[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Fred Wright <fw at well dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Wireless g 54M
 Date:  Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Pat Ellison wrote:

> Now that is my problem.... I've been so happy with this system that I
> neglected to learn
> anything about the A/B/G...etc systems. Not I'm forced to become a quick
> study..

One thing I don't know is whether the A/B/G cards can run A simultaneously
with B/G.  My guess is that the answer is no, since it's *very* difficult
to design something that can send and receive at the same time through the
same antenna, even in different frequency bands, and sharing the
transmit/receive scheduling between the two would get messy, if it's even
possible.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Chet Harvey wrote:

> Just a side note, I am always curious as to why people think they need such 
> fast rates like 75 to 100mbps. Most businesses I see have 512 or 768 pipes. 
> Some go crazy and get 10mb pipes so unless you are moving A LOT of data 
> internally I just dont get it. I'd rather have range and signal strength over 
> high transfer. As signal strength drops so does transfer.

I presume the "512 or 768 pipes" you're talking about is for the WAN.  I
can't imagine anyone wanting a LAN that slow.  It's not even that fast for
a WAN; I have 6M/600k DSL at my *house*. :-)

Anytime you start doing something ike file sharing, it's almost impossible
to have too much bandwidth.  Or using VNC, though that's mostly VNC's
fault. :-) VNC is annoyingly slow over Gb Ethernet.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Robert Staph wrote:
> From: "Fred Wright" <fw at well dot com>
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 3:53 PM
> 
> > 1) How poor the range usually is for G (*much* shorter than B with the
> > same equipment).
> 
> Actually I've found my Linksys WAP54G to have superior range than my Linksys 
> BEFW11S4.  I can get 36M out to where the B signal was dropping to 5M.  I 

Well, I did say "same equipment". :-)

> > 2) How the presence of a single B station causes all the Gs to drop down
> > to B.  I'm not sure it even needs to be an "authorized" B station to have
> > this effect.
> 
> I have a B AP about 50-60 feet from my G AP, no issues getting beyond B 
> speeds when connected to the G AP.  Different SSID's and channels (1 and 6), 
> one WEP one not, one does its own DHCP other doesn't, two very different 
> configs.  However since they do not share a SSID, I would think it possible 
> a B station and G station using the same SSID and config might cause the G 
> client to dumb down and not talk G (or if the AP's are very, very close; or 
> both are passing as much traffic as they can handle).

I wasn't referring to independent networks, but to the "upward
compatibility" feature of G with B.  This is in the same sense that 66MHz
PCI is "upward compatible" with 33MHz PCI, i.e. plug in a single 33MHz
card and everything switches to 33MHz.  Similarly, *on the same network*,
the presence of a B station drops everything to B speeds.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Pat Ellison wrote:

> I know what you mean.. it's like a family going to Circuit City for a "New"
> computer..
> "So sir, what are you looking to do with your new computer?... Well the wife
> plays Solitaire.."
> so the salesman needs to make sure that the computer is suited for his
> needs.. "oh well then,
> We have this 3.2 Ghz Intel with Hyper Threading(tm)..."

Hey, don't knock HyperThreading.  Recently a case came up where Linux
needed HT just to be able to output text to the console at a reasonable
speed. :-)

					Fred Wright