Yes, you need to have a router in the equation. When you use the bridge,
you are effectivley creating you ouwn sub net; you need the router to serve
up local IP address and translate them between your network and the one you
are connecting to. Wireless routers act as Access Point, Hub, Router and
usually DHCP server.
"johnhh" wrote in message
news 
Skip, I believe you need to go bridge to router, not bridge to access
point.
"Skip Gundlach" wrote in message
...
Hi, Y'all, again,
Responding to several at once:
From: "Me"
Because your computer isn't using the WPA Protocol, but is using Client
Protocols, and what your Masthead repeater is trying to do, is use a
form of WPA that isn't universally accepted by all OEM's hardware. If
you had a wire up the mast then you could put hardware up their that
acted like a Client, but you refuse to consider that, so your busted
with no solution.
The first part, while I'm not technically grounded as to its deeper
impact,
makes sense. Yet, curiously, if I were to connect to the bridge directly
(ethernet, for example), it seems as though it would work (see, and
identify
shore points).
Note that I don't refuse to connect two devices by ethernet - I just want
them in the same general location. I'd love to have some effective means
of
sticking an antenna up the mast and have all the other stuff below, where
it
won't get wet (NEMA enclosures aside; I like it better under cover away
from
direct impact of water) - but everything I read tells me that I want the
very shortest (e.g. 1 foot max) antenna cable possible from the device.
Note also that I don't refuse to put a wire up there. I expected to put a
fairly substantial wire up there, the better to power with no loss from
distance (about 150ft RT for what might be 2A of 12V stuff, based on the
wall warts provided with the original gear). I just don't want any wires
connected to the computer I'm using to communicate.
If I wasn't clear about that, trying to bench-prove the setup had a
bridge
with a crossover cable connected to an AP, both with their own antennae.
Communication with either, separately, whether via ethernet or wifi, was
successful. It was only when I put the two together, via ethernet
crossover
cable, whether the typical 3-6' store job, or the custom one of 3" I made
up, that conflict messages began, and communication ceased.
Yes, I'm an appliance operator. And I don't know how to do celestial
navigation, either. Fortunately, smarter folks than I have solved that
problem, mostly. I'm hopeful someone smarter than any I've yet
encountered,
let alone than I, will have this problem solved. Finding where they've
hidden the solution is what this thread is about :{))
Onward:
From: "Peter Wiley"
Hasn't anyone tried using two wireless hubs at home?
We do it on a ship for joining 2 physical networks together. Works
fine. The Netgear devices we use can either be a bridge or a hub but
not both at the same time.
Ditto my setup - which is why I had two of them - one each AP and
Bridge.
However, your comment suggests I need, instead of an AP, a hub?
I'm not buying into this because most of the problems seems to come
down to Skip's determination not to run ethernet up the stick. Since I
think his reasons are trivially stupid, and he insists that's how it
has to be, he can sort it out himself. Some problems aren't worth
solving and I can recognise one when I see it.
Stupid is as... So, I'm stupid. Please help out the dim, one more time.
Why is it necessary to run ethernet up the stick? What is it which is on
both ends of the ethernet? If one of them is my computer, I've pretty
well
dumped the idea of wireless - and, if so, yes, I'm trivially stupid. Of
course, the cell phone and home-wireless handset wouldn't exist, either,
because it was trivially stupid to want not to be constrained by a cord,
however long.
I'm perfectly happy to have two, or however many devices necessary,
connected by straight or crossover ethernet cable. I just don't want the
thing I'm typing on to be one of them. And, if they're connected, I fail
(I
know, trivially stupid, here) to see why they can't be close together
instead of however far it takes for one (or more) to be at the top of the
mast and another somewhere else.
I've discovered, many times, that I don't communicate well. So, if this
comes across as argumentative, it's not. It's incomprehend-ative.
So, again, my plea: If you know of a way to have my wireless computer
communicate via a much higher antenna, up the mast being the highest
point
on the boat, to shore points in a fashion approximating what my wireless
computer ("wifi" in common-speak) can do if the signal is strong enough
(note that all I'm trying to do here is enhance the signal in both
directions, something I'm led to believe can't be done effectively
without
the amplification being right next to the antenna) or/and can do without
extra gear if in the right place (adequate signal strength), please share
that with me.
I have reason to believe that I'm not the only one who'd like a solution,
not counting the folks who've written to me asking for the outcome, being
unwilling to withstand the barbs and slings I manage to magnetically
draw,
usually :{)), presuming them to be a topically-induced phenomenon, and
not
my prickly personality...
Onward:
"Terry Spragg" wrote in message
...
Skip, have you tried changing the IP address of a second wireless
router, and connecting the two together by ethernet? It seems an AE
up the mast can't see your wireless laptop, and a deck height ae
can't reach the shore?
Unfortunately for me, I've tried all sorts of IP configurations, all
designed to minimize the potential for conflict. Modes tried include
very
high last numbers (i.e. 150+), oddball classes (instead of 192, using 10,
15, etc.). And, unlike the obvious miscommunication(S, emphasis added)
which I've evidently done must have conveyed, the *only* time I get
conflicts is when I connect the two with a crossover cable. If it's a
straight through, of course, not being a hub in between, they don't see
each
other at all, thus not minding, at all - but then, I can't talk to them,
either. To reiterate, with one talking to my computer via ethernet, and
the
other via wifi, they do just fine, including when I swap (the other now
ethernet, the first now wifi). When I connect the two, and try to reach
either via wifi, they don't communicate. Immediately upon powering with
ethernet between them, regardless of IP configuration, multiple conflict
messages ensue.
I've not actually tried wifi afloat, my boat having been on the hard for
nearly 18 months. But, I anticipate a much weaker signal than would be
seen
by my laptop, and, if omnidirectional, orientation being no event, an
amplified bridge would see the shore point. The trick is for me to be
able
to communicate with that bridge - again, pardon the expression - without
having to be tied to it via ethernet or any other wire, from my laptop.
I was originally led to believe that I could - that is, just use my
laptop
and a bridge - but was persuaded that it wouldn't work, and I'd need an
AP
to see my laptop, and the bridge to see multiple shore points.
Complicating
matters is that I need to be able to choose which of the shore points the
bridge sees to pass through to me. Thus all this discussion. The prior
two
posters seem to feel it's all solved with an ethernet up the mast - but,
connected to *what????* If it's my computer, I've lost the wifi
objective.
If something else, why not put it up the mast with the other device, so
both
can be powered at the same point?? Trivially stupid here, I remain
clueless. Please help the helpless.
One might expect the routers to be connected to an on board computer
to act as a bridge, but I don't see why, short of software patches,
it couldn't work without a bridge.
Hasn't anyone tried using two wireless hubs at home?
Most likely the home computer would be connected via ethernet to the ISP,
whether DSL or Cable broadband. Thus, having two wireless hubs (I
presume -
see trivially stupid, above, to presume, also, that I could be all wet,
metaphorically) wouldn't be needed.
However, can you elucidate about doing without a bridge?
Ideally, I'd just have a honking big gain antenna up the mast, seeing the
shorepoints, connected to and talking to some amplified
hub/router/whatever,
which my computer could see wirelessly. My current wireless lan (wifi in
my
computer) program would then sort out the available spots as to which I
wanted to connect.
Surely, I'd love to hear "OH!!! That's what you want to do!!! I thought
you wanted (whatever everyone's been telling me can't be done) to...
Here's the name of that device; choose your poison as to which
manufacturer
you use. Let us know how it works out!" - but I'm not holding my
breath...
As usual, thanks for the discussion. Has the foregoing elucidated or
obfuscated my objective(s) (and challenge[s])? If the foregoing, are we
any
closer to a solution?
L8R
Skip, 10 days out from active rehab so I can begin movement toward
refitting
again, wifi being one of the projects...
--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig
http://tinyurl.com/384p2 The vessel as Tehamana, as we bought her
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore.
Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain
|