Re: Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624
- From: phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 21 Jul 2006 21:31:29 GMT
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:05:28 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| On 21 Jul 2006 08:18:26 GMT, phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx wrote in
|>Then this may be the way for me to achieve what I want with one more device,
|>which I would expect to buy anyway (through previously was going to get a
|>WGPS606 connected by ethernet to wired switched LAN with my servers and
|>desktops. WGT624(1) connected to DSL modem. WGT624(2) at brother's house
|>connected to his cable modem (via WAN port) and desktop. I might be able
|>to use his cable modem, but he won't be able to use my DSL except via a
|>router or proxy I set up.
| What network topology are you expecting with that? The WGPS606 is a
| wireless client bridge and printer server that will attach to only *one*
| wireless access point (WGT624) at a time. You can't mesh these all
What I'm "expecting" is not a specific topology. I would set up some
topology on top of it. I might expect some default topology to already
be set up for less sophisticated users to be able to get up and running
faster. But that "expecting" implied being able to make box A talk to
box B wirelessly. I can do that with ethernet regardless of what type
of boxes A and B are. I expected the same from wireless and have seen
no online documentation that says I should expect for some boxes to NOT
be able to talk to certain other boxes, even of their own kind.
|>Hopefully the following will then also work to reach the printer.
|>Add the IP address of the WGT624(1) router (bridge side) to the HP 6980
|>printer as default gateway. Add HP 6980's IP address in route table of
|>the Linux machines that need to print with gateway being the WGT624(1)
| Why would you do that? With the HP 6980 connected to WGT624(1), it's
| accessible by all clients in that subnet. Assign a static IP address to
| the HP 6980, either by fixed DHCP or manually, and you should be able to
| reach it reliably from any client on that subnet. The HP 6980 shouldn't
| need a gateway address unless it's going to make connections over the
| public Internet.
It has a static IP. Everything is in 169.254.0.0/16. But I cannot reach
the printer from the computer. I can reach the WGT624, and see that in
its list of attached devices there is the MAC address of the HP 6980, but
without an IP address (which I presume is because it has never seen any
IP type traffic with it). Apparently my ARP broadcasts from the computer
are not reaching the printer.
Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> bridge <-Air-> WGT624 <-???-> HP6980
When I wire up like this, I can print:
Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> WGT624 <-AIR-> HP6980
But then I can't reach an isolated (future) DSL connection:
Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> WGT624(1) <-AIR-> WGT624(2)
But for the DSL, it seems this might work:
Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> bridge <-Air-> WGT624 <-CAT5-> DSL
I also tried this:
Linux <-CAT5-> wire switch <-CAT5-> bridge <-Air-> WGT624(1) (future DSL)
same switch <-CAT5-> WGT624(2) <-AIR-> HP6980
That did work when the bridge was peered with WGT624(1). However, it
sometimes peers with WGT624(2) instead, which break things (and gives me
nice broadcast storms). I presume using different SSIDs will fix that
but I have not tried it, yet.
| When the HP 6980 is connected to WGT624(1), it won't be connected to
| WGT624(2), and so won't be accessible to that subnet. You would have to
| bridge the subnets; e.g., by VPN over the public Internet, or with a
| wireless bridge (other than what you have now).
So this is just a too cheap bridge. Given there is no manufacturer name
on it at all. The MAC's OUI gives me this, in case you are curious:
00-02-6F (hex) Senao International Co., Ltd.
00026F (base 16) Senao International Co., Ltd.
2F, No. 531, Chung-Cheng Rd.,
Hsin-Tien City, Taipei County,
TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA
|>If the above works, then the only remaining issue is the RF path between
|>my house and my brother's house across the street. Unfortunately the
|>WGPS606 does NOT have the range extender that the WGT624 has, so there
|>is less chance of this succeeding.
| How is that an issue? This isn't a mesh; i.e., you can't construct a
| wireless network covering both houses with just this gear.
Apparently not. But what I want to do is figure out WHAT gear I should
use, and do so by figuring it out from clearly written documentation,
which I have not yet found. Such documentation would obviously have to
state exactly what devices (or classes of devices) can, and cannot, talk
to each other (including of its own kind), and for classes of devices,
also tell how to determine which commercial devices are of each class,
despite misleading sales/marketing jargon and puffing.
|>The WGT624 has the 108 Mb capability, but it looks like there's no way
|>for me to use it. I would have been better off with WGR614's.
I actually chose those models for their extended range technology, which
the WGR614 did not have, on the basis that it might increase my chance of
being able to reach between the houses (I always understood this much was
never a certainty). So whatever device classes would interconnect the
two wired LANs, I'd like to have it with that or some other range extend
And it would be a big plus if one of those would ALSO talk wirelessly
with the WGT624 so I can have ONE wireless device on the wired LAN in
this house and have it talk wirelessly to both the WGT624 to reach the
DSL, and whatever is at the other house to reach it's LAN.
And reaching the printer is important, too. If that has to be through
a double hop from the wireless device on the LAN to the WGT624 on the
DSL and back out over air to the printer, that's fine, as the printer
bandwidth isn't an issue.
|>Maybe I would have been better off with some other brand models that can
|>attach external antennas and put some gain between the two houses. I did
|>see a +9dbi omni and a +18dbi panel on Netgear's web site.
| Please be more clear and precise on what you're trying to do, including
| the entire network topology. Something like
I can't say what the network topology is, because I don't know which one
would work in wireless. I've been trying a few I know would work wired.
The picture you show is one possible way, although incomplete.
If youw ant to figure out the best topology for me, here are the parts:
-- my house --
1. My "computer farm" running on a wired switch. Using wireless PC cards
here is not an option. 3 ports are available on the switch.
2. My future DSL connection. It shall not connect to anything by wire.
3. Wireless printer. It cannot be connected to the computer farm by wire.
But a wireless print server might be an option for it (though that
would sure seem silly, and a bit inconvenient).
4. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she comes
over and brings it here.
-- brother's house --
5. My brother's Cable modem.
6. My brother's Windows computer (currently connected directly to the
cable modem running the cable provided software).
7. My sister-in-law's laptop, with some wireless card, but not connected
to the net anywhere by when taken to work. THIS is for when she has
it at her home.
8. File server I will place in my brother's house in the future. It may
be possible to use a wireless PC card on this. It will be Linux
9. My nephew's computer, not networked at all, yet. Probably will be dual
boot Windows + Linux.
I need the following reachability, whether by layer 2 or layer 3:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 . Y Y Y - Y - Y N Y = a must
2 Y . N Y N N N N N! + = a plus
3 Y N . + N N N N N - = might be useful
4 Y Y + . N N N N N N = no need for it
5 - N N N . Y Y + N! N! = I really want to block
6 Y N N N Y . + + ?
7 - N N N Y + . + ?
8 Y N N N + + + . ?
9 N N N N N ? ? ? .
Note that if 2 devices cannot reach each other, but both can reach computers
in the computer farm, I can set up routing for them on a computer there.
Don't assume same for the file server in by brother's house as that is
likely a year or so away.
I want NONE of the connectivity to go through the public internet for
reasons of utilization. E.g. the idea of having wireless between houses
is to avoid using the internet for it. Security isn't the issue, but
racking up bandwidth utilization on either the cable or DSL is. I want
inter-house communication to work even if DSL and/or cable is down.
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-21-1537@xxxxxxxx |
- Re: Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624
- From: John Navas
- Re: Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624
- Prev by Date: Re: How do I share files (securely) using wifi modem/router?
- Next by Date: Re: Revised: Netgear WGPS606 <-> 2x Netgear WGT624
- Previous by thread: Re: Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624
- Next by thread: Re: Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624