 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Networking / September 2004Hard wire LAN and wireless together?
Will this work for me? /---> hardwired to PC DSL MODEM|--> 4-port Router|---+----> hardwired to Mac \---> Wireless box ===> Laptop I already have the ethernet hard wired to the PC and Mac now. They are side-by-side in the same room as the DSL modem and router and that set-up does not need to change. My daughter may be staying with us for a while and rather than hard-wire in another connection I thought I might be able to run a line to a wireless box and let her pick up the signal that way whereever in the house. Then if I need to add anything else (unlikely) I could just have the wireless. Sound workable? > Will this work for me? The identical configuration is running fine for me here. > > Will this work for me? > > The identical configuration is running fine for me here. Hi Dave! Thanks. Wireless boxes are running for a short song and dance at my local MicroCenter store here in the Boston/Cambridge area so that is what I am thinking of doing. That'll save me a lot of hard wiring. DMK D. Kirkpatrick: > Will this work for me? > /---> hardwired to PC > DSL MODEM|--> 4-port Router|---+----> hardwired to Mac > \---> Wireless box ===> Laptop Yes, this will work. I used a similar scheme with an older Mac desktop machine that had no wireless capability, along with two PowerBooks on an AirPort network. Davoud  Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com > Will this work for me? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sound workable? YEP, That's the way I do it. My "Wireless box" is an Airport Express. SignatureRodger > Will this work for me? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sound workable? Yes. _BUT_, when you setup the wireless base station, set it up to just "Bridge" WiFi to ethernet. Do not let the base station also be a router. That means find where the wireless base station distributes DHCP addresses (turn it off). Find out where the wireless base station shares its IP address, called NAT (turn it off). If you do not do this, then Rendezvous will not be seen between Macs on the ethernet side and the WiFi side. This is because Rendezvous is a protocol that can not be routed, only bridged. You can pickup an inexpensive wireless base station from places like http://dealmac.com, but you can also use an Apple Airport Express. One reason to keep Apple in mind is if you are still running Appletalk protocols to do file sharing on Mac OS 9 or earlier, or to networked Appletalk printers. Many 3rd party wireless base stations do not route Appletalk nor bridge it between WiFi and ethernet. However, if you do not have any need for Appletalk, they most 3rd party WiFi base stations will work very well. Bob Harris > One reason to keep Apple in mind is if you are still running Appletalk > protocols to do file sharing on Mac OS 9 or earlier, or to networked > Appletalk printers. Many 3rd party wireless base stations do not route > Appletalk nor bridge it between WiFi and ethernet. However, if you do > not have any need for Appletalk, they most 3rd party WiFi base stations > will work very well. Thanks. I am on OS 9 but use only one system to print. If necessary we could transfer the file there. The remote would likely have its own printer anyway and would only need the WiFi for internet access. Its likely going to be a PC anyway. DMK > In article <sunclad-6FE677.23193716092004@news.verizon.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Rendezvous is a protocol that can not be routed, only bridged. > My setup is very similar, but I don't have the PC in the loop. I gave my G4 a fixed address: 10.0.1.201 but the Airport is set to "Share a single IP address (using DHCP and NAT)" The Airport is distributing DHCP addresses to the laptop(s) and rendezvous is sharing the printer on the G4... Now, I do see that the comment in the airport adminstration window says "NAT and DHCP will be used to share a single IP address. Client computers on the network should configure TCP/IP to obtain an IP address using a DHCP server. The base station will act as a bridge between the Airport and local Ethernet network". After reading your post and checking this out, I'm somewhat confused -- My TCP/IP setting on the G4 is "Manual" with the IP address as shown above, Router as 10.0.1.1 and subnet mask 255.255.255.0 There are values in teh DNS Servers: box and the Search Domains boxes, too. I suppose there's something useful to read to help me understand this? (Apple Help files are not much help in understanding anything, I must say). joe > Will this work for me? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sound workable? Yes, but its probably simpler. Many wireless routers come with a four port hub built right in so you can probably eliminate your 4-port router and replace it with a wireless router, just just plug the cables from your PC and Mac into the wireless router's hub and then let your daughter access your DSL modem via wireless. > Yes, but its probably simpler. Many wireless routers come with a four > port hub built right in so you can probably eliminate your 4-port router > and replace it with a wireless router, just just plug the cables from > your PC and Mac into the wireless router's hub and then let your > daughter access your DSL modem via wireless. Even better if it has both. I'll have to see whats on the market. DMK > > Yes, but its probably simpler. Many wireless routers come with a four > > port hub built right in so you can probably eliminate your 4-port router [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DMK Start at http://dealmac.com > Will this work for me? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sound workable? Yes, piece of cake. > Will this work for me? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sound workable? Works great for me. Cable Modem->router-hardwired to airport, Mac, PC. Airport to iBook. -- Dave Fritzinger > Will this work for me? > > /---> hardwired to PC > DSL MODEM|--> 4-port Router|---+----> hardwired to Mac > \---> Wireless box ===> Laptop Contrary to the other replies, I do have some caveats with your set-up. This will work only if the "4-port Router" does some kind of network address translation. While these are very common, you did not indicate whether or not this router was actually an embedded multi-function network device. If it is a plain router (or better, a switch) then some of these boxes are not going to see some of their packets, and your ISP might be confused, as they generally only want to give you a single IP address. If what you have described as a "router" here is actually a 4-port router packaged with a basic NATting firewall device, then yes. For example, this is what I have at the old case del mono: ADSL Modem --> Edge box --> 5-port switch +--> PowerMac +--> iBook +--> AirPort Express That edge box does all the work of handing out internal IP addresses and translating them to and from the single external address handed out by my ISP. It does other stuff, as well. > > /---> hardwired to PC > > DSL MODEM|--> 4-port Router|---+----> hardwired to Mac [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This will work only if the "4-port Router" does some kind of network > address translation. Is that not exactly what a router does? Otherwise, it would merely be a bridge. > While these are very common, you did not indicate > whether or not this router was actually an embedded multi-function > network device. It's already a router. Having four ports, it is also at least a hub and potentially a switch. It's a multi-function network device, no question. > If it is a plain router (or better, a switch) then some of these boxes > are not going to see some of their packets, and your ISP might be > confused, as they generally only want to give you a single IP address. If you think a switch is better than a router, I think what you're calling a router is more commonly termed a "hub". >>> /---> hardwired to PC >>>DSL MODEM|--> 4-port Router|---+----> hardwired to Mac [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is that not exactly what a router does? Otherwise, it would merely be a bridge. I was using the OP nomenclature. Perhaps I should have use "scare quotes" around the word. The definition of a router is that it sits on a gateway between two networks. No filtering or NATting is done by a router. Given that a switch is attached to the router (which gives us the four ports), then we can assume things will work well enough. Though most home users will still want a device that can understand the DHCP or PPP stuff sent to it by the ISP, and knows how to NAT between internal and external nets. So no, this is not exactly what a router does. If the box was a router and a hub, then the network diagram above would fail. If it was a hub or switch inadvertently referred to as a "router" for whatever reason, the network would fail. >>While these are very common, you did not indicate >>whether or not this router was actually an embedded multi-function >>network device. > > It's already a router. Having four ports, it is also at least a hub and > potentially a switch. It's a multi-function network device, no question. Many people refer to any box with 4 RJ-45 holes in it as a "router". I wasn't going to drag out all these definitions; that's what the web is for. This is why I was frank about saying where I was not going to unilaterally agree that all would be well. The home network market is full of all kinds of boxes that do all kinds of things, and some of these things would not help the OP in any way. Looking back on my reply, I see that if my aim was to simply state a single caveat I had about the network in question, then I succeeded. >>If it is a plain router (or better, a switch) then some of these boxes >>are not going to see some of their packets, and your ISP might be >>confused, as they generally only want to give you a single IP address. > > If you think a switch is better than a router, I think what you're calling > a router is more commonly termed a "hub". My mistake. I was simply reusing the term used by the OP for parity. The correct sentence would be "if it is a plain hub...". The rest of my posting was fair, accurate enough and aimed at simply making sure that what everyone assumed we were talking about was actually true. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.