AP, Bridge or Router?
 

Hello,

I've got a linksys ADSL modem/router (wireless) connecting to the Net.
I can connect to it wired or wireless.

I want to connect it to another remote machine/network wirelessly
but via ethernet, not by adding wireless specific hardware to machines.

I bought another linksys box (ADSL/gateway/router) but this seems to
be designed for connection to a DSL modem only and no matter what
sub netting and everything I can't even ping from one to the other.
(They both work, wireless part)

So I assume a wireless router is not the same as a wired router?

Now, can anyone advise me on what to buy.
Do i need an access point or a bridge.

Ideally I want the remote machine to be on a subnet.

ok...
not sure where you're going with this, as i haven't had enough coffee yet this morning, let's try and spell it out--

you have:
1) DSL "Modem"
2) Linksys hardware
a) wireless router
b) wired router


you're asking about AP/Bridge for wireless -- let's explain what those do:

AccessPoint is just that -- it is a wireless access point, and in a sense acts as a wireless server broadcasting the signal clients can connect to.

Bridge allows the bridging of a wireless/wired network. Perhaps an example: My home network feeds wireless to two PCs and random laptops. To get ethernet upstairs connected to ethernet downstairs, i use the existing wireless access point downstairs and a wireless bridge (which connects to the wireless network, and hosts an ethernet port) upstairs.

the difference between wireless router and wired router:
they both will have ethernet connections, but one will also serve as wireless access point.

hope that rambling helps...


edit:
here's an illustration
http://mattchase.us/diagram.gif

Thanks for the help.
Basically I have the same idea as you.
This is how I've been trying to set up:

But I can't seem to get any connect between the two boxes.
I can't ping one box from the other even when I've assigned both routers to the
same subnet. (They do both work for sure!)
The second router I believe is wrong. It's designed for plugging into
an ADSL modem but I thought that as it's a router and gateway too
it should be able to talk to the main box.
But apparently not.

I've enabled RIP, tried static routing nothing.
I think it wants to connect to a proper WAN and nothing else.

What d'ya say?

So from what you say I want a wireless bridge?

O.K., this networking is all black magic to me, but here goes.
The diagram in the last post seems to be same subnet - looks like you want a repeater function.

I do this with D-link gear, and it works a treat. At the time, I got the only box that supported repeater in a price range normal people could afford; a 900AP+.
Wouldn't talk to my old wireless router according to D-link, but with a bit of configuring it does fine.
I can carry a laptop out to the BBQ and hit the net to solve those last couple of crossword clues ;)

May well be more out there that do repeater now, but check the specs *REAL* carefully.

It's actually quite easy.
(Using conventional sub-netting)

the netmask of 255.255.255.128
gives two subnets,

192.168.1.0 - 192.168.1.128

192.168.1.129 - 192.168.1.255

the netrmask is:

11111111. 11111111.11111111.10000000

the next netmask is 192.168.1.192

11111111. 11111111.11111111.11000000

which gives four subnets.
The subnets go up one bit at a time, the next is therefore .224 (192 + 32) = .11100000

It's the non-zero bits in the last quad that determine
how many subnets.

.128 we have 0,1 = 2
.192 we have 00,01,10,11 = 4
.224 we have 000, 001, 010 ... etc = 8 subnets

Then the remaining bits are what's left over for actual hosts.

I think I'm right here! ;)

I didn't read that last post, forget about the repeater, dump the second (bottom, by the diagram) router, and replace with wireless bridge. This bridge will be configured as client to the first wireless access point and provide ethernet to the pc 192.168.1.30

Nice diagram. Really nice.

Unless of course you have a really old wireless router that doesn't do bridging.
Like me. Then you do repeating.
Hard to justify tossing out a working piece of kit :(

doesn't do bridging? the "Bridge" is just a client to the access point, and serves to "Bridge" the ethernet network to the wireless network

a "repeater" by definition, would serve to "repeat" or "amplify" the existing wireless signal, not performing the conversion to ethernet, and thereby not providing a solution to the problem (as i understand the problem)

Cheers for the help fellas.

So a bridge it is.

I can disable the wireless on the second box and use that as
an ethernet switch, I hope. It seems to work in that capacity at least.

It's surprising how little good information there seems to be on the 'net
for this sort of stuff.


(I've been reading RFCs a lot) ;)

Yours is excellent too, secesh.

if you plug the bridge into the wan port of the second router (i assume it has one) then you'll have a second network segment, and need a new ip range/netmask, but then you'll have full port capabilities of the switch...

It does indeed have a WAN port.
Hopefully the first will DHCP it.

superb!
That sounds like just what I want!

It's fun all this netmask stuff!