Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (
More info?)
On 17 Jul 2004 18:08:17 -0700, davis.157@osu.edu (M. Davis) wrote:
>I know that, theoretically, the protocol shouldn't matter to the
>WNIC and/or WAP.
Practice generally follows theory. I'm a practioner of arcane
protocols and byzantine specifications built on marginal technology.
If the spec says it should work, then there will appear someone from
behind the curtain to make it work (or heads will roll).
>There are plenty of posts in this newsgroup that
>seem to imply that is not the case.
I've spent considerable time dealing with some of these issues. I
know more about RF than about protocols and find anecdotal experience
to be interesting, but never the absolute last word. Keep an open
mind, especially when you know that in theory it should work.
>I'm testing both in a real-world situation with both Win2K and WinXP.
>So far, nothing I have done with the WAP or WNIC have allowed NETBEUI
>to pass between them.
Well, it took me about 15 minutes to verify that it DOES work. Here's
what I did:
One end:
W2K Desktop.
Ethernet to Linksys BEFW11S4 wireless router.
WAN port goes to DSL modem.
Ethernet card now shows:
Client for Messy Networks
File and Print Sharing
Netbeui protocol
Network monitor driver
Internet protocol (TCP/IP)
I have intentionally set the default protocol to Netbeui and setup a
bogus IP address for TCP/IP. It can't see the router or surf the
internet.
At the other end, I have:
Micron P133 junker laptop with Windoze 98SE
Orinoco Silver card
Wireless card shows:
Client for Messy Networks
File and print sharing
Netbeui protocol
I went into the properties for TCP/IP -> Orinoco and unchecked all the
bindings. Rebooted.
#begin diversion();
In theory, TCP/IP should be disarmed and off. Wrong. I got a suprise
when I ran IPCONFIG and discovered that the router had delivered an IP
address. I ran:
ipconfig /release_all
and everything cleared to 0.0.0.0. I then ran:
ipconfig /renew_all
and the IP address arrived. Now way should that have happened. So, I
just ran ipconfig /release_all and left it with all 0.0.0.0. It
stayed that way so I'll assume that TCP/IP is disarmed and off. I
can't ping or browse, so I guess that takes care of that problem.
#end diversion();
For testing, I simply shared a handy folder on the W2K machine. From
the W98SE laptop, network neighborhood found the W2K box, found the
shared folder, and opened files in it. Windoze networking is working
over NETBEUI.
I realize that this is between a wireless port and an ethernet port
and that a wireless to wireless connection should be tested. However,
I'm fairly certain that it will work the same way. I do have a 2nd
laptop and wireless card here, but I suspect it has either a virus or
trojan and I wanna clean it out before I do anything with it.
>The data sheets don't mention protocols
>supported (apart from TCP/IP for management of the WAP) but then, why
>should they? Again, theoretically, any protocol that can be carried
>over Ethernet should be transportable with a WiFi WAP, right?
Right. Actually, one wireless contraption does specify supported
protocols. That's the multiprotocol print server, which has to
directly support every layer 3 protocol in order to print. Most (not
all) of the 802.11 print servers support NETBEUI. This should be a
clue as they would need to have the client radios also support the
same collection of protocols.
>I was just proposing that, perhaps,
>there's a wireless router out there that someone knows for a fact can
>pass NETBEUI when its routing capability is disabled and it only acts
>as an access point.
Eventually, the wireless contraption manufactories will get the clue
and casually mention that a wireless router can be used as an access
point (or point to multipoint bridge) by ignoring the router features.
Admitting that they support diverse protocols would also be nice.
However, I call to your attention the typical data sheet, which is
devoid of useful information and is crammed with marketing hype
instead of standards, protocols, and specs. For an exercise in
futility, try to determine how many MAC addresses a "game adapter"
(DWL-810, WET11) will simultaneously bridge. (The answer is 30 but
good luck finding the info). That's because the manufacturers know
that they can sell individual "game adapters" for each computah when
only one is really necessary.
>We're only just getting our feet wet with WiFi, since practically every
>room in the building complex at work is wired.
If your feet feel wet, I would call a plumber, not a network engineer.
>It has generally only
>been requested when stringing Ethernet cables across a floor or ceiling
>would not be ideal.
Most of my wired installations are lurching toward gigabit ethernet on
the desktop. It will be a long time before any form of wireless can
come close to the performance.
>I appreciate the links. I'll review them to see if there's anything there
>I can apply to my testing next week. Regardless, if someone has specific
>hardware recommendations for WNIC and/or WAP that are known and testing
>to pass NETBEUI, I'd be glad to see them.
Well, my Linksys BEFW11S4 works with my Orinoco Silver card. Two down
and about 1000 assorted adapters to go. Best of luck. You should
have no problems with NETBEUI and bridging unless you have something
else in between (personal firewall, broken drivers, buggy MAC filters,
etc).
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram