WAP or Bridge to add to Ethernet LAN?

[Gareth J M Saunders]

Hi folks,

I've hunted around for this answer with little success, so I'm coming to you
guys for advice.

I'd just like some clarification on something. I currently have a home
network that shares a cable modem connection with the network via a Netgear
RP114 Router/Switch; I have CAT5 cabling. My wife has just bought a laptop
which has a wireless LAN card built-in. I'd like to be able to connect her
to the network via her wireless card. How do I do this?

In summary, I have the following setup: internet > cable modem >
router/switch > 4 ports

The Netgear RP114 router/switch has four (4) ports which are connected to:

(1) XP machine
(2) 98se machine
(3) occasionally a WfWg 3.11 machine (I kid you not!)
(4) *free*

Am I right in thinking that I need a Wireless Access Point (WAP) or Wireless
Bridge to connect to port 4 of the router/switch. Which would be
preferable? WAP or bridge? Any recommendations on make/model? Almost my
entire network comprises of Netgear products, I do like these, but am open
to other makes too.

Thanks again,

Gareth J M Saunders
Edinburgh, UK

www.garethjmsaunders.co.uk

 

[Hawkeye]

You want the WAP

 

[Gareth J M Saunders]

You want the WAP

Ta.

Gareth

 

[DH]

You want the WAP

?

Why a WAP, and not replace the antique RP114 with a wireless router for
approximately the same price?

Dave H.

 

[Hawkeye]

Why go totally wireless?

Going partially wireles is a personal choice of mine as well. I run a
Linksys wired router and added a Linksys WAP later on for mobility of
of one of the four desktop system should I desire and Laptop access to
the network

 

[Will Robinson]

|>
|>|>> You want the WAP
|>
|>?
|>
|>Why a WAP, and not replace the antique RP114 with a wireless router for
|>approximately the same price?
|>
|>Dave H.
|>

One reason would be that by doing as you suggest you're creating a
single point of failure.

Personally, I prefer the hybrid approach for various reasons.

But ... YMMV

 

[DH]

|>
|>|>> You want the WAP
|>
|>?
|>
|>Why a WAP, and not replace the antique RP114 with a wireless router for
|>approximately the same price?
|>
|>Dave H.
|>

One reason would be that by doing as you suggest you're creating a
single point of failure.

Personally, I prefer the hybrid approach for various reasons.

But ... YMMV

I don't understand your logic. If we want multiple "point of failure" I
might suggest that you piggy back a string of routers, switches, firewalls,
servers, some more routers........ With all due respect, "a single point of
failure" is a good thing.

I may be wrong but the only reason that I can justify the use of a WAP is
for extending a wireless network. Again, I may be wrong and I may learn
something here. I am by no means a wireless expert and I welcome counter
points.

Dave H.

 

[Will Robinson]

|>
|>"Will Robinson" <ô¿ô> wrote in message
|>|>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:09:12 -0500, "DH" <[email protected](axe the
|>> x's)> uncorked the following:
|>>
|>> |>
|>> |>|>> |>> You want the WAP
|>> |>
|>> |>?
|>> |>
|>> |>Why a WAP, and not replace the antique RP114 with a wireless router for
|>> |>approximately the same price?
|>> |>
|>> |>Dave H.
|>> |>
|>>
|>> One reason would be that by doing as you suggest you're creating a
|>> single point of failure.
|>>
|>> Personally, I prefer the hybrid approach for various reasons.
|>>
|>> But ... YMMV
|>
|>I don't understand your logic. If we want multiple "point of failure" I
|>might suggest that you piggy back a string of routers, switches, firewalls,
|>servers, some more routers........ With all due respect, "a single point of
|>failure" is a good thing.

In any network topology the design should strive to eliminate any
single point of network failure.
You want as much fall-over redundancy as possible built into the
system — allowing one device to create system-wide failure is not
desirable. I'd hate for my ankle to cause my heart to stop! (-:

The inter-networked system of routers and switches you allude to above
eliminates any one single point of failure.

The odds of every router on a WAN failing at once is very small.
Conversely, a polling access method (in a mainframe environment)
creates a 'master' deterministic device that, if for any reason were
to fail, will cause every node on the network loss of connectivity — a
single point of failure.

Obviously, we're talking apples & oranges here: large vs. small
networks; and, losing the WiFi/wired router or a wired router with an
access point doesn't help much, I admit (the WAP can't operate without
its wired counterpart in this particular instance/topology). However,
multiple access points set up Ad hoc would be able to internetwork
with one another sans routing.

I guess a better argument in this case would have been simply that the
WAP provides more versatile placement, easier troubleshooting, and if
the WAP fails you're only purchasing another WAP, not a combination
device. I liken it to the having a separate fax machine & printer
rather than those combo fax/printer/copier machines.


|>I may be wrong but the only reason that I can justify the use of a WAP is
|>for extending a wireless network. Again, I may be wrong and I may learn
|>something here. I am by no means a wireless expert and I welcome counter
|>points.

That's the WAP's strong point, I would agree. Placement is also a big
advantage; the WAP may not be in the best position for access forced
to live where wired router is going to be.

|>Dave H.
|>

 

[Gareth J M Saunders]

Why a WAP, and not replace the antique RP114 with a wireless router for

approximately the same price?

Firstly, I am very happy with my current setup: it works and I've had no
problems with it whatsoever -- I have no need at the moment to replace the
router/switch.

RP114 antique? I got it last summer! You want antique? I've got a 486
connected up to the network, running Windows for Workgroups.

Second, I want to connect one laptop that has a built-in 802.11b card to the
existing ethernet network on an occasional basis. This laptop is for my
wife's business and will only be here occasionally as it will be shared
between my wife and her business partner. And the way that my wife works it
will be most convenient for her if she can work this laptop wirelessly
rather than buying trailing CAT5 cables and running them into ever other
room in the house.

I've thought it through, don't worry.

I've also ordered a Netgear WAP from Inmac.co.uk.

Thanks folks, as ever you are great.

Gareth