Text 58132, 70 rader
Skriven 2009-11-10 12:41:15 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
  Kommentar till text 58109 av August Abolins (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: 2 routers and SSIDs
===========================
 ml> the uplink port and the WAN port as the same for most general
 ml> purposes...

 AA> But your last comment contradicts "put a tape over the WAN port". 

nope... if the port is labeled "uplink" instead of "WAN", you still do not want
to use it if /ALL/ of the routing functions cannot be terminated...

 AA> All the info I am coming across regarding daisy-chaining two
 AA> routers always say to NOT use the WAN port on the second router.

 AA> One source says that it's ok to use the WAN port but ONLY if you 
 AA> can disable NAT in that same device.

yes... but it is not only NAT that needs to be disabled... DHCP, firewall,
other services that are just not needed on the additional units... there's no
reason for having more than one router in the average SOHO/Home setup... not
even in mine which is just a Home setup with a dozen+ machines in it... even
though my network is split into 3 separate networks, i still have only one
router but it is not a COTS store bought router, either ;)

 AA>> Using the uplink port precludes the need to use a crossover
 AA>> cable.  Using a regular lan port would require a crossover
 AA>> connection between the main router and dumbed-router.  Right?

 ml> this depends on the equipment in use, really... some have MDI ports
 ml> which determine the cable wiring in use... others require a normal or
 ml> crossover cable... generally speaking, NIC to NIC requires a crossover
 ml> cable... most others are self determining...

 AA> My understanding is if the router is specifically labeled "uplink"
 AA> port on one of the numbered ports, then it is MDX/MDI capable.  
 AA> Otherwise a crossover is required.

the text written over the "routed port" should not matter when related to if
that port is MDI/MDX...

 AA>> That would be interesting to see operate.  Two SSID's to choose
 AA>> from.

 ml> no, not really... if you bypass the WAN port on a WRT (wireless router)
 ml> and use it as a WAP (wireless access point), then it is still
 ml> transmitting the same SSID if configured to do so... the main point of
 ml> this is that the router functions are bypassed and negated... in other
 ml> words, the wireless router becomes nothing more than a wireless switch
 ml> and none of the router stuffs are needed since there's no NAT needed nor
 ml> is the builtin firewall cr4p necessary, either...

 AA> My understanding of using same SSIDs was only if the user wanted
 AA> the effect of "roaming on the same network" without having to worry
 AA> about reconnecting to the next best (strongest signal) on the SAME

i thought you were speaking strictly in the case of someone having two WRT/WAPs
in their network with each one using their own SSID... i actually do that here
because one is on one of my networks and the other on another... one network is
locked down and highly protected while the other is open...

 AA> network.  I know that many wifi manager softwares can be configured
 AA> to automatically connect to the "strongest signal" by default, but
 AA> that may not be the desired result if that takes the wifi client to
 AA> a neighbour's network.

this is true... and there's also nothing stating that you cannot have more than
one WRT/WAP with the same SSID and secure key... this is, after all, how you do
build a larger wireless network than you might get with only one WRT/WAP device
;)

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)