O/T Wireless Networking

[EggHd]

Maybe this is obvious and should be to me....

I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my
and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with
Airport 2.04 software. Working very well.

The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2)

Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are
from the base station, the slower the speed.

So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation -
sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card
compared to a B base station?

Does this make sense?


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2) >>

Oops. Model number is MR814 V2




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2) >>

Oops. Model number is MR814 V2




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd > wrote:
>I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my
>and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with
>Airport 2.04 software. Working very well.
>
>The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2)
>
>Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are
>from the base station, the slower the speed.

The slower speed is due to a higher error rate. If you had an error rate
display, you would see the errors increasing and therefore the number of
retransmissions increasing.

>So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation -
>sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card
>compared to a B base station?

No. BUT, if you get B cards with better receivers and more power, and/or
external antennae, the speed will be faster at a distance because the error
rates will drop. Think of your problem as being too many retransmissions
not as being too slow throughput.

If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will increase
but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if
you are still using the 2.4 GC band. If you're using the higher band, I dunno.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd > wrote:
>I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my
>and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with
>Airport 2.04 software. Working very well.
>
>The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2)
>
>Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are
>from the base station, the slower the speed.

The slower speed is due to a higher error rate. If you had an error rate
display, you would see the errors increasing and therefore the number of
retransmissions increasing.

>So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation -
>sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card
>compared to a B base station?

No. BUT, if you get B cards with better receivers and more power, and/or
external antennae, the speed will be faster at a distance because the error
rates will drop. Think of your problem as being too many retransmissions
not as being too slow throughput.

If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will increase
but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if
you are still using the 2.4 GC band. If you're using the higher band, I dunno.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EggHd]

<< If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will
increase
but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if
you are still using the 2.4 GC band. >>

OK. But let me ask you this... Given the G router is sending "faster" data
through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the
same distance than the B card?

If the B card goes down from 11 to 5 to whatever at a distance, would the G be
faster that the same distance?

Do I just not get it?





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will
increase
but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if
you are still using the 2.4 GC band. >>

OK. But let me ask you this... Given the G router is sending "faster" data
through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the
same distance than the B card?

If the B card goes down from 11 to 5 to whatever at a distance, would the G be
faster that the same distance?

Do I just not get it?





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Given the G router is sending "faster" data
through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the
same distance than the B card? >>

The same distance from the B router. Oops.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Given the G router is sending "faster" data
through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the
same distance than the B card? >>

The same distance from the B router. Oops.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[reddred]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << Given the G router is sending "faster" data
> through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card
at the
> same distance than the B card? >>
>
> The same distance from the B router. Oops.
>

I think you're thinking 'faster' when 'wider' is more accurate. Think of it
as a pipe (g router) that goes to a resizer then into a smaller pipe (b
cards). The smaller pipe will still control the flow. You can only recieve
data as fast as your pc cards will take it in.

Is there a reason you don't want to switch to 802.11g cards as well? They
are getting pretty cheap, around $40 retail.

jb

[reddred]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << Given the G router is sending "faster" data
> through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card
at the
> same distance than the B card? >>
>
> The same distance from the B router. Oops.
>

I think you're thinking 'faster' when 'wider' is more accurate. Think of it
as a pipe (g router) that goes to a resizer then into a smaller pipe (b
cards). The smaller pipe will still control the flow. You can only recieve
data as fast as your pc cards will take it in.

Is there a reason you don't want to switch to 802.11g cards as well? They
are getting pretty cheap, around $40 retail.

jb

[Logan Shaw]

EggHd wrote:

> Maybe this is obvious and should be to me....
>
> I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my
> and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with
> Airport 2.04 software. Working very well.
>
> The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2)
>
> Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are
> from the base station, the slower the speed.

I don't know exactly how 802.11 stuff works, but either it's have
to retransmit (as someone else has stated) or it's falling back
to a mode with simpler, more robust modulation and a lower bit rate.

Either way, the problem is that the radio signal isn't strong enough
when it gets to where it needs to be.

Anyway, the MR814v2 that you have has a built-in antenna with a gain
of about 2 dBi. You can get omni antennas with a gain of at least
12 dBi and probalby more. I'm not sure if the MR814v2 supports
external antennas or not, but it seems like something to investigate.

Another approach is to just update everything to 54 megabit stuff.
Then, even if you drop down to (say) 1/4 speed, you're going at 1/4
of 54 megabit, which is considerably faster than 1/4 of the 11 megabit
that 802.11b is capable of. Of course, it'll do no good to update
just the access point, since it will have to "speak 802.11b" to
the Macs.

Still another approach is to try to optimize the equipment you
already have. Do you have a 2.4 GHz cordless phone at home?
If so, then that phone is operating at the same frequency,
and the phone and the network are competing against each other.
You could try moving them further apart (put the phone's base
station in the other end of the house) or something similar.

You might also experiment with placement of the Netgear base
station. Apparently omni antennas are omni in a plane, and once
you leave that plane, it drops off quickly. So, make sure your
antenna is oriented such that the plane covers the house. You
might also want to move it to a more central location or move
it away from metal things or thick walls that will mess with
the signal.

- Logan

[George Perfect]

In this place, EggHd was recorded saying ...
> Maybe this is obvious and should be to me....
>
> I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my
> and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with
> Airport 2.04 software. Working very well.
>
> The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2)
>
> Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are
> from the base station, the slower the speed.
>
> So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation -
> sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card
> compared to a B base station?
>
> Does this make sense?

Only if you chnage the cards in the laptops to 'G' types at the same
time. Otherwise, the bandwidth is still constrained by the 'B' cards
(though the problem is caused by transmission error rather than outright
bandwidth constraints).

--
George
Newcastle, England

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth by hitting back - Piet Hein

[Logan Shaw]

Logan Shaw wrote:

> EggHd wrote:

>>Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are
>>from the base station, the slower the speed.

> I don't know exactly how 802.11 stuff works, but either it's have
> to retransmit (as someone else has stated) or it's falling back
> to a mode with simpler, more robust modulation and a lower bit rate.

I just did a little google-based research, so I wanted to elaborate
a bit on this.

With 802.11b, the maximum date rate is 11 megabits. But, there are
four different data rates available to be used under varying conditions:
1 megabit (DBPSK modulation), 2 megabit (DQPSK modulation), 5.5 megabit
(CCK modulation), and 11 megabit (also CCK modulation). So, depending
on conditions, your "11 megabit" network might be transmitting at
1, 2, 5.5, or 11 megabits. The further away you get, the more
likely it is to be transmitting at one of the lower speeds.

With 802.11g, a whole different set of data rates exists. (And it
apparently uses different types of modulation too, possibly OFDM for
everything.) The data rates seem to be 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48,
and 54 megabits. So your "54 megabit" network might be transmitting
at any of those speeds.

Also, note that one device can slow another down. Imagine you
have two laptops and one access point. One laptop is just across
the room from the access point and so is operating at the full
11 megabits. The other laptop is out on the fringe (back porch
or something) and so has had to drop down all the way to 1 megabit
rate to keep connected. Problem is, when the fringe laptop
transfers a chunk of data, it takes it 10 times as long to do
so as the nearby laptop. And everything is sharing one channel,
and that channel is tied up for 10 times as long, basically.
One fringe laptop can hog the channel for so much time it's
like having 10 laptops near the access point.

Obviously, the best solution (assuming you have a good radio
environment and have eliminated interference like cordless phones)
seems to be to replace everything with 802.11g. Even if 802.11g
drops down to its lowest possible speed, you're still at 6 megabit,
and the fastest possible speed for 802.11a is not even twice
that fast, so that's a big difference between the two types.

- Logan

[Laurence Payne]

On 14 Aug 2004 02:31:22 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

>Maybe this is obvious and should be to me....
>
>I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my
>and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with
>Airport 2.04 software. Working very well.
>
>The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2)
>
>Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are
>from the base station, the slower the speed.
>
>So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation -
>sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card
>compared to a B base station?
>
>Does this make sense?


This can be argued theoretically. But the practical answer is
"maybe".

As the signal strength drops with distance, you're having to resend
packets of information, or maybe even dropping down to a slower data
rate. Just like a dial-up modem does on a bad line.

I suspect you might see most improvement from resiting your base
station, playing with the aerial (is a better one available?) than by
changing equipment.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Arny Krueger]

"EggHd" > wrote in message


> Maybe this is obvious and should be to me....
>
> I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards
> in both my and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and
> driving the card with Airport 2.04 software. Working very well.

> The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2)

> Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the
> computers are from the base station, the slower the speed.

That's life in the big city. Speed decreases with decreasing signal
strength, beyond a certain point. However, if you can't get respectible
distances, you may have a problem.

> So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G
> router/basestation - sending data to B cards, will the speed be
> faster at a distance at the card compared to a B base station?

No, you need matching G cards to go with the G base station if you want the
speed boost, unless perchance the G base station just happens to put out a
stronger signal.

I have about a half-dozen customer installs of wireless mac/PC systems, not
including the one in my house that basically serves my daughter's Powerbook.
Every one of them works, but my happiness with them varies.

For example, not all cards and not all base stations of a kind are equal.
I've found that for example, Belkin cards, USB wireless, and base stations
seem to be way down on range compared to the competition.

The equipment changes so fast that at times I've had trouble getting
matching hardware without a lot of hassle, because some of it went out of
production.

In general, I find that Netgear stuff is pretty credible, readily availble
and competitively priced.

The simplist, cheapest solution to longer range can often be to just toss in
another base station some distance from the first.

If you have a wireless LAN with two base stations, the PCs will pick the
stronger one automagically. Security is easiest if all base stations have
the same access control codes. Set their channels to channels no closer than
alternate channels because adjacent channels overlap. At current pricing
(as low as $20 with rebates) this can be a very economically attractive
option.

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd > wrote:
><< If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will
>increase
>but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if
>you are still using the 2.4 GC band. >>
>
>OK. But let me ask you this... Given the G router is sending "faster" data
>through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the
>same distance than the B card?

No, because the G router will be talking in B mode all the time, because
there is nothing to listen to the faster data if it talked in G mode.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> EggHd > wrote:
>> << If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed
>> will increase
>> but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the
>> same if you are still using the 2.4 GC band. >>
>>
>> OK. But let me ask you this... Given the G router is sending
>> "faster" data through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data
>> hitting the B card at the same distance than the B card?
>
> No, because the G router will be talking in B mode all the time,
> because there is nothing to listen to the faster data if it talked in
> G mode.

Agreed.

The other consideration is that if the problem is range, then there's no
guarantee that the G card has longer range than the B card.

AFAIK G is just data compression, and data compression doesn't all by itself
extend range. In fact, some data compression schemes cause more degradation
with weak signals, due to the extra complexity and overhead.

[EggHd]

<< Is there a reason you don't want to switch to 802.11g cards as well? They
are getting pretty cheap, around $40 retail. >>

Thanks to everyone for all the great information.

All I can find that will work with Mac OS9 and in the card bus slot are B
cards. And then only the Orinoco and one other brand I can't recall. From what
I have read the Orinoco is the same as the original airport B card. The Mac
Powerbook G3 Lombards that we have (and still "love") are pre airport ready and
the card has to be used.

I can say that when I figured out that the airport software would work with the
card, the speed and connection improved dramatically. Go figure. The Wavlan
and orinoco drivers (which are hard to find anyway) were very buggy.

The USB G cards only work with OSX.

The system I have here works well enough all over the house. It's just as has
been said the G routers are so cheap now I was wondering if that would be worth
the upgrade, but it appears it would be a waste of time.

The only thing I need to figure out is (which seems stupid) is if I have my
powerbook wireless I can't network to my Imac that is plugged into the router
via ethernet. If I plug the ethernet cable into the powerbook and then turn
appletalk to ethernet (and still be online wireless) I can network.

Why would the same router be different plugged in vs wireless? Seems goofy to
me.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are
> from the base station, the slower the speed.

I have a wireless router that Dell sent me for free when they
were trying to solve my (impossible) problem of sharing a dial-up AOL
Internet connection. When Micro Center had an SMC wireless 802.11b card
on sale for $5.95 after rebates, I got one just to try. It works
pretty well over a distance of about 10 feet (in the same room) but
once there's a wall between the antennas, it dies rapidly. I can't
really use it anywhere in my house other than in the same room as the
base station.

I've been told (makes a certain degree of sense) that getting the
antenna of the base station higher up will improve the range but this
router has the antenna permanently attached to the case so there's no
connector for a remote antenna other than to run all the cables to the
router up to the attic. If I did that, I might as well run them back
down to the rooms where I want to use the computer.

I blame the base station (or its installation) rather than the card in
the PC or the technology. Obviously it was a crappy giveaway, and I've
had success using the SMC card in the PC at "hot spots" and hotels at
reasonable speeds. If I cared more about making this work, I'd get a
different router, but since I'm still using a non-shareable (AOL
dialup) Internet connection, there's no compelling reason to have the
laptop computer networked with anything else.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[EggHd]

<< When Micro Center had an SMC wireless 802.11b card
on sale for $5.95 after rebates, I got one just to try. >>

I wish these worked for Mac. I had to buy a $40 card!

I bumped (at a cost of around 10 bucks a month!) my cable modem for 300K to 3
meg and that really helped the distance fall off. At 300K when at the furthest
point from the router was super slow.

With the new connection speed the furthest place works fine unless I need to
download artwork or a big file.

That's what got me thinking about an G router in terme of speed at a distance.
I believe I understand this much better now.

I agree placement of the router is ket. I spent a bit of time moving it around
until i found the best spot. Higher was better but not alwasy praticle.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Obviously it was a crappy giveaway, and I've
had success using the SMC card in the PC at "hot spots" and hotels at
reasonable speeds. >>

There are a couple of web sites that show free wifi hot spots. There are a lot
out there. Even some Burger Kings! You can sit in the parking lot.

I was able to get my Sprint cell phone, a cable from radio shack, a driver I
found on one web site and a modem script on another and trial and error, to be
able to hook onto sprint's 3g web connection as part of the unlimited vision
plan on my service.

It only hooks at 14.4 but it's way cool to be able to hook up thru my cell.
Super funny.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> EggHd > wrote:
>
>>I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my
>>and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with
>>Airport 2.04 software. Working very well.
>>
>>The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2)
>>
>>Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are
>
>>from the base station, the slower the speed.
>
> The slower speed is due to a higher error rate. If you had an error rate
> display, you would see the errors increasing and therefore the number of
> retransmissions increasing.
>
>
>>So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation -
>>sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card
>>compared to a B base station?
>
>
> No. BUT, if you get B cards with better receivers and more power, and/or
> external antennae, the speed will be faster at a distance because the error
> rates will drop. Think of your problem as being too many retransmissions
> not as being too slow throughput.
>
> If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will increase
> but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if
> you are still using the 2.4 GC band. If you're using the higher band, I dunno.
> --scott
>

The higher band will trade range for bitrate.


--
Les Cargill

[Laurence Payne]

On 14 Aug 2004 16:41:30 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

><< When Micro Center had an SMC wireless 802.11b card
>on sale for $5.95 after rebates, I got one just to try. >>
>
>I wish these worked for Mac. I had to buy a $40 card!

Par for the course. Put a bit of translucent blue plastic around it,
think of a number, multiply the price... :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[EggHd]

<< I wish these worked for Mac. I had to buy a $40 card!

Par for the course. Put a bit of translucent blue plastic around it,
think of a number, multiply the price... :-) >>

Wouldn't it seem that a B driver should work with any B card?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I bumped (at a cost of around 10 bucks a month!) my cable modem for 300K to 3
> meg and that really helped the distance fall off. At 300K when at the furthest
> point from the router was super slow.

That's surprising, unless 300K was a bottleneck. Maybe it can make
more mistakes faster and not affect the throughput if it can get
whatever it gets in faster.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> There are a couple of web sites that show free wifi hot spots. There are a lot
> out there. Even some Burger Kings! You can sit in the parking lot.

Panera (bakery) is where I first tried the card outside of home. But
the closest parking space is several hundred feet from the shop and it
won't work that far. At $3 for a latte I have to do a lot of
downloading. <g>

Somebody told me that people are able to chat from seat to seat on an
airplane through these things, but I don't see how, without a hub and
setting up everyone on the same network. Maybe people from the same
office traveling together who already have their laptops set up on the
same corporate network can do it, but somehow it just doesn't seem
like it would work at all.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1092509926k@trad

> Somebody told me that people are able to chat from seat to seat on an
> airplane through these things, but I don't see how, without a hub and
> setting up everyone on the same network.

WiFi has two modes of operation. One is called "infrastructure" which
requires a wireless acess point. The other mode is called "Ad hoc" and
allows computers with wireless networking cards to talk to each other.

[EggHd]

<< That's surprising, unless 300K was a bottleneck. Maybe it can make
more mistakes faster and not affect the throughput if it can get
whatever it gets in faster. >>

OK this goes back to my original post.

At the furthest place from the router let's say it drops it half speed. At
300k that's 150 or so. I tested it on one of the speed test sites.

When I bumped to 3 meg at the same place it was like 1200.

That's how I got into thinking of the G router thing.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Ty Ford]

> The only thing I need to figure out is (which seems stupid) is if I have my
> powerbook wireless I can't network to my Imac that is plugged into the router
> via ethernet. If I plug the ethernet cable into the powerbook and then turn
> appletalk to ethernet (and still be online wireless) I can network.
>
> Why would the same router be different plugged in vs wireless? Seems goofy
to
> me.


Dear Egg,

weird indeed. I have a G5 and Ti Book running AIrports and an Airport
basestation. I also have an ethernet hub connected to the Airport
basestation. I can see the drives on the G4 tower, G5 tower and G4 laptop
from each other and print from all three to my printer which is also
connected to the ethernet hub.

Again, I'm not using a router, it's a hub. I wonder if that makes the
difference?

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

[EggHd]

<< Again, I'm not using a router, it's a hub. I wonder if that makes the
difference? >>

My Netgear is wireless with 4 ethernet ports. The Imac isn't wireless so it's
the only thing plugged in the back unless I need to network to it. At that
point the powerbook has to be hard wired.

I need to spend more time figuring this out. It should work.... It is
operator error I'm sure.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>> The only thing I need to figure out is (which seems stupid) is if I have my
>> powerbook wireless I can't network to my Imac that is plugged into the router
>> via ethernet. If I plug the ethernet cable into the powerbook and then turn
>> appletalk to ethernet (and still be online wireless) I can network.
>>
>> Why would the same router be different plugged in vs wireless? Seems goofy
>to
>> me.
>
>weird indeed. I have a G5 and Ti Book running AIrports and an Airport
>basestation. I also have an ethernet hub connected to the Airport
>basestation. I can see the drives on the G4 tower, G5 tower and G4 laptop
>from each other and print from all three to my printer which is also
>connected to the ethernet hub.
>
>Again, I'm not using a router, it's a hub. I wonder if that makes the
>difference?


What does "can't network" mean? Can you ping one machine from the other?
Or is it that Appletalk doesn't work between them?

The home routers are actually a box with a hub in them and a router... one
jack goes through the router to the hub, and the other jacks all are on
the "inside network" together. I assume that you are only using the inside
network jacks and that the WAN jack is connected to the outside world.

And, I assume that your wireless hub is connected to the inside network,
and not to the outside world, so there is no need for packets between the
machine to go through the router section of the router/hub box.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EggHd]

<< What does "can't network" mean? Can you ping one machine from the other?
Or is it that Appletalk doesn't work between them? >>


It's weird. No matter what I do with my laptop wireless and the imac wired
into the same wireless router with the 4 ethernet ports it will not see the
imac unless i plug an ethernet cable into the laptop


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd > wrote:
><< What does "can't network" mean? Can you ping one machine from the other?
>Or is it that Appletalk doesn't work between them? >>
>
>It's weird. No matter what I do with my laptop wireless and the imac wired
>into the same wireless router with the 4 ethernet ports it will not see the
>imac unless i plug an ethernet cable into the laptop

What does "Does not see" mean? You can't mount directories? You can't
print? You can't see a web site hosted on the other machine? You can't
ping or traceroute from one to the other?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EggHd]

<< What does "Does not see" mean? You can't mount directories? You can't
print? You can't see a web site hosted on the other machine? You can't
ping or traceroute from one to the other? >>

When I am using ethernet cables on the imac and powerbook the imac shows up on
the chooser via Appleshare.

If I use the powerbook wireless no mater what I do I can't see the imac on
appleshare.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd > wrote:
><< What does "Does not see" mean? You can't mount directories? You can't
>print? You can't see a web site hosted on the other machine? You can't
>ping or traceroute from one to the other? >>
>
>When I am using ethernet cables on the imac and powerbook the imac shows up on
>the chooser via Appleshare.
>
>If I use the powerbook wireless no mater what I do I can't see the imac on
>appleshare.

And you are using standard appletalk. Now, if you have the address of the
imac, can you ping it from the powerbook? Or vice versa? This lets you
know if IP gets from one to the other.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EggHd]

<< And you are using standard appletalk. Now, if you have the address of the
imac, can you ping it from the powerbook? Or vice versa? This lets you
know if IP gets from one to the other. >>

Yes I am using standard appletalk. I have appletalk on thre powerbook switched
to airport and it will not see the imac even if I add the Imac's address.

Again add ethernet cable, switch appletalk to ethernet and bam imac shows up.
It's the same wrieless router that's what's odd (to me)



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd > wrote:
><< And you are using standard appletalk. Now, if you have the address of the
>imac, can you ping it from the powerbook? Or vice versa? This lets you
>know if IP gets from one to the other. >>
>
>Yes I am using standard appletalk. I have appletalk on thre powerbook switched
>to airport and it will not see the imac even if I add the Imac's address.

Right. You now need to find out if you can get IP between the two machines.
If you can get IP between them and not appletalk, something is filtering
traffic between them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EggHd]

<< Right. You now need to find out if you can get IP between the two machines.
If you can get IP between them and not appletalk, something is filtering
traffic between them. >>

No doubt I don't have something set up right regarding wireless.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
EggHd > wrote:
><< Right. You now need to find out if you can get IP between the two machines.
>If you can get IP between them and not appletalk, something is filtering
>traffic between them. >>
>
>No doubt I don't have something set up right regarding wireless.

Maybe. And MAYBE it's that your wireless base station is connected to the
remote network side of the router and not to the inside network. That is
one of the things that checking for IP connectivity will tell you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EggHd]

<< Maybe. And MAYBE it's that your wireless base station is connected to the
remote network side of the router and not to the inside network. That is
one of the things that checking for IP connectivity will tell you. >>

I don't understand. One wireless netgear "base station" with 4 ethernet ports
on the back (not including the cable modem "input").

I don't see how this unit would see the ethernet ports differently that
wireless if it's all in the same router.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
EggHd > wrote:
><< Maybe. And MAYBE it's that your wireless base station is connected to the
>remote network side of the router and not to the inside network. That is
>one of the things that checking for IP connectivity will tell you. >>
>
>I don't understand. One wireless netgear "base station" with 4 ethernet ports
>on the back (not including the cable modem "input").
>
>I don't see how this unit would see the ethernet ports differently that
>wireless if it's all in the same router.

What you have are three things that happen to be in one box. You have a
router, a wireless base station, and a hub. The question is which order
they are in, in that box, and whether they can be changed.

Chakaal has a Linksys box where you can configure the wireless link as
being on either side of the router, so if you want you can be on the inside
network or the outside.

Appletalk will definitely not pass through the router, unless it is
encapsulated into IP traffic (which you can do with post-OpenTransport
Macs).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kurt Albershardt]

EggHd wrote:
>> Maybe. And MAYBE it's that your wireless base station is connected to the
>> remote network side of the router and not to the inside network. That is
>> one of the things that checking for IP connectivity will tell you.
>
> I don't understand. One wireless netgear "base station" with 4 ethernet ports
> on the back (not including the cable modem "input").
>
> I don't see how this unit would see the ethernet ports differently that
> wireless if it's all in the same router.

There's a five-port switch chip inside--one goes to the inside port on the router/firewall portion of the box and the other four are on those RJ-45's.

[EggHd]

<< There's a five-port switch chip inside--one goes to the inside port on the
router/firewall portion of the box and the other four are on those RJ-45's >>

Does this mean they don't talk to each other?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Kurt Albershardt]

EggHd wrote:

>> There's a five-port switch chip inside--one goes to the inside port on the
>> router/firewall portion of the box and the other four are on those RJ-45's
>
> Does this mean they don't talk to each other?

It means they DO talk to each other, and not through any kind of filtering or firewalling.

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd > wrote:
><< There's a five-port switch chip inside--one goes to the inside port on the
>router/firewall portion of the box and the other four are on those RJ-45's >>
>
>Does this mean they don't talk to each other?

The inside ports talk to one another. The outside ports talk to one another.

To talk from one set to the other set, it has to go through the router,
and the router WILL NOT PASS appletalk. This is part of why a router is
a good thing to have between you and the outside world.

The question is which network the wireless section is connected to, the
inside or the outside net.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EggHd]

<< It means they DO talk to each other, and not through any kind of filtering
or firewalling. >>

So it's offricial - I'm the one not making it work.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd > wrote:
><< It means they DO talk to each other, and not through any kind of filtering
>or firewalling. >>
>
>So it's offricial - I'm the one not making it work.

Maybe. Do a ping and see if you can get IP through. If you get desperate
you can always fly chakaal out for a week.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kurt Albershardt]

EggHd wrote:
>> It means they DO talk to each other, and not through any kind of filtering
>> or firewalling.
>
> So it's offricial - I'm the one not making it work.

Well, in an indierct way I suppose maybe...

[Kurt Albershardt]

EggHd wrote:

>> It means they DO talk to each other, and not through any kind of filtering
>> or firewalling.
>
> So it's offricial - I'm the one not making it work.


Well, in an indirect way I suppose maybe...

[Kurt Albershardt]

EggHd wrote:

>> It means they DO talk to each other, and not through any kind of filtering
>> or firewalling.
>
> So it's offricial - I'm the one not making it work.


Well, in an indirect way I suppose maybe...

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> EggHd > wrote:
> ><< It means they DO talk to each other, and not through any kind of filtering
> >or firewalling. >>

> >So it's offricial - I'm the one not making it work.

> Maybe. Do a ping and see if you can get IP through. If you get desperate
> you can always fly chakaal out for a week.

She must have very powerful wings.

--
ha