Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Terry Spragg
wrote: Skip Gundlach wrote: 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... 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? 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? 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. 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. PDW |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Skip, like you, I know just enough to be dangerous. I use a wireless bridge
connected by a one foot cable to a d-link wireless router. These two items sit alone hidden away in the corner (not up the mast however). The bridge is connected to an outdoor antenna via 30' of cable and connects to the shore-side access point and my laptop connects wirelessly to the d-link. I could just as well wrap these two together and hoist them up the mast but would have to power them and they are not outdoor gear. The hard thing with this system for me is that the bridge has to be preconfigured--it can't browse for available networks. Forgive me if I am rambling on. I suspect you are already way beyond me, but I'm not sure some of the other posters are. "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 |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Antennas, again, sorta (WiFi connerctiviy afloat) | Cruising | |||
FAQ: Surviving Usenet: A Guide for the Earnest Newcomer | General |