Re: Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:02:28 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

| I'm beginning to see why you couldn't find the necessary information on
| wireless networking in the beginning -- you're not taking the time to
| absorb the information you're reading. Go back and look at the start of
| my post, where I wrote: "at least get started". I didn't say it was a
| complete or permanent solution.

In the beginning I really failed to do the research I should have done.
I already understand wired ethernet technology well (I've build quite a
number of networks, many with unusual topologies), some all switched,
some with VLANs, and some heavily subnetted and routed. Most had some
mix of things. Additionally, I understand radio modulation, analog and
digital, and issues related to radio communication, such as interference,
noise, signal loss, etc. I know that ethernet over wireless would not
be as simple as ethernet over a single coax bus. But I also know that in
basic form it really can be like that, with some intelligence used to
overcome the radio limitations. I even understand the security it would
need.

What I rarely understand are the social engineering issues. Things like
the squabbling that takes place in standards committees, and why it is
they will go ahead and make choices towards less than optimal technology.
Of course I do understand why some patent holders of some technology would
lobby to have their technology chosen. But it makes no sense to me why
the rest would accept that technology if it is not the actual and true
best technology to choose.

Basically, I've held a vision for years, well over a decade, of exactly
how to do this kind of technology, marrying radio and networking. What
we have today isn't too far from it. I would have used OFDM right from
the beginning, merely varying the signaling rate to vary data rate, for
example. But for the infrastructure, I definitely would not have any
device intentionally discard data frames from other devices unless there
was a good reason to do so (uncorrectable errors, security authentication
fails, not addressed to this or known reachable devices, known to have a
better path elsewhere, etc).

If I were to make an access point device that actually would talk to
another access point device, many problems would be solved that are today
merely solved by having redundant equipment, often utilizing more channels
than necessary. I've heard horror stories of multi-office buildings being
overloaded on wireless, and now I can see why. Perhaps some of these
issues are perptrated by the vendors themselves in an effort to drive up
more sales by making people have to buy even more devices just to make
their network function. Given the existance of third part firmware, it
sure suggests that the original vendors are either doing that, or are just
not keeping up with what is technically possible to do, especially in the
area of switching frames and routing packets.

So perhaps I really should look at 3rd party firmware, but not so much
for just loading something someone has written to do something better,
but perhaps to actually get into doing this writing myself. OpenWRT
sure seems like a good starting point. Assuming the limitations where
a device refuses to talk to another instance of itself is not in the
hardware, maybe I really can make an access point talk to another access
point, and make a client bridge really talk to another client bridge,
and do both of these things in the same one device. It's all in the
programming (hopefully).

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-22-1426@xxxxxxxx |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
.

Relevant Pages