josh Vince -Original Message- From: Kevin Wigle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 6:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wireless problem [7:70674] I'm not quite sure what your final network looks like. Are you saying that you have: switch AP - AP - 4 PCs?? I'm not sure that the Linksys can do an AP - AP connection. On the page for BEFW11S4, which is a Wireless Access Point router, you can click on Where it fits into my network. It doesn't connect to other APs, just clients. The same with the WRT54G, as well as the WAP55G - clients only. A new Linksys, the WET54G is a bridge which means that you use 2 just like you already tried. (or a bridge and an AP) http://www.linksys.com/splash/wet54g_splash.asp Kevin Wigle - Original Message - From: Don Kanicki To: Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 2:22 PM Subject: Wireless problem [7:70674] Hello all. Our office has a T1 connection to the internet that my boss wants to share with some of the other offices in our building (distances under 300').One office will have only 1 pc and the other will have 4.I figured wireless would be the easiest way to go since runing cable from our equipment to these offices would be a nitemare. I picked up an 802.11b (Linksys) access point and patched it through to my switch,set the SSID,and derived a wep key.The office with 4 devices in an attempt to save money bought an 802.11b (Linksys) access point as well.I provided their admin with all pertinent information (SSID,WEP key,IP\mask)and the access points do not seem to associate.Now I am by no means well versed in wireless but I assumed that as long as the SSID,WEP keys,and IP information was correct it would work.Im not sure what my problem is here and Im at a loss. Any help apreciated Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70686t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless problem [7:70674]
some things to consider. I admire your boss' generosity but let strangers onto your network like this? well - maybe you got nothing worth protecting anyway;- more thoughts in line below: Don Kanicki wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. Our office has a T1 connection to the internet that my boss wants to share with some of the other offices in our building (distances under 300'). 300 feet but how many cement floors / ceilings? how many walls? you really need to do a site survey to see if you really can get wireless connection between the other offices any your own. use a laptop and the Lynksys software. Works nice. I just put in a Lynksys here at home. My wife and kids get great reception in the living room and various bedrooms, and even on the back deck. ( the AP is in the living room ) but I get jack here in my home office / study, and I am not more than 100 feet away ( and a couple of walls ) as the crow flies, so to speak. there is anopther room in the house where I can get real slow link if I am sitting on the floor, but if I stand up I get 54 mbs ( I bought the wireless G, as you can tell.) One office will have only 1 pc and the other will have 4.I figured wireless would be the easiest way to go since runing cable from our equipment to these offices would be a nitemare. I picked up an 802.11b (Linksys) access point and patched it through to my switch,set the SSID,and derived a wep key.The office with 4 devices in an attempt to save money bought an 802.11b (Linksys) access point as well.I provided their admin with all pertinent information (SSID,WEP key,IP\mask)and the access points do not seem to associate.Now I am by no means well versed in wireless but I assumed that as long as the SSID,WEP keys,and IP information was correct it would work.Im not sure what my problem is here and Im at a loss. you can configure the Lynksys as either an AP or a bridge. An AP is for communication to end stations. Bridges talk to other bridges. You want to make you new friends part of your own network? Bridge, assign them IP's from your network, and go for it. But I gotta say, you ( and your boss ) need to do a little bit of thinking. There are many ways to share the internet connection without opening up your internal network to the risk present by allowing strangers to use your connections. Just a thought You Others -- -- Linksys Bridge-Linksys Bridge-their network | Router---internet | internal network You would need one pair of bridges for each external network good luck Any help apreciated Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70693t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VoIP over Aironet Wireless [7:70679]
neil_k11 wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Guys, I have two sites connected with Aironet Wireless Bridges. We have implemented VoIP between these sites over this wireless link.Considering the Bandwidth of 11 Mbps for 802.11b , it should not have been a problem for a few IP phones.Even if we consider the throughput of the Wireless link actually is close to 4.5 Mbps, the bandwidth should be sufficient for a few g729 calls or even a few g711 calls, but to contrary the call quality is not good. Anybody experienced the same kind of situation. Any comments? what duplex does a wireless bridge run at? what apps - what bandwidth usage your users pulling? if you were to do it this way: Net_A---router-wireless_bridgewireless_bridgerou ter--Net_B then you could do some prioritization of voice on the routers and perhaps eliminate the problem. but it it highly likely that your data traffic is crowding your voice. collisions are probably killing your voice. just my wild ass guess. As Priscilla would say, the only way to know for sure is to throw a sniffer on the line and do a study. good luck Thanks, neil FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70694t=70679 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VoIP over Aironet Wireless [7:70679]
I did a MOS calculation test a few days back and got excellent on the link for 5 g711 calls, but after a couple of days people starting complaining about quality and ran the test again and found the MOS was poor.The data traffic between the sites is not a lot, I know that, still I am having lots of problems with the VoIp. I have a IP PBX connected to a router and the router is connected to wireless bridge and same setup on the other side with IP phones. Anything, you would suggest.to take a look at. thanks, neil Dave wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] We have always had good luck with it.Are you using newer code that can at least prioritize the voice packets in the queue to get them out first ?? You can do this in the AP's now, also if there is a lot of traffic we have run parrellel bridges, one set for IPT and the other for data. d- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of neil_k11 Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 4:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: VoIP over Aironet Wireless [7:70679] Hi Guys, I have two sites connected with Aironet Wireless Bridges. We have implemented VoIP between these sites over this wireless link.Considering the Bandwidth of 11 Mbps for 802.11b , it should not have been a problem for a few IP phones.Even if we consider the throughput of the Wireless link actually is close to 4.5 Mbps, the bandwidth should be sufficient for a few g729 calls or even a few g711 calls, but to contrary the call quality is not good. Anybody experienced the same kind of situation. Any comments? Thanks, neil FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70697t=70679 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless problem [7:70674]
Thanks for the responces. All of our machines are used for email\web with the exception of the accounting pc which is not on the network.Im going to look into some kind of software firewall for our network and I can only assume the other offices will do the same. All offices are on the same floor and next to each other. The largest of the two is the one with the 4 pcs and the distance between their AP and ours is less than 50' separated by 2 standard walls (no concrete or block). Our office is all ethernet to a switch which our AP and router connect to.The office with 4 machines is all ethernet to a hub which their AP connects to.and the other office with 1 pc is a stand alone box that will connect via wireless nic. I wasnt thrilled about this idea from the word go but my boss sees this as a way to cover some of the cost of the circuit as hes charging them a monthly fee. If I have both APs act as bridges to link the larger office will the small single pc office still be able to connect or would that require a separate AP? TIA Don K. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70698t=70674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bakup Interface with Wireless! [7:70410]
Kenan Ahmed Siddiqi wrote: Thank You very much Marc but my problem is that I am not running any routing protocols. Otherwise I had in mind to use floating static routes with Routing Protocols but the problem again boils down to this that how can I do it without using any routing protocols. I don't think you have to be running a routing protocol to use Dialer Watch. The paper that Marc Russell mentioned says this: Routing protocol independent—Static routes or dynamic routing protocols, such as Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP), Enhanced IGRP (EIGRP) or Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) can be used. It says you can do it with static routes. I don't know exactly what you have to do, but I think you should read the paper more carefully. It may meet your needs. Good luck. Let us know. Thanks. Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70464t=70410 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Bakup Interface with Wireless! [7:70410]
outta curiosity, whats the routing protocol and topology? And is your isdn configured with floating static routes? and which interface is showing up,up? I've got a building connected with two wireless links and load balanced with EIGRP. If one link goes down the other one takes all the traffic. not quite the same scenario but it doesn't try to send traffic out the down link so in theory if the 2nd link was a bri interface then it should bring the interface up if theres a route in place. -Original Message- From: Marc Russell To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 6/9/2003 3:19 PM Subject: Re: Bakup Interface with Wireless! [7:70410] Try this. Watch the word wrap. Dialer watch http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1828/products_configur atio n_guide_chapter09186a00800872ed.html Marc Russell www.ccbootcamp.com (Cisco training) Kenan Ahmed Siddiqi wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey! I have a branch office connected with a Wireless Link. I want to configure my ISDN link(which can also connect to the same branch office) as a Backup Interface with the wireless link. The problem which I am facing is that when my Wireless link goes down, it doesn't show line protocol down and the line is up, line protocol is up is always there even when the Wireless link is not working. Therefore my backup ISDN interface never comes up. I would really appreciate any help/suggestions in this regard. Thanx alot in advance! cheers, -Kenan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70451t=70410 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bakup Interface with Wireless! [7:70410]
Dear Ms. Priscilla Thanks alot for your answer but the problem still remains there. The explanation is as under:- I don't think you have to be running a routing protocol to use Dialer Watch. Routing protocol independent—Static routes or dynamic routing protocols, such as Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP), Enhanced IGRP (EIGRP) or Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) can be used. This is very true but you see by RP Independent it means that one can use *any* Routing Protocols. As far as Static Routes are concerned, in that case the interface to which that static route is pointing should go down so that the router would remove that specific network from its Routing Table and the dialer watch would initiate the backup link. You see the basic criterea using Dialer Watch is as under: 1. Whenever a watched route is deleted, Dialer Watch checks to see if there is at least one valid route for any of the defined watched IP addresses. My problem is that my main Wireless Link never goes down and show the status UP even when its not working. I am not using any routing protocol so the only choice is to use Static Route. Now as the Wireless Link never goes down the static network entry doesn't remove intself from the Routing table and thus the backup link never initiates. I suppose the best solution would be to use a routing protocol just btw the sites so that I can watch for the network part. I hope I have explained my problem to you. Thanks to all of you. If you can find any other solution then I would be grateful. Thank You once again! -Kenan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70483t=70410 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bakup Interface with Wireless! [7:70410]
Kenan Ahmed Siddiqi wrote: Dear Ms. Priscilla Thanks alot for your answer but the problem still remains there. The explanation is as under:- I don't think you have to be running a routing protocol to use Dialer Watch. Routing protocol independent—Static routes or dynamic routing protocols, such as Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP), Enhanced IGRP (EIGRP) or Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) can be used. This is very true but you see by RP Independent it means that one can use *any* Routing Protocols. As far as Static Routes are concerned, in that case the interface to which that static route is pointing should go down so that the router would remove that specific network from its Routing Table and the dialer watch would initiate the backup link. You see the basic criterea using Dialer Watch is as under: 1. Whenever a watched route is deleted, Dialer Watch checks to see if there is at least one valid route for any of the defined watched IP addresses. My problem is that my main Wireless Link never goes down and show the status UP even when its not working. I am not using any routing protocol so the only choice is to use Static Route. Now as the Wireless Link never goes down the static network entry doesn't remove intself from the Routing table and thus the backup link never initiates. I suppose the best solution would be to use a routing protocol just btw the sites so that I can watch for the network part. I hope I have explained my problem to you. You have explained it. I was hoping that reading the entire page on Dialer Watch would provide an answer Alas, it sounds like it didn't. All I can think of is writing a script of some sort that would figure out that the wireless is down??? Or, run a routing protocol, as you say. Good luck, Priscilla Thanks to all of you. If you can find any other solution then I would be grateful. Thank You once again! -Kenan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70497t=70410 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bakup Interface with Wireless! [7:70410]
Hey! I have a branch office connected with a Wireless Link. I want to configure my ISDN link(which can also connect to the same branch office) as a Backup Interface with the wireless link. The problem which I am facing is that when my Wireless link goes down, it doesn't show line protocol down and the line is up, line protocol is up is always there even when the Wireless link is not working. Therefore my backup ISDN interface never comes up. I would really appreciate any help/suggestions in this regard. Thanx alot in advance! cheers, -Kenan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70410t=70410 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bakup Interface with Wireless! [7:70410]
Try this. Watch the word wrap. Dialer watch http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1828/products_configuratio n_guide_chapter09186a00800872ed.html Marc Russell www.ccbootcamp.com (Cisco training) Kenan Ahmed Siddiqi wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey! I have a branch office connected with a Wireless Link. I want to configure my ISDN link(which can also connect to the same branch office) as a Backup Interface with the wireless link. The problem which I am facing is that when my Wireless link goes down, it doesn't show line protocol down and the line is up, line protocol is up is always there even when the Wireless link is not working. Therefore my backup ISDN interface never comes up. I would really appreciate any help/suggestions in this regard. Thanx alot in advance! cheers, -Kenan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70423t=70410 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless Spec. question [7:69842]
By kit I mean questions about the Cisco devices (1200 / 350 / Bridges etc), and their abilities, specs etc. I had no questions on the CLI at all.. 1 cisco wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you mean cisco interface when talking about the KIT? Any questions on the cli? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70058t=69842 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless Spec. question [7:69842]
Do you mean cisco interface when talking about the KIT? Any questions on the cli? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=69883t=69842 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wireless Spec. question [7:69842]
I am currently studying for my wireless specialization, wondering if anyone has taken the new test for Feild engineers, and which of the three major topics is covered the most on the test. I have a great grasp on the AP configuration,fundamentals. But I have no access to any bridges? Any suggestions? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=69842t=69842 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless Spec. question [7:69842]
I took and passed this test last week. Got an 87 which I was happy with. I took the CWNA exam by planet 3 the week before the Cisco and found that this was nearly sufficient for me to pass. What I am getting at is that I got between 5 and 10 questions on Cisco kit and the rest on WLAN theory. All my AP questions were about 350 series and about 3 or 4 questions on Bridging. This was just my experience of the test, hope it helps. Regards, DW 1 cisco wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am currently studying for my wireless specialization, wondering if anyone has taken the new test for Feild engineers, and which of the three major topics is covered the most on the test. I have a great grasp on the AP configuration,fundamentals. But I have no access to any bridges? Any suggestions? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=69853t=69842 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cisco Wireless PC Cards for sales [7:66611]
Ok, i have decided to reduce the price of the cards to 60USD each one. It4s my last offer!!! Regards _ Charla con tus amigos en lmnea mediante MSN Messenger: http://messenger.yupimsn.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66611t=66611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
S! ALL! Here's my experience with trying to pass VLANS over Aeronet 350 bridges...this ties into this thread because we ran into issues when we tried to link bridges... glossary: trunk = switchport mode trunk with ALL VLANS allowed. 802.1q encapsulation. I run a single DS1 into an office park. There I have a 2620 terminating the DS1 and using FE subinterfaces trunked to a 2950. This 2950 then has a trunk to the root 350 Bridge. Then from there we link to other Bridges (currently 6 others in hub-spoke) in other buildings. Each building has a 350 bridge trunked to a 2950. Clients then have Cat5 run to thier office CPE, usually a firewall. Each client has thier own unique VLAN. There may be more than 1 client per building (in fact, the most populous building currently has 4 clients, and there are over 15 in all). Like so: DS1---2620--[trunk]--2950--[trunk]--ROOT 350Br350Br--[trunk]--2950--[VLAN x]--CPE So this is a hub and spoke with one ring around the hub. As long as we stay at this one ring level things are just fine. BUT if I do this: DS1---2620---2950---ROOT 350Br---350BR---350BR---2950---CPE A client signed on with us last summer in a building that had no line of sight to the root bridge's omidirectional antennae. So we tried to link them to the root by passing them through an existing bridge, thus creating a second ring tier. We tried it both using an existing bridge (that serviced a building through a 2950 etc) and a dedicated bridge we mounted just for this purpose. The result? SEGV whenever anything was plugged into the switch at ring level 2 (far end away from the root site). As soon as the interface in the client VLAN came up...POW...SEGV. The router would crash with a SEGV error. It would reboot and immediately crash again...and again...ad infinitum The output was run through Cisco's output interpreter...sent to TAC along with all configs...nada. Note that VLAN1 was able to traverse the network just fine. I could console into the switch at ring-level 2 and go to any other switch in the office park. Once anything went across in an 802.1q tagged frame though, indeed as soon as an interface in the far switch NOT in VLAN1 came up, the router crashed. Notes of interest: 2620 was using 12.2.5d originally. I could get it to NOT crash if I went to 12.1.17 BUT no traffic would cross to the far switch AND the router and its local switch would not talk on VLAN 1. Unacceptable. All switches were VTP clients except the root, which is in server mode. All VLANS showed up on all switches including the far switch. I set the MTU to a low value, to no effect, thinking maybe the 802.1q tags (4 extra bytes) could be an issue. Nada. No VLAN capability was configured on the 350 bridges. The far 350 cannot communicate with the root 350 so it is not looping anything. All associations seemed proper, i.e. far-to-middle, middle-to-root. All parent listings seemed proper. Bridge IOS was everything from 11.23 up (we tried em all in matched sets, i.e. all 11.23 or all 12.0 etc). The only interfaces assigned to the VLAN in question were the FE subinterface on the 2620 and a single port on the far switch. No other switches had any ports in this VLAN (trunk ports excepted, of course). All links are at 60% level or greater and are supporting a full 11Mbps. A port on the middle switch was configured to be in the same VLAN as the client and it could NOT talk to the client. The middle bridge has an omnidirectional antennae, so the one at a time rule does not apply...or does it? Still, we did use a separate dedicated bridge as the middle of the chain to no avail. TAC swears that this should work because the 350 bridge is functionally a hub. GIGO rules apply. It is unaware, nor does it care about the VLAN tagging or anything else. It should just relay anything and everything. Anyone got any suggestions? I'm open :) Oh yeah...I fixed it by placing the far 350 at the other end of the building where it could get LOS to the root...once the leaves fell off the trees on the intervening ridge. Spring is coming though and with it, certain loss of LOS. Short of a chainsaw-in-the-night approach, it seems a DS1 to the client is my only answer. S! (Salute!) Brian Carroll CCNP, CCSE, MCSE, CCA Director of Professional Services Air Net Link LLC. Williamson, Paul wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone know the maximum number of Wireless AP's you can chain of a single wireless bridge ie Switch ---copper--- AP ~~~air~~~ AP ~~~air~~~ AP Does cisco make an AP that supports this Thanks -Paul PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender immediately. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc cannot accept responsibility
Cisco Wireless PC Cards for sales [7:66380]
I4m selling: 2 Wireless cisco PC Cards PCM350 and, 1 Wireless PCM340 for 90USD each one If you are interested write me! _ Charla con tus amigos en lmnea mediante MSN Messenger: http://messenger.yupimsn.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66380t=66380 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: You are not supposed to use more than 3 repeaters... Now here is a question. Why couldn't you use actual wireless bridge units? Then you would be limited by the rule that you shouldn't have more than 7 bridges. Ok, that is my fault. In the haste of trying to get out the door I typed to fast and didn't chose my words carefully. I meant an actually wireless router and not a bridge sorry. See below for more info on those. But if you use the smarts of the box and use its routing capabilities Does it really do routing?? I'm not to sure about the Cisco wireless product line. But I know the Lucent Orinoco Outdoor Routers are actual routers. I have a set that was up between two offices and I had an ip block over the p2p link and then an IP block on the other office side of it. It was the gateway for the entire wired network over there. So yes there are wireless vendors that have routing abilities. I got to thinking about it and the TTL issue can be avoided by using a GRE or IPSec tunnel over the series of AP's so that the TTLs aren't decremented. :) have to have units with two cards and two antennas pointing in opposite directions to accomplish this. It's just like building a Microwave relay network Hmm. I don't know much about the PHY layer here. But that may be where the issues are Good question. The only issue I can think of would be interferance from the other transmitter if they were in a straight line. So this can be avoided by simply placing them on the lowest power required and then by placing them far enough apart linearly that they can only see the signal from their partner down the line. Another thing that might help is to place the antennas at two different elevations on the tower. Or more easily just place a large sheet of copper between the two to absorb the signal and prevent it from reaching the other antenna from behind. And for those concerned about latency...What's the difference between that and using an INMARSAT terminal or any other satellite system for that matter? They have over .5sec delays in most cases. Granted some systems like DirecPC run a custom TCP/IP stack to minimize this, others like INMARSAT do not. Andrew --- http://www.andrewsworld.net/ ICQ: 2895251 Cisco Certified Network Associate Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66329t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
Anyone know the maximum number of Wireless AP's you can chain of a single wireless bridge ie Switch ---copper--- AP ~~~air~~~ AP ~~~air~~~ AP Does cisco make an AP that supports this Thanks -Paul PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender immediately. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus infection, for which Nomura International plc accepts no responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Nomura International plc. This email is intended for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. Nomura International plc is regulated by the Financial Services Authority and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66270t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
You are not supposed to use more than 3 repeaters... d- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Williamson, Paul Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270] Anyone know the maximum number of Wireless AP's you can chain of a single wireless bridge ie Switch ---copper--- AP ~~~air~~~ AP ~~~air~~~ AP Does cisco make an AP that supports this Thanks -Paul PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender immediately. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus infection, for which Nomura International plc accepts no responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Nomura International plc. This email is intended for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. Nomura International plc is regulated by the Financial Services Authority and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66276t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Dave wrote: You are not supposed to use more than 3 repeaters... Now here is a question. Why couldn't you use actual wireless bridge units? As long as you have addressing schemes and the TTL on the packets is high enough, you should be able to bounce it down the line without worrying about it. Repeaters are usually just dumb relays. But if you use the smarts of the box and use its routing capabilities couldn't you build line-of-sight pathways that are infinitely long? Just remember you have to have units with two cards and two antennas pointing in opposite directions to accomplish this. It's just like building a Microwave relay network Andrew --- http://www.andrewsworld.net/ ICQ: 2895251 Cisco Certified Network Associate Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66282t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
Andrew Dorsett wrote: On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Dave wrote: You are not supposed to use more than 3 repeaters... Now here is a question. Why couldn't you use actual wireless bridge units? Then you would be limited by the rule that you shouldn't have more than 7 bridges. As long as you have addressing schemes and the TTL on the packets is high enough, TTL is a routing (Layer 3) issue. you should be able to bounce it down the line without worrying about it. Repeaters are usually just dumb relays. But if you use the smarts of the box and use its routing capabilities Does it really do routing?? couldn't you build line-of-sight pathways that are infinitely long? Just remember you have to have units with two cards and two antennas pointing in opposite directions to accomplish this. It's just like building a Microwave relay network Hmm. I don't know much about the PHY layer here. But that may be where the issues are Good question. Priscilla Andrew --- http://www.andrewsworld.net/ ICQ: 2895251 Cisco Certified Network Associate Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66295t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625]
Duncan, I'm not sure if you're talking about the new exam or the old one that you could take in the privacy of your office (aka open book test). I haven't taken the new exam yet, but will in about 30-45 days. I'm sure it's going to be more difficult than the old test and hopefully updated. The old test had some questions and none of the answers were correct, which was a little frustrating. For the new test, I would highly recommend going to a Cisco training partner and take the Wireless SE course. The stuff on the old test was nearly impossible to find in manuals or marketing material found on Cisco's web site. I suspect the new test will be the same. Good luck! Jeffrey Reed Classic Networking, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Duncan Wallace Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625] I was wondering if anyone out there has attempted the Wireless LAN Support yet, and if so, what study materials you used (other than the web site). I have been going over the CWNA for a solid background, but was looking for something with more of a Cisco flavor. Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace 12835 SW Thunderhead Way Beaverton, Or. 97008 503-646-5707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65978t=65625 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625]
Duncan, I'm not sure if you're talking about the new exam or the old one that you could take in the privacy of your office (aka open book test). I haven't taken the new exam yet, but will in about 30-45 days. I'm sure it's going to be more difficult than the old test and hopefully updated. The old test had some questions and none of the answers were correct, which was a little frustrating. For the new test, I would highly recommend going to a Cisco training partner and take the Wireless SE course. The stuff on the old test was nearly impossible to find in manuals or marketing material found on Cisco's web site. I suspect the new test will be the same. Good luck! Jeffrey Reed Classic Networking, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Duncan Wallace Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625] I was wondering if anyone out there has attempted the Wireless LAN Support yet, and if so, what study materials you used (other than the web site). I have been going over the CWNA for a solid background, but was looking for something with more of a Cisco flavor. Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace 12835 SW Thunderhead Way Beaverton, Or. 97008 503-646-5707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65648t=65625 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625]
I passed both cisco wireless exams in the last few month. I've got some practical experiance with the equipment, so I read everything I could find on the CCO and downloaded the bosons, which turned out to be great. Make sure to take design first, and support second. Duncan Wallace wrote:I was wondering if anyone out there has attempted the Wireless LAN Support yet, and if so, what study materials you used (other than the web site). I have been going over the CWNA for a solid background, but was looking for something with more of a Cisco flavor. Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace 12835 SW Thunderhead Way Beaverton, Or. 97008 503-646-5707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65663t=65625 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625]
I passed both cisco wireless exams in the last few month. I've got some practical experiance with the equipment, so I read everything I could find on the CCO and downloaded the bosons, which turned out to be great. Make sure to take design first, and support second. Duncan Wallace wrote:I was wondering if anyone out there has attempted the Wireless LAN Support yet, and if so, what study materials you used (other than the web site). I have been going over the CWNA for a solid background, but was looking for something with more of a Cisco flavor. Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace 12835 SW Thunderhead Way Beaverton, Or. 97008 503-646-5707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65669t=65625 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625]
I took the Wireless LAN Support exam a month ago. The exam is absolutely a joke. The exam concentrates very little on LEAP, EAP-TLS, PEAP and EAP-TTLS. I was very disappointed the way the exam is written. I could be wrong on this one but if you ask someone who already passed the Wireless support exam how to configure PEAP or EAP-TLS using certificates, I am willing to bet that person will have no clue on how install, configure and troubleshoot this scenario. I have no idea how to setup PEAP, EAP-TLS, etc... yet I still passed the exam with a score of 980. By the way, I used bosons to prepare for the exam. Eric Duncan Wallace wrote:I was wondering if anyone out there has attempted the Wireless LAN Support yet, and if so, what study materials you used (other than the web site). I have been going over the CWNA for a solid background, but was looking for something with more of a Cisco flavor. Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace 12835 SW Thunderhead Way Beaverton, Or. 97008 503-646-5707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65697t=65625 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625]
Jeffrey - Thanks for the info. I am going for the new exam, so maybe the class would be in order. Thanks, Duncan Wallace 12835 SW Thunderhead Way Beaverton, Or. 97008 503-646-5707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Reed Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625] Duncan, I'm not sure if you're talking about the new exam or the old one that you could take in the privacy of your office (aka open book test). I haven't taken the new exam yet, but will in about 30-45 days. I'm sure it's going to be more difficult than the old test and hopefully updated. The old test had some questions and none of the answers were correct, which was a little frustrating. For the new test, I would highly recommend going to a Cisco training partner and take the Wireless SE course. The stuff on the old test was nearly impossible to find in manuals or marketing material found on Cisco's web site. I suspect the new test will be the same. Good luck! Jeffrey Reed Classic Networking, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Duncan Wallace Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625] I was wondering if anyone out there has attempted the Wireless LAN Support yet, and if so, what study materials you used (other than the web site). I have been going over the CWNA for a solid background, but was looking for something with more of a Cisco flavor. Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace 12835 SW Thunderhead Way Beaverton, Or. 97008 503-646-5707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65715t=65625 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625]
Good idea, I'll check out the Bosons. I also just got Building Cisco Wireless LANs, a bit old, but should give me some good direction. Thanks, Duncan Wallace 12835 SW Thunderhead Way Beaverton, Or. 97008 503-646-5707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: JJ Angleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:28 AM To: Duncan Wallace; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625] I passed both cisco wireless exams in the last few month. I've got some practical experiance with the equipment, so I read everything I could find on the CCO and downloaded the bosons, which turned out to be great. Make sure to take design first, and support second. Duncan Wallace wrote: I was wondering if anyone out there has attempted the Wireless LAN Support yet, and if so, what study materials you used (other than the web site). I have been going over the CWNA for a solid background, but was looking for something with more of a Cisco flavor. Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace 12835 SW Thunderhead Way Beaverton, Or. 97008 503-646-5707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65716t=65625 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wireless LAN Support Exam [7:65625]
I was wondering if anyone out there has attempted the Wireless LAN Support yet, and if so, what study materials you used (other than the web site). I have been going over the CWNA for a solid background, but was looking for something with more of a Cisco flavor. Thanks in advance, Duncan Wallace 12835 SW Thunderhead Way Beaverton, Or. 97008 503-646-5707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65625t=65625 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wireless Managment [7:64077]
Anyone recommend software/hardware for montioring, and deploying Cisco wireless AP's? Talking around 10-20 AP's. -- Get your free email from www.uymail.com Powered by Outblaze Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64077t=64077 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless Managment [7:64077]
check out AiroPeek QuickStart e-seminar by Wildpackets or just download the demo and try it out, it might be what you want www.wildpackets.com (but site appears to be having problems today) Greg Rend wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone recommend software/hardware for montioring, and deploying Cisco wireless AP's? Talking around 10-20 AP's. -- Get your free email from www.uymail.com Powered by Outblaze Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64094t=64077 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How Do You Measure a Wireless LAN's Packet Error Rate [7:64129]
While reading Priscilla's book on Campus Area Network Troubleshooting, which is an excellent book that I highly recommend, it and other sources state that the Packet Error Rate should be measured for a WLAN. The problem is I cannot find anything at a reasonable price to use to measure such a thing for a WLAN. For example, I see on the WaveRider web site, they are a maker of wireless equipment, that they have a nice little tool that shows both RSSI and Packet Error Rate. But this is only for their own equipment. Is there a software tool for a laptop that will do this for an 802.11b WLAN? You can more or less do this with Wild Packet's AiroPeek. A tool by Berkeley Varitronics Systems called YellowJacket will also do this. But both of these are expensive. Does anyone know of something less expensive? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64129t=64129 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wireless Help.... [7:63621]
Team, Finally I am able to have access to an AP1200, I want to thank Jim Brown for his kindness of making this device available to me behind the DMZ. I have full access to it, I am able to connect to it via my browser or via telnet without problem, very easy to configure but my dilemma is the following: According to Cisco documentation I should be able to have access to a CLI and do all my configuration this way as well but I don't see to be able to do this any ideas what I have to do in order for me to have full access to the CLI Thanks, Juan Juan Blanco The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall . -- Nelson Mandela Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=63621t=63621 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless Question [7:63569]
I just implemented a 1200 solution...I don't have access to the rack, but maybe I could help with any questions you have. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Juan Blanco Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 5:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wireless Question [7:63569] Team, I need to have access to a Cisco Wireless AP-1200 equipment this weekend, Do any one here knows an online Rack available with the AP-1200 which I could use. Thanks, Juan Blanco The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall . -- Nelson Mandela Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=63597t=63569 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cisco wireless admin test [7:63565]
Does anyone have any idea on how good the CWNA (certified wireless network administrator, by planet3 wireless) course book is for cisco wireless admin (9E0-581) test prep? Also, how hard is the test as compared to CWNA, which i found it to be hard due the fact that 95% of the 90 questions had checkbox and had choose all that apply selection with real close choices, which made the test 3 times harder than it really is. I have heard that people are using CWNA book plus cisco AP product line and basic config knowledge to prepare for cisco wireless test and wanted your thoughts. -Keyur Shah- CCIE# 4799 (Security;R/S) CISSP,CCSP,CWNA,CCSA,SCNA,MCSE,MCNE,MCT,CNI Say Hello to Your Future! http://www.hellocomputers.com Toll-Free: 1.877.79.HELLO Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=63565t=63565 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wireless Question [7:63569]
Team, I need to have access to a Cisco Wireless AP-1200 equipment this weekend, Do any one here knows an online Rack available with the AP-1200 which I could use. Thanks, Juan Blanco The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall . -- Nelson Mandela Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=63569t=63569 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VoIP using wireless bridge [7:63575]
Will the half duplex nature of wireless make a problem in voip that require full duplex? *** Important Confidentiality: This communication is intended for the above named person and is confidential and/or legally privileged any opinion expressed in this communication are not necessarily those of the Egyptian company for Mobile Services (MobiNiL). If it has come to you in error you must take no action based on it, nor must you copy or show it to anyone: please delete/destroy and inform the sender immediately. No Responsibility: MobiNiL is not responsible for any political, religious, racial or partisan opinion in any correspondence conducted by its domain users. Therefore, any such opinion expressed, whether explicitly or implicitly, in any said correspondence is not to be interpreted as that of MobiNiL. Monitoring / Viruses: MobiNiL may monitor all incoming outgoing e-mails in line with current legislation. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any Virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recepient should ensure they are actuallyvirus free. The Egyptian Company for Mobile Services (MobiNiL) www.mobinil.com The World Trade Center: 1191 Corniche El Nil, Boulaq - Cairo - Egypt Telephone: +20 2 574 - 7000 or + 20 12 320 - Fax: +20 2 574 - 7111 or +20 12 320- 7111 *** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=63575t=63575 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aironet Client Adaptor Software with Avaya Wireless Card [7:63302]
I have :Cisco ACS with Aironet 350 and all clients have Avaya Gold card installed. Is it possible to use the EAP in this scenario? Could I load the newest version of client adaptor firmware from Cisco on Avaya cards? I need to secure the authentication using ACS and EAP using Avaya Cards. Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=63302t=63302 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question on wireless Vlan Trunking BOOTPC issues -Please [7:62628]
I am setting up a wireless bridge and Access point to trunk 2 vlans - One is Vlan 11 ( Voice ), and One is default Vlan 1. Here is the issue. If on vlan 11, (by associated SSID mapped to vlan 11)wireless client (ip phone) gets a ip assigned by dhcp no problem in vlan 11. (dhcp server for the voice vlan subnet sits across the WAN, and AP pipes in through a dot1q trunk port into a 3524 that has a switchport access vlan 11 port piped directly to a 3660 router that only runs the vlan 11 Subnet (10.46.3.0/24). The data vlan 1, and voice vlan 11 ( voice ) were, before this wireless addition 2 flat networks with no intervlan routing, and no trunking involved anywhere in the network. All people in the data vlan 1, pipe into regular switch ports with uplink to a cat 6006, connected to a 3640 that only has main interface routing the vlan 1 layer 3 subnet across the WAN. The dhcp server for data vlan 1 sits on vlan 1 locally(10.44.185.0/21) Issue at hand - If I put my laptop on Vlan 1 using wireless (by associated SSID)and give myself a static ip, I have full connectivity on VLAN 1. (trunking is fine, and both vlans flow through the switch fabric). If I set my laptop to DHCP on SSID VLAN 1, DHCP does not work? Protocol analyzer produces nothing but shows me issuing bootpc requests with no responses. If I pipe directly into the 3524 switch (using switchport access vlan 1) that the Access Point trunks directly into, and use DHCP, I pick up an ip right away, so I have pinned it down to a issue with BOOTPC broadcast going across the Proper broadcast domain (vlan1) when connecting wireless? I think the issue, is because the access point has first associated with the DHCP server reachable Via vlan 11, which existed prior to adding data vlan to the picture of the wireless setup (through helper address on vlan 11's subnet's router), and read that the Cisco 350 access point's do associate with the last DHCP server they contacted, so I increased the timeout on the AP to search for multiple DHCP servers, but to no avail? I realize this is a weird setup, and I did not design, and am only there to make the 2 vlans work and utilize dhcp functionality either from a IP phone, or A pc on the data VLAN using wireless( BY associated SSID ) All criteria has been met, minus DHCP functionality from VLAN 1 ? Has anyone run into this, or something similar? Is there an issue when trunking vlans using wireless using multiple DHCP servers on different VLANS? Any comments or help would be appreciated Note- The customer does not want to intervlan route,and use a single DHCP server with multiple scopes? I discussed this possibility. Thanks! Brett Michael Spunt CCNP,CIPT,MCSE Computer Network Innovations [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62628t=62628 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wireless sniffing [7:62448]
I've tried numerous times to continue participation in the wireless discussion. My messages have all been filtered, as far as I can tell. I hope the moderators don't post them now, if this one gets through. I did learn a lot from the answers. Thanks. Here's one thing that I'm just now understanding. Association isn't necessary for wireless sniffing. It would be necessary for receiving frames. Bottom line, as someone said, use PEAP or LEAP. Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62448t=62448 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wireless [7:62104]
Try http://www.80211planet.com/ Good tutorials and a great starting point. /JS Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62232t=62104 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wireless [7:62104]
I'm navigating the Cisco site as well as whatever google comes up with, but I'm having a very difficult time finding any decent reference material for 802.11. I work for an ISP and unfortunately, we've been left in a position of not having anyone left who's well versed in wireless access. We have several towers and many wireless customers and as things fell, I'm the one in charge of taking care of these customers. I am looking for a good, full understanding of wireless. We use breezecom and cisco equipment. Any URL or book references would be greatly appreciated. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62104t=62104 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
