Wireless connectivity question.
01 February 2009, 08:03 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wireless connectivity question.
Helping someone connect a 'device' to an existing network. It can't be hard wired because the route would be too tortuous/expensive so it has to be wireless. Now he's gone and bought a 'wireless BB router' thinking he can just *connect* the two wireless devices and thus his device will just be another computer on the network. Problem solved. But the router just provides a wireless access point so this can't work right?? (It's an SMC WBR14S-N2). Just trying to get my head around the options before I see him it seems to me that I would have to assign a static IP to the router (plus the one to the computer device behind it - the type of device is irrelevant for this question), enable wireless, and any necessary security, and have a computer on the host network link to it .... about right?
Trouble is I can see no way to link to the router from the host network (small, private, hotel setup). If so, what are my options? One I can see is this Linksys by Cisco WET54G Wireless-G Ethernet Bridge: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo and ethernet bridge. As the device to be linked up has to have a static IP I assume that that is the IP I would give to the bridge?
Ta
Dave - networking was never my strong point ....
Trouble is I can see no way to link to the router from the host network (small, private, hotel setup). If so, what are my options? One I can see is this Linksys by Cisco WET54G Wireless-G Ethernet Bridge: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo and ethernet bridge. As the device to be linked up has to have a static IP I assume that that is the IP I would give to the bridge?
Ta
Dave - networking was never my strong point ....
01 February 2009, 08:33 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Under my busted-a$$ scooby ... again :(
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
had a quick look at that smc kit n i can't see why you couldn't just use it as a wireless access point .... you'd need to physically connect it to the existing lan (at a suitably convenient location) by patching it in one of the 4 yellow switch ports rather than the blue coloured port which is for wan connection. You'd also want to disable the routing functionality and probably the dhcp service (assuming you already have dhcp service available on the lan). Using it that way, the smc kit doesn't actually require an ip address technically since it's only switching traffic locally but it would be good practice to give it a static address for management purposes anyway. Whatever the "device" is that's connecting to it can operate on dhcp if required (as prior stated, assuming the existing lan has dhcp service) or can run static ip if preferred. Obviously whatever the device is, it will need to have the ability to support a wireless connection itself though i.e. have a means to plug a usb dongle or something into it and be able to have a wireless client installed on it in order to configure it to access the correct wireless network.
Would be far easier to suggest appropriate options with a little more detail about the existing physical network setup, what type of use / load is going to be placed on this link and, the device you're intending to connect though
Would be far easier to suggest appropriate options with a little more detail about the existing physical network setup, what type of use / load is going to be placed on this link and, the device you're intending to connect though
01 February 2009, 08:41 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
If using 2 AP's, you need to make sure both are on the same IP Range - eg: 192.168.1.1 not one on 192.168.1.1 & other on 192.168.0.1
This range needs to be set the same. One needs to be Static IP not DHCP, while the other he connects to can be set to DHCP.
2 wireless AP's will also need 2 encryption keys to enable the link.
You need to rename both,1 as primary & 1 secondary to make it simpler.
So to summarise, His PC will be connected to an AP, while its talking to the other AP on the same range.
This range needs to be set the same. One needs to be Static IP not DHCP, while the other he connects to can be set to DHCP.
2 wireless AP's will also need 2 encryption keys to enable the link.
You need to rename both,1 as primary & 1 secondary to make it simpler.
So to summarise, His PC will be connected to an AP, while its talking to the other AP on the same range.
01 February 2009, 09:20 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
had a quick look at that smc kit n i can't see why you couldn't just use it as a wireless access point .... you'd need to physically connect it to the existing lan (at a suitably convenient location) by patching it in one of the 4 yellow switch ports rather than the blue coloured port which is for wan connection.
Didn't think an access point would cut it ... I'll have to read up more.
Dave
01 February 2009, 09:23 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Under my busted-a$$ scooby ... again :(
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the cr4ppy drawing 
but, which of these styles are you looking to do? ....
If it's picture b, my question would be why for a single device? - are you intending to place the "device" significantly out of range of the first wireless ap i.e. thereby requiring effectively a repeater station?
but, which of these styles are you looking to do? ....If it's picture b, my question would be why for a single device? - are you intending to place the "device" significantly out of range of the first wireless ap i.e. thereby requiring effectively a repeater station?
01 February 2009, 10:48 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Apologies for the cr4ppy drawing but, which of these styles are you looking to do? ....
If it's picture b, my question would be why for a single device? - are you intending to place the "device" significantly out of range of the first wireless ap i.e. thereby requiring effectively a repeater station?
but, which of these styles are you looking to do? ....If it's picture b, my question would be why for a single device? - are you intending to place the "device" significantly out of range of the first wireless ap i.e. thereby requiring effectively a repeater station?
The device is actually a dumb data collector to which you can assign a static ip and details of a remote ftp site for sending log files to - in this case there is NO physical network where it is to be placed hence we have to 'make' one that's wireless - it can also only connect via a hard wired port - it isn't wireless capable itself. As the device is 'dumb' then the 'router' has to behave as a 'hard wired' link to the rest of the network.
Hope that explains things ... it's too late at night ...
Dave
Trending Topics
01 February 2009, 10:53 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Looked at the link and none of the options seem to be what I'm after ..... Hmmmm.Dave
02 February 2009, 08:49 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
you need B
but the connection to the AP (from your device) is via a lan Cable (not wirelessly as shown) -- the AP then acts as a wireless bridge to the network
all it does is extend the LAN wirelessly -- you just connect your device to it
dont get confused with routing -- no routing is involved (until it needs to go outside the LAN)
but the connection to the AP (from your device) is via a lan Cable (not wirelessly as shown) -- the AP then acts as a wireless bridge to the network
all it does is extend the LAN wirelessly -- you just connect your device to it
dont get confused with routing -- no routing is involved (until it needs to go outside the LAN)
03 February 2009, 03:15 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Under my busted-a$$ scooby ... again :(
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
woulda posted back sooner but had the last couple of days off work courtesy of the snow n it was too much to resist lol! - carparks, a volvo, some camera's and a mate that's rapidly becoming one of the best drift drivers in the uk ... EPIC fun!!! lol! Anyways, as hodgy quite rightly says, you need option B - You're creating a wireless bridge. You're device connects to the second AP via a cable into one of the lan ports .... i would do another 'Monet' but i'm not feeling too creative today 
lol!
lol!
03 February 2009, 03:23 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the replies but it's a bit moot now. Seems the salesman jumped the gun a bit (don't they always ...) and hadn't checked with the hotel whether we could connect and even if it was possible to connect. They have a commercial grade system with security and they're going to have to check with their system people whether we can connect and, if so, if we can do it securely.
Waiting for an answer ..... don't you wish that sometimes you could be involved before the event???
Dave
Waiting for an answer ..... don't you wish that sometimes you could be involved before the event???
Dave
03 February 2009, 03:54 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Under my busted-a$$ scooby ... again :(
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lovin the salesman! lol! .... as for wireless and security, given you don't need ultimate performance from it, that can be ultra secure if you want it to be - can even point you in the direction of military grade security if you wanna pay out for it! lol! That said, could design something just as effective for a fraction of the money if you've got guys available that can do it
The bit their tech guys will be getting 4n41 about is because parts of their system contain and pass confidential financial information (card details, account numbers etc). Not 100% sure but I think it's legal requirement for said system to meet certain ISO regulations because of this. I'm a little unclear on the regs tbh (something i need to look into for a system i may be designing soon actually) but i think it's loosely along the lines that those elements of the system must be secured / isolated and not exposed to consistent potential connection.
Does your data logger actually need access to their system though? You mention it can upload it's content to an ftp site. If you're not already planning this, how about proposing that you guys host the ftp server (for a management fee of course ) off site at your office. In that scenario, you could effectively build a work around by feeding the wireless bridge link directly through to the "untrusted" side of their router. You could in theory actually host the server on their site in the same zone but then you wouldn't be able to charge for it so easily Given that they're a "commercial grade" system (love that term lol! - it means nothing!!! lol!), their router should (99% certain) have the "untrusted" zone on it and their system security will therefore have had to be designed with it in mind. The only thing you may want to consider is including your own firewall somewhere in the link before your device purely to protect that device. You could of course rely on the built in microsoft firewall assuming you're running microsoft though
The bit their tech guys will be getting 4n41 about is because parts of their system contain and pass confidential financial information (card details, account numbers etc). Not 100% sure but I think it's legal requirement for said system to meet certain ISO regulations because of this. I'm a little unclear on the regs tbh (something i need to look into for a system i may be designing soon actually) but i think it's loosely along the lines that those elements of the system must be secured / isolated and not exposed to consistent potential connection.
Does your data logger actually need access to their system though? You mention it can upload it's content to an ftp site. If you're not already planning this, how about proposing that you guys host the ftp server (for a management fee of course
) off site at your office. In that scenario, you could effectively build a work around by feeding the wireless bridge link directly through to the "untrusted" side of their router. You could in theory actually host the server on their site in the same zone but then you wouldn't be able to charge for it so easily Given that they're a "commercial grade" system (love that term lol! - it means nothing!!! lol!), their router should (99% certain) have the "untrusted" zone on it and their system security will therefore have had to be designed with it in mind. The only thing you may want to consider is including your own firewall somewhere in the link before your device purely to protect that device. You could of course rely on the built in microsoft firewall assuming you're running microsoft though
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM