1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Wireless Bridging - SECOND BRIDGE - How to?

Discussion in 'Networking & Security' started by lemonadesoda, Jan 5, 2009.

  1. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    I currently have a network setup represented in concept by the picture below. NOTE that there is only a SINGLE wireless bridge. Ignore the RED.

    [​IMG]

    The connection is 54Mbp/s using Netgear WG302's. As it turns out, all speedtesting indicates that although it operates with the 54Mbp/s protocol, actual best speeds are about 10-15Mbps. There is good line of sight. I just suspect that with earlier chipsets or with the power of the embedded processor, it cannot perform faster.

    15Mbps is fine for internet browsing, but awful for file movement. I would like to add a second bridge. Shown in red. I understand that the second bridge will not speed up transfers for ONE computer... but hopefully will mean that if a second computer tries to access the internet while the other computer is transferring files, it wont be blocked due to all bandwidth being allocated to the file transfer. This is actually really important because across the buildings we also have ISDN over IP, ie telephone. If someone is on the phone and someone else does a file transfer the line can go down due to loss of bandwidth.

    Can i do this, or is there now a network "loop" that will cause problems with DHCP and LAN routing, and maybe even bring the network down?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  2. DRDNA

    DRDNA

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,329 (1.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    936
    Location:
    New York
    In order to bridge your internet connection you will need to run the wireless and a lan or two wirless on your PC as there MUST be to actuall internet connections then right click on one of the connections and select bridge.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  3. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    23,826 (5.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,974
    Location:
    Indiana, USA
    Essentially this would be the same as connecting the two switches together with two cables. The problem is that the switch has to know which bridge to send data over. To do that you would need some kind of load balancer, which most switches do not have unless you have some expensive managed switches.

    Without a load balancer in place, all the data would travel over one bridge and the other would go relatively unused. I think the better solution would be to look into upgrading to a wireless-n bridge.
     
    lemonadesoda says thanks.
    10 Year Member at TPU Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  4. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    Any recommendations for an -n bridge?

    The other approach is that I could isolate ISDN over IP as a separate network segment, so data over one bridge and phone over the other. Shame. I had hoped to PnP, but I did suspect there would be a problem. Switches are plain, so load balancing, other than trivial QoS, is out.

    Or can VLAN or Spanning Tree help here?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  5. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    14,364 (3.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,308
    can't you just route your ISDN over IP to a separate switch all together? i would need to see an entire diagram of the whole setup.
    your second buildng doesnt have a LAN line? only WLAN access which is bridged from the first? whose idea was that? talk about a major security issue.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  6. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    [​IMG]

    Nope. No "high/national security" stuff going over the WEP'd bridge.

    Connect Building 2 directly to TELCO and WAN/Internet? Nope. Double charges for phone lines and internet service, plus setting up a VPN between the buildings is massively slower than WEP over "g", and is arguably opening an internet security issue which is much wider than 50 meters of potential wireless snoop.

    I would prefer to just add the additional WEP bridge. Great if I could make use of Spanning Tree or VLANs. The alternative is to put the ISDN over IP in building 2 on a separate switch. So Bridge 1 does data, and Bridge 2 does ISDN over IP. I've solved the phone issue, but there is no extra bandwidth across the data LAN user.

    OK. I'll adopt that method and retire unless anyone else has another suggestion. PS. Anyone know of a pro-grade wireless n bridge?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  7. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    14,364 (3.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,308
    so you would add a switch in building 2 just for the telco line and make sure the added switch is routed to the new wireless g bridge, right? that way the telco line is dedicated to that wireless bridge and you wont have to worry about dropping the connection anymore as long as the receiving bridge is routing directly to a separate switch as well. btw, how are you making those nifty diagrams?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  8. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    Easy Rhino says thanks.
    10 Year Member at TPU
  9. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    14,364 (3.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,308
    lol so i googled "pro grade wireless n bridge" to help you look for a good n bridge and the FIRST link is to this thread :laugh:

    TPU -> :slap: <- Internet

    also, did it take 10 minutes for smartdraw to install on your machine too?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  10. mrhuggles

    mrhuggles

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,540 (0.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    174
    ^--- best smiley ever i wish i noticed that befor :?
    :slap:
     
  11. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    1./ Yep, the situation sucks. Wireless bridging is clearly vary rarely used, and it seems to have "stopped" in 2005/6 with "g" grade APs. I have yet to find decent "n" grade APs that will bridge. :cry:

    2./ The setup.exe is just an online installer. Most of the install files are then pulled off the internet. Hence the long install time. However, there is also an offline installer... or there used to be. Perhaps they removed that due to hacks and cracks.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  12. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,480 (2.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,382
    Isn't there an option of using cables? Wireless isn't exactly reliable or fast.

    If you really have to use wireless, I know Linksys has some bridge only devices that are basically used to go from wire to wireless. They're client only. If you have one on each side, you can put an AP on each side as well. Connect one AP with one bridge, utilize connections based on the IP of the AP.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  13. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    Thanks for the insight. Gee, I should have used a cable. LOL. Unfortunately, it's not a option, Mr. Holmes.

    Your suggestion with Linksys; yes, I've briefly looked into these options. I dont like the idea of using a game adapter as a client ("n"), but I did consider it. however, it seems, from other forums, that everyone is having problems getting an "n" bridge, and some have defaulted back to mixing "n" and "g" which essentially is a "g" protocol bridge even though components are rated as "n" compatible. The whole situation looks half baked like engineers have just given up on developing "n". At "g" there are lots of options.

    If you know of any pro products that can really bridge two network segments as "n" that I'd be greatful for tips. I assume there is nothing in the consumer space and we would need to find some pro/enterprise stuff.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  14. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,480 (2.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,382
    I wasn't suggesting to use the gaming ones, they're just the easiest to find and great as an example to what I mean. Besides, it's not like they use different chips than other products. Anyway, doesn't DD-WRT support wireless bridges?

    If you want a professional setup, lasers/microwave are what you want. Though that's more expensive than the extra phone line.
     
    lemonadesoda says thanks.
    10 Year Member at TPU
  15. allen337

    allen337

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    967 (0.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    116
    Location:
    Danville IL
    I have a gigabyte motherboard with 2 lans and I have bridged them and it seems to lower the ping 10-20% for online gaming.Took forever to figure out howto actually bridge them right. You need to get bot lans working offline with drivers installed, go into control panel and open network connections,find the 2 lans and select 1 and hold down shift key and click the other,then right click and bridge connections, you will see a new mac bridge then. ALLEN
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  16. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,480 (2.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,382
    The difference is that it's a wireless bridge instead of a PC bridging two wired connections. Quite unrelated.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  17. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    Thanks Dan, last time I looked at DD-WRT it was pretty much Linksys only, and just a few models. I see it has really come on, supporting more devices, and I'll look into the "n" bridging again. :toast:
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  18. wiak

    wiak

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,859 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    242
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Norway
    Get 11n no point of 11g anymore
    11n is SOOO much faster and has greater range!
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  19. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    ^LOL. Now there's a man that didnt read the thread!
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  20. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    14,364 (3.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,308
    lol! how far apart are these two buildings? if you get really desperate you could toss a 100 meter 1000Mbit cable from one building to the next :laugh:
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  21. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    It's only 20 meters. But a public street in the middle! LOL. No cables.

    I just noticed a new product by DLINK

    http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=2&pid=683

    That could be what is needed to a T. But it is a $820 solution (2 needed) :(
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  22. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    14,364 (3.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,308
    that looks like something you want HOWEVER i really dont think upgrading to a wireless N bridge is going to solve your problem. lif anything it would be more of a bandaid. but if you are on a tight budget it may be your only choice.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  23. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    I notice that "n" is still "draft". How long is it before they are going to close the spec on "n"? Is this why there are so few enterprise class options available?

    Do you think the situation will change if they "close" the specification of "n" or its successor, so that engineers can actually build a classy product to a defined standard?

    "n" has been in draft for YEARS
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  24. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    14,364 (3.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,308
    good question. i dont know much the naming scheme but i know they are already working on something even better. wireless p and wireless s are on the horizon. p is for moving cars and such and s is sort of a mesh network. both will probably work together. check this out. the good stuff is toward the bottom.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  25. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,370 (1.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    991
    OK, found out some more stuff:

    1./ List of n products, incl. Drft 2.0 enterprise stuff (not much)
    http://certifications.wi-fi.org/wbc...te_to=&x=30&y=18&selected_certifications[]=33

    2./ Draft N started in 2004 but isnt due for finalising until Dec 2009!!!!

    3./ N is a bit of a whizz... it isnt really much better than g other than range and the use of channel bonding. We talk about "g" being 54Mbps and Super-g (bonded) at 108MBps. Well it seems that "n" is really going to be a "super-g" with mimo technology and MAYBE-IF-YOU-ARE-LUCKY the ability to resolve at double super g. But it isnt like a step up in the same way you get from 10/100/1000BaseT, or indeed from "b" to "g".

    "b" to "g" was a "theory" improvement of 5, but an in-practice improvement of 2. It seems that "g" to "n" is a "theory" improvement of 1-2, but an in-practice improvement of 3. Ie. it's not making big changes to theoreticals, but with MIMO should be more successful at achieving the theoreticals.

    4./ If you are in the 2.4GHz band range, you are NOT likely to get better speeds due to congested "b" and "g" airwaves. Just more range. But in 5Ghz band range, you could get much closer to the theoreticals.

    CONCLUSION
    If you go "n" you must get Draft 2.0 and 5Ghz compatibility
     
    10 Year Member at TPU

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)