try one of the networking forums either under comp. or microsoft
groups.

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

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

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

Hi, Damian, and thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm sorry, I appeared to
have missed this one before. It appears it may have the germ of a
solution....

How come/can my computer see and talk to shore points without knowing
all
the Mac stuff, but a bridge can't?

It doesn't need to. On any network, machines see each other's MAC
addresses,
that's what is established when you join the network.

Gotcha, I think. Certainly, when I ask for info on either of the two
programs I currently use (one came with the machine, the other came with the
Hawking external antenna), I can get all the IPs of my machine, the external
machine/network and my assigned address thereon.

Probably my advice is somewhat confused by your use of the word bridge. In
networks, you might find it easier to think of a bridge as a two-port hub.

Gotcha. And, that does help the visualization.

Packets that come in one end are duplicated at the other. A bridge that
joins a wireless network and a wired one is not different in this regard,
just the "ports" are internal to the unit, which probably has a wireless
"hub" and an ethernet switch, joined by the bridge.

Also, gotcha. The antenna is the wireless end, and the RJ45 port is the
wired end, the bridge being the "hub" in the middle. The wireless end can
see any number (in the point-to-multipoint mode) of shoreside "ports" - my
challenge is to choose which I want to talk to.

The problem as I understand what you are trying to do, is that you want
to run the device as an access point in infrastructure BSS (basic service
set) mode, so that your laptop can talk to it as a client, but also to act
as a client and communicate with another access point.

I believe that's correct, though I didn't know the terminology. I just want
to be able to get on my laptop and talk to shore, using (on my laptop)
"masthead" (the name of the port to which my laptop is communicating) to
talk to "shoreside" (the bridge/router/hub which sees shore points), in
order to isolate which of the shore points' info makes it to (and back out
for transmission after I've done something with info) the wifi in my laptop.

For your laptop to comminucate with your access point, the access point
must be configured to offer a wireless network to join. The "local"
wireless
network is identified by a SSID, which really is the mac of the wireless
interface on the access point. On the other hand, to join another wireless
network would mean not doing that, but rather acting as your laptop does
when it joins to your local network.

I'm not quite getting this one. When I crank up the laptop, and the
internal wifi engages, the strongest signal (since it's right above me) will
be "masthead" - so it goes to that one, first. So far, so good. "Masthead
is wired (cat5 crossover) to "shoreside" - which, I hope, will see lots of
points ashore. However, I need to be able to communicate with "shoreside"
in order to tell it which one to which I want to talk. From the above, I
gather there's a challenge in that, somewhere? If "masthead" were something
else, would that solve the problem (that is, not an AP), but still allow
"shoreside" to tell me what it sees, and let me choose?

This is why I suggested the simplest solution is to use two wireless
devices
connected *to each other* by ethernet. You have one device configured to
act as the BSS mode access point, and the other to act as a wireless
ethernet client. You'd configure your local wireless network on the first,
and join it with your laptop. You should then be able to communicate with
the other over the wireless link to the access point, and then the
ethernet.
You'd then be remote-controlling the masthead "client" device, and use it
to connect to other networks. Realistically, one or other of these devices
would need to also be a router that can do network address translation
(NAT)
once the data link layer is established, but that's beyond the scope of
getting that link established in the first place.

Aha :{)) So, given the foregoing...

I do something on my internal wifi configuration to automate the connection
to the BSS (not yet understanding that terminology, but, then, I don't
understand how the cpu does its stuff, either - it's enough that it does!),
which, then, passes me through to the bridge in the boot-up stages, and from
there I choose the shoreside point for communication? For example, in my
bench testing, I gave it the same class of IP as the one I was trying to
reach on the bench. Thus, I fixed the IP in the wifi as, say,
192.168.100.160, so it could talk to my bridge which has a default of
192.168.100.1. If that's the key, I'm certainly ok with that (but it
apparently will have to be something other than the same AP as I had
connected to the bridge, as - for whatever reason - that seems to be the
cause of the IP conflicts, despite their being totally disparate
configurations [one being, e.g., 192etc and the other 10.10.10.150]) - but
will need to find out what other device I need to get.

And, to reiterate, having apparently not been clear in the past, I have no
problem with connecting the two of these, however needed (presumed XO
cat5) - I just don't want to connect my computer with a wire to anything.
From what you've said, that's a do-able project. (?)

It is certainly possible for all this functionality to be combined in one
device, but I'd strongly suspect that no such device exists. Consider the
material above, and the very specific context you are outlining.

Heh. One device is just frosting. I can rube goldberg with the best of
them :{))

I acknowledge being just smart enough to be dangerous but implicitly, if
some other device can do it, another should be able to, no?

Well, you didn't answer my question earlier about whether you were trying
to connect two network devices with a straight through or a crossover
cable.
It shouldn't be complex: you can buy pre-made crossover cables as readily
as you can straight through ones.

Gotcha. I made up a 3" so as to not waste space with unused length in the
NEMA, but they still didn't work, whether factory 6' or my 3", on the bench.
Sorry I missed that one.

So, given all the foregoing, I've got, in hand, two (only might need one)
senao 2611 highpower (200mw, 23dB) deluxe units. Curiously, they are just
the PCMCIA 200mw card on a board; they have two antenna attachment points to
which one can put an external antenna. The vendor, in frustration, had me
take one out and put it into the laptop to see if that changed matters, and
to prove that it worked there. Either can be either a bridge, in either of
point-to-point or point-to-multipoint modes, or an AP. Their software is
accessible via http address, and shows which IPs are 'associated' in the
case of the AP (which ones have been recognized) and among which to choose
in the case of the bridge.

Given that they've emphatically shown that they won't play well together
when we try to be able to talk to them (needing a specific mac, rather than
dhcp, else we couldn't find them? I'd been instructed by the vendor to begin
by naming my wifi or nic, whichever I was on during the bench tests, the
same basic [i.e. 192.168etc] set as the device), I can't seem to use the two
of them. However, as they're great items by themselves, perhaps something
else than the AP to connect to the bridge is the solution?

Thanks again for your input. I think we may possibly be going down the
right trail.

L8R

Skip, awaiting the arrival of the nav computer later today, on which all
this will happen!

--
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

Update: Today, my NewGoogleEmployeeSon came by on his way to Ireland, where
he'll be based.

As his job is to make sure networks work well, I thought he might be able to
shed some light on my challenges (see "antennas, again, sorta" thread for
lengthy discussion).

After 30 minutes, we couldn't make *one* of the units work well, let alone
both, and especially together.

Seems my prior solution is well and truly not going to work. So, back to
the question, having totally left off obsessing about this for a week,
instead obsessing about getting corporate resolutions signed and new deeds
drawn and other stuff related to our departure.

Back to obsession: Any suggestions for other venues which deal more
directly with this stuff? Any additional input from the PingDamian thread?

Thanks.

L8R

Skip, champing at the bit to get into active rehab so I can get back into
active refit


--
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

A brief review, and perhaps, a restatement of the problem (left below for
newcomers) in a different light which might get some of the creative minds
here going in a different direction.

I've got this neat bridge (Senao 2611DB3 Deluxe) in a NEMA enclosure atop
the mast, with an 8.5 dBi antenna connected to it via a 6" pigtail
(virtually no signal loss). It's 200mw, so it reaches out really far (23
dBm). It's antenna is omidirectional so it doesn't matter which direction
the boat's pointing. The signal pattern is fat enough to cover sea level to
many hundred feet high from the typical anchoring location. It's
point-to-multipoint so it can see any available "visible" access point.
Because my XP network program controls for me, I can select which of the
available access points it sees that I want to talk to.

Connected to my computer via ethernet, and powered with 12V via separately
appropriately sized wire, both up the mast, it sees a WAAAY farther than the
card in my laptop would, allowing me a great deal more latitude in finding a
usable signal when I'm at anchor, wherever that may be.

However, I'd really like to shed the wired connection (the ethernet
connected to my computer, as it's a laptop and I'd like to be able to carry
it up on deck without a tether).

Unfortunately, a bridge won't talk in both directions over the antenna. How
can I get some other wireless device (one which can talk to my computer) to
seamlessly (so I see my remote AP as though it were coming in via my laptop
antenna) talk to my bridge?

There may be a variety of voltages of whatever this device may need; I'll
work out getting power to it, and, as long as I'm having more than one -
Schaeffer fans from the northern US may recall that ditty? - I'll put it up
the mast, in the enclosure, too, so there's essentially no distance between
the two, in case that's of any issue.

Can this be done? Can I put some other wireless device (that is, which can
see my computer's wifi) in connection with my bridge, so I can see (and
choose which of potentially many) a remote AP? If so, what is that device?

Better, is there a device which already integrates those functions?

Thanks.

L8R

Skip, about to enter active rehab, the sooner to get back to active refit
and eventual launch!

--
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
"Skip Gundlach" wrote in message
...
Starting a new thread as the old one led to dead ends.

For a précis on the background, see the thread "Antennas, again, sorta" -
but I'm trying to find an up-the-mast single-item (or single box, anyway)
which will see my wifi connection in my laptop as well as shore points.
To
emphasize the point, I don't want to have to connect either a laptop or
permanently mounted computer to a bridge (which would get the job done)
via
anything, ethernet, USB active cable, coax or otherwise. Even allowing a
wireless AP/router below would not solve the problem, as I haven't found a
pair which will talk to each other, and I don't want the complexity/extra
wiring that would entail, either, if it would (work). Some sort of
arrangement which would require proprietary eqiupment (Part A will talk to
Part B only if they're both the same manufacturer, e.g, as I can't assure
that any shoreside point would have that manufacturer) likewise isn't
satisfactory. Amplification is a good thing (i.e. 200-1000mw) but the
antennas are what most likely will get the job done, and I have that part
handled.

The problem so far has been that I can't find an AP and Bridge which will
talk to each other. Surely there's something which will work, and can
take
common DC power up the mast?

Since nobody here (or, at least, apparently so) knows of such a beast, can
anyone point me to better forums on usenet, or websites, devoted to the
subject? Perhaps some sites devoted to wardriving or the equivalent?
It's
a bit of a recursive loop, as not knowing what will actually accomplish
the
job makes looking other places for other solutions more challenging.

Thanks for suggestions on other venues...

L8R

Skip, passive rehabbing, active to start in a couple of weeks, so I can
get
back to refitting!

--
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

"Skip Gundlach" wrote in
news
Skip

Skip, does the bridge show up as one of the connections or is it just a
transparent repeater in bridge/repeater mode IF you disconnect the cable
and look at the connections from your wireless modem in the notebook?

I'd think the bridge, itself, would show up as a station if you had a
wireless notebook in range of it. Then, once connected to the bridge's
repeater, you'd have some kind of access to the stations the bridge
repeater is hearing THROUGH it, like a webpage it creates, etc....

When you are directly connected to it, is there an html webpage to control
the bridge from the Ethernet port? It should have some kind of control,
either webpage-based (html) or FTP-based so you can turn its repeater
function on and off in the wireless mode.

I'd call the company and talk to them. I think it's just turned off of
being a wireless repeater, which is what you're trying to do. You should
be able to connect to its wireless LAN port, just like you do on Ethernet,
where it gives you a LAN IP address via DHCP server, then it should have a
menu you'd select the external wireless WAN from to connect your bridge's
port to the distant WiFi POP.

--
Larry

Hi, Skip.

[ Sorry I didn't follow up earlier, been avoiding computers while on leave,
and I felt this required an exhaustive examination ]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:56:41 -0400, Skip Gundlach said:
...
Connected to my computer via ethernet, and powered with 12V via separately
appropriately sized wire, both up the mast, it sees a WAAAY farther than the
card in my laptop would, allowing me a great deal more latitude in finding a
usable signal when I'm at anchor, wherever that may be.

So what you are saying is: it work with ethernet. This is good.

However, I'd really like to shed the wired connection (the ethernet
connected to my computer, as it's a laptop and I'd like to be able to carry
it up on deck without a tether).

Please correct me if I have misinterpreted something here, but the way I see
what you want is this:

+--------+ wifi +----------+ ethernet +-------+ wifi +----------+
| laptop | )))) | Cabin AP +----------+ Senao + )))) + Shore AP +-internet
+--------+ +----------+ +-------+ +----------+

And you have already managed to get this to work:

+--------+ ethernet +-------+ wifi +----------+
| laptop +----------+ Senao + )))) + Shore AP +-internet
+--------+ +-------+ +----------+

Is this correct?

So what you need to troubleshoot is getting your laptop to talk to the
Senao via the additional access point in your cabin. You mentioned
having tried a crossover cable and getting some sort of error?

A lot is going to depend on how the devices are configured.

I've looked up the product datasheet for your Senaos, it looks like
they operate as either access points, or in "bridge-to-bridge" mode,
which doesn't say anything specific to me, except that it's maybe the
case thay they can't do both at the same time. They do look like
pretty neat units, and it'd be a shame if they didn't end up being
able to do the job you're asking them to do.

Now, you are able to get your laptop to talk nicely to one of them in
the cabin, but once the two are connected to each other you're not able
to get the laptop to talk to either? I'm thinking that if one is in AP
mode and the other in point-to-point mode, their connecting to each other
by both wifi and ethernet, and this won't really work.

One possibility is to make note of the MAC addresses of the wifi interfaces
in both, and in your laptop, and then configure the device acting as an AP
to allow connections only from speicific MACs, list your laptop's wifi
interface's MAC but not hte other bridge's one.

And of course it must be a crossover cable between them.

You talked about trying to get vendor support on this? Maybe the diagrams
above will help with which bit needs to be sorted out. If it's possible,
you could take both devices and your laptop in to somewhere one of their
engineers can make the difference between the diagrams above work for you?

I hope this help, please feel free to chase me up by email if you reckon
me talking through it and identifying the bits that stand out to me as
issues is of some value.

Cheers,
Damian

Hi,

I'm no expert on wireless but it sounds like the bridge should be in
AP mode if poss and connected to something to do some routing. This
could be a router or even an old laptop.

For a starter you could try setting the bridge to AP mode then running
a proxy on your laptop connected to the bridge via ethernet. Then try
getting another laptop to connect to the AP and use the proxy to get
out to the internet.

If the bridge can't act as an AP you could try having an old laptop to
connect to the bridge then a separate 'ad hoc' connection between that
and your other laptop. Maybe an AP and router could connect directly
to the bridge.

Best to find out if the bridge can act as an AP or connect directly to
an AP and take it from there.

cheers,
Pete.