Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Aharon Schkolnik aschkol...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday 08 October 2009, shimi wrote: The right way to do it is not with an Access Point. Someone needs to multiplex your connection to multiple devices. Since you have just one external IP address, someone needs to share it between your multiple machines and do magic that makes it (multiple unicast machines between one unicast address) work. We call that magic-maker a NAT router (which basically every home router does). Yeah, I realize that I need NAT (or PAT in Cisco terms), but I thought (I admit I didn't check) that the AP might do the NAT. A pure AP is a wireless switch - it talks Layer 2 only. So what you need is an Ethernet router (with an Ethernet port on his WAN port). Thing is, I was wondering why I need a router. I don't need it to do any routing decisions (unless I want to share files between connected PCs, which I don't). I do need NAT, but I kind of thought an AP would do that. NAT is performed at Layer 3 (some would even say Layer 4?). A layer 2 device does not understand (nor cares about) these layers at all. It can just forward frames... -- Shimi ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
On Monday 12 October 2009, shimi wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Aharon Schkolnik aschkol...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday 08 October 2009, shimi wrote: The right way to do it is not with an Access Point. Someone needs to multiplex your connection to multiple devices. Since you have just one external IP address, someone needs to share it between your multiple machines and do magic that makes it (multiple unicast machines between one unicast address) work. We call that magic-maker a NAT router (which basically every home router does). Yeah, I realize that I need NAT (or PAT in Cisco terms), but I thought (I admit I didn't check) that the AP might do the NAT. A pure AP is a wireless switch - it talks Layer 2 only. Yeah, but a lot of consumer oriented products are not pure anything. Guess that's why I thought the manufacturers might have decided to toss NAT in where it really doesn't belong. On the other hand, I didn't give it much thought, and if I had, I would have realized that that was an unlikey scenario given the leap in complexity needed to add NAT to a simple AP. So what you need is an Ethernet router (with an Ethernet port on his WAN port). Thing is, I was wondering why I need a router. I don't need it to do any routing decisions (unless I want to share files between connected PCs, which I don't). I do need NAT, but I kind of thought an AP would do that. NAT is performed at Layer 3 (some would even say Layer 4?). A layer 2 device does not understand (nor cares about) these layers at all. It can just forward frames... I'm pretty sure it's considered a layer three function. Anyway, certainly not layer two. -- Shimi -- The day is short, and the work is great,| Aharon Schkolnik and the laborers are lazy, and the reward | is great, and the Master of the house is| aschkol...@gmail.com impatient. - Ethics Of The Fathers Ch. 2| 054 3344135 ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
IPCOP and its peers are your friends. On Fri, October 9, 2009 00:59, Oron Peled wrote: On Thursday, 8 ׳‘October 2009 23:31:11 geoffrey mendelson wrote: Edimax, is IMHO a better choice. I bought a small Edimax access point some three years ago and was happy to find out they complied with the GPL (sources are readily available from their support page, and they put the GPL license notice in the first page of the user manual together with their own license notice). Since I haven't used tp-link products before, I just checked and easily found: http://www.tp-link.com/support/gpl.asp Personally, I like to put my money where my mouth is -- How nice that we now have several embedded vendors complying with free software licenses... [looks like gpl-violations.org is doing a nice job, both Edimax and D-Link needed some help to remember their legal obligations. It looks like both are more careful now.] Cheers, -- Oron Peled Voice: +972-4-8228492 o...@actcom.co.il http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron Linux lasts longer! -- Kim J. Brand k...@kimbrand.com ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il --- Moish ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
On Monday 12 October 2009, shimi wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Aharon Schkolnik aschkol...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday 08 October 2009, shimi wrote: The right way to do it is not with an Access Point. Someone needs to multiplex your connection to multiple devices. Since you have just one external IP address, someone needs to share it between your multiple machines and do magic that makes it (multiple unicast machines between one unicast address) work. We call that magic-maker a NAT router (which basically every home router does). Yeah, I realize that I need NAT (or PAT in Cisco terms), but I thought (I admit I didn't check) that the AP might do the NAT. A pure AP is a wireless switch - it talks Layer 2 only. Yeah, but a lot of consumer oriented products are not pure anything. Guess that's why I thought the manufacturers might have decided to toss NAT in where it really doesn't belong. On the other hand, I didn't give it much thought, and if I had, I would have realized that that was an unlikey scenario given the leap in complexity needed to add NAT to a simple AP. So what you need is an Ethernet router (with an Ethernet port on his WAN port). Thing is, I was wondering why I need a router. I don't need it to do any routing decisions (unless I want to share files between connected PCs, which I don't). I do need NAT, but I kind of thought an AP would do that. NAT is performed at Layer 3 (some would even say Layer 4?). A layer 2 device does not understand (nor cares about) these layers at all. It can just forward frames... I'm pretty sure it's considered a layer three function. Anyway, certainly not layer two. -- Shimi -- The day is short, and the work is great,| Aharon Schkolnik and the laborers are lazy, and the reward | is great, and the Master of the house is| aschkol...@gmail.com impatient. - Ethics Of The Fathers Ch. 2| 054 3344135 ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
On Thursday 08 October 2009, shimi wrote: The right way to do it is not with an Access Point. Someone needs to multiplex your connection to multiple devices. Since you have just one external IP address, someone needs to share it between your multiple machines and do magic that makes it (multiple unicast machines between one unicast address) work. We call that magic-maker a NAT router (which basically every home router does). Yeah, I realize that I need NAT (or PAT in Cisco terms), but I thought (I admit I didn't check) that the AP might do the NAT. So what you need is an Ethernet router (with an Ethernet port on his WAN port). Thing is, I was wondering why I need a router. I don't need it to do any routing decisions (unless I want to share files between connected PCs, which I don't). I do need NAT, but I kind of thought an AP would do that. Then I would suggest that you ditch the dialing part of the loop. If you don't, your router must support L2TP protocol to work with all ISPs. That doesn't always work well, even if supported. The preferred solution, IMHO, is to ask your ISP to move you to a dialer-less connection (which they dub MPLS) and then just set the router to obtain IP from DHCP - and you never have problems again. Does anyone want to comment on these two possibities - L2TP on the router versus MPLS ? Do common routers (eg. Edimax BR6204WG) support L2TP ? Is my ISP (HOT) likely to give me a MPLS connection without fee/hassle ? Are there any other solutions ? It also gives you pretty much a static IP, as long as you don't turn off your equipment for a long period. Also I don't think you can buy a router with a built in cable port in Israel... I haven't seen such in stores... and even if you do, HOT will have to agree to connect it to their network (they must put the MAC address on their systems for this to work...) - which I am really not sure they would agree. Well if that's the case, I certainly don't want to try replace the modem supplied by HOT. My 7.4 agorot, Thanks - worth at least 7.4 agorot ! -- Shimi On 10/8/09, Aharon Schkolnik aschkol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. I am currently connected to the Internet via a HOT cable connection using the modem supplied by them and a single ethernet connection to my PC. I bring up the connection using a script which uses pptp. The PC also boots XP which connects using whatever program HOT supplied. I now need to ADD a wireless connection in addition to the fixed ethernet connection (for a laptop). For my taste, the right thing to do is to attach a wireless access point to the HOT modem. Since the modem has only a single ethernet connection, the access point would have to include an ethernet connection for the PC in addition to the ethernet connection to the HOT modem. The only problem with this solution is the cost - an ACCESS POINT D-LINK DAP-1160 costs over 300 NIS. My question is: should I consider buying a modem with cable+wireless+ethernet and using it instead of the HOT modem ? Will I save significant money ? Will I have trouble if I need support from HOT ? What modems work with HOT ? Are there problems setting them up to work to support Linux and XP ? TIA. -- The day is short, and the work is great,| Aharon Schkolnik and the laborers are lazy, and the reward | is great, and the Master of the house is| aschkol...@gmail.com impatient. - Ethics Of The Fathers Ch. 2| 054 3344135 -- The day is short, and the work is great,| Aharon Schkolnik and the laborers are lazy, and the reward | is great, and the Master of the house is| aschkol...@gmail.com impatient. - Ethics Of The Fathers Ch. 2| 054 3344135 ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:05:02 Aharon Schkolnik wrote: OK, looks like I can get a Edimax BR6204WG for NIS 160, or a TP-Link TL- WR641G for NIS 130. Anyone want to recommend for against either of these, or suggest something else ? First, buy a switch-router, you don't want do deal with dialing or NATTing (and all such devices has a crude firewall). Over the years, I had experience with Edimax, 3com and TP-link. I did find big differences, all work for few years (at least 5) and then have problems (usually they don't die completely). I suggest to buy the latest model (and cheapest). When performance degrade (which will happen), just replace it. Ehud. -- Ehud Karni Tel: +972-3-7966-561 /\ Mivtach - Simon Fax: +972-3-7976-561 \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign Insurance agencies (USA) voice mail and X Against HTML Mail http://www.mvs.co.il FAX: 1-815-5509341 / \ GnuPG: 98EA398D http://www.keyserver.net/Better Safe Than Sorry ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
The right way to do it is not with an Access Point. Someone needs to multiplex your connection to multiple devices. Since you have just one external IP address, someone needs to share it between your multiple machines and do magic that makes it (multiple unicast machines between one unicast address) work. We call that magic-maker a NAT router (which basically every home router does). So what you need is an Ethernet router (with an Ethernet port on his WAN port). Then I would suggest that you ditch the dialing part of the loop. If you don't, your router must support L2TP protocol to work with all ISPs. That doesn't always work well, even if supported. The preferred solution, IMHO, is to ask your ISP to move you to a dialer-less connection (which they dub MPLS) and then just set the router to obtain IP from DHCP - and you never have problems again. It also gives you pretty much a static IP, as long as you don't turn off your equipment for a long period. Also I don't think you can buy a router with a built in cable port in Israel... I haven't seen such in stores... and even if you do, HOT will have to agree to connect it to their network (they must put the MAC address on their systems for this to work...) - which I am really not sure they would agree. My 7.4 agorot, -- Shimi On 10/8/09, Aharon Schkolnik aschkol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. I am currently connected to the Internet via a HOT cable connection using the modem supplied by them and a single ethernet connection to my PC. I bring up the connection using a script which uses pptp. The PC also boots XP which connects using whatever program HOT supplied. I now need to ADD a wireless connection in addition to the fixed ethernet connection (for a laptop). For my taste, the right thing to do is to attach a wireless access point to the HOT modem. Since the modem has only a single ethernet connection, the access point would have to include an ethernet connection for the PC in addition to the ethernet connection to the HOT modem. The only problem with this solution is the cost - an ACCESS POINT D-LINK DAP-1160 costs over 300 NIS. My question is: should I consider buying a modem with cable+wireless+ethernet and using it instead of the HOT modem ? Will I save significant money ? Will I have trouble if I need support from HOT ? What modems work with HOT ? Are there problems setting them up to work to support Linux and XP ? TIA. -- The day is short, and the work is great,| Aharon Schkolnik and the laborers are lazy, and the reward | is great, and the Master of the house is| aschkol...@gmail.com impatient. - Ethics Of The Fathers Ch. 2| 054 3344135 ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
On Thursday 08 October 2009, geoffrey mendelson wrote: On Oct 8, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Aharon Schkolnik wrote: Hi. I am currently connected to the Internet via a HOT cable connection using the modem supplied by them and a single ethernet connection to my PC. I bring up the connection using a script which uses pptp. The PC also boots XP which connects using whatever program HOT supplied. I now need to ADD a wireless connection in addition to the fixed ethernet connection (for a laptop). For my taste, the right thing to do is to attach a wireless access point to the HOT modem. Since the modem has only a single ethernet connection, the access point would have to include an ethernet connection for the PC in addition to the ethernet connection to the HOT modem. The only problem with this solution is the cost - an ACCESS POINT D-LINK DAP-1160 costs over 300 NIS. My question is: should I consider buying a modem with cable+wireless +ethernet and using it instead of the HOT modem ? Will I save significant money ? Will I have trouble if I need support from HOT ? What modems work with HOT ? Are there problems setting them up to work to support Linux and XP ? TIA. You have to keep the HOT modem. It's no problem, I've had two in about 9 years. The first one did not really need to be replaced, but since it was 8 years old and I have business class service, the tech decided to replace it to save a service call when it did eventually fail. The easiest thing to do is to go out and buy a router. You can get a good one such as an EDIMAX for under 200 NIS. You can get a cheap one from Ivory for 130 NIS. I had one and it had problems when you used it to copy files between a wired and a wireless computer. Otherwise if you just used it to share an Internet connection it worked perfectly. They have a new model, but I can't find my recepit, so I can't take it back. :-( OK, looks like I can get a Edimax BR6204WG for NIS 160, or a TP-Link TL- WR641G for NIS 130. Anyone want to recommend for against either of these, or suggest something else ? I have over the years run computers here sharing the internet connection here with Windows, Linux. MacOS, Solaris, and a few other odd systems. I have only had trouble when I used a Linux system as a router, and that took 5 years to happen. The problem had to do with NAT not happening on some connections and replacing it with a router fixed the problems. Geoff. Thanks for the advice ! -- The day is short, and the work is great,| Aharon Schkolnik and the laborers are lazy, and the reward | is great, and the Master of the house is| aschkol...@gmail.com impatient. - Ethics Of The Fathers Ch. 2| 054 3344135 ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Aharon Schkolnik wrote: OK, looks like I can get a Edimax BR6204WG for NIS 160, or a TP-Link TL- WR641G for NIS 130. Anyone want to recommend for against either of these, or suggest something else ? For what it's worth, I've had an Edimax router (can't remember the model number though that one looks familiar) since I moved here 2.5 years ago and it works nicely with cable (I'm now using it with ADSL). Only downside is that you need to reboot it to make changes take effect, and sometimes you just have to reboot it because it gets into a weird state. I've not checked for firmware updates though so maybe there's been improvements. But it does work and I'm using all 4 LAN ports plus the wireless. Geoff. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
On Oct 8, 2009, at 11:05 PM, Aharon Schkolnik wrote: OK, looks like I can get a Edimax BR6204WG for NIS 160, or a TP-Link TL-WR641G for NIS 130. Anyone want to recommend for against either of these, or suggest something else ? the one I have that crashes when the wireless gets heavily loaded is a tp-wr541g (the previous model). Edimax, is IMHO a better choice. Geoff. -- geoffrey mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Jerusalem Israel geoffreymendel...@gmail.com ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Adding Wireless to Cable Connection
On Thursday, 8 בOctober 2009 23:31:11 geoffrey mendelson wrote: Edimax, is IMHO a better choice. I bought a small Edimax access point some three years ago and was happy to find out they complied with the GPL (sources are readily available from their support page, and they put the GPL license notice in the first page of the user manual together with their own license notice). Since I haven't used tp-link products before, I just checked and easily found: http://www.tp-link.com/support/gpl.asp Personally, I like to put my money where my mouth is -- How nice that we now have several embedded vendors complying with free software licenses... [looks like gpl-violations.org is doing a nice job, both Edimax and D-Link needed some help to remember their legal obligations. It looks like both are more careful now.] Cheers, -- Oron Peled Voice: +972-4-8228492 o...@actcom.co.il http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron Linux lasts longer! -- Kim J. Brand k...@kimbrand.com ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
