Re: Wireless (again)

["Mark Harrison" <Mark_Harrison_UK@xxxxxxx>]

I've used these in various places, for about three years.

The key thing about wireless bridges, is that they are _bridges_, not
routers. ie they filter traffic based on the MAC address, not the IP
adderss.

This isn't bad on small-medium networks - say with up to 100 PCs on
each side. With up to about a dozen PCs on the "remote end" you
can
do without a server there. Beyond that, it's better to have a server
each side serving the appropriate users.

Because it's a bridge, it's only Ethernet broadcast traffic that gets
propogated in a way that might be redundant, so, because of the way
ARP caching works, it tends to be a bit slow in the morning when
everyone turns on their PCs, and settles down to performance within a
few % of a routed solution by mid-morning.

I've tended to use Breezecom kit in the past - not the cheapest, but
great support.

Regards,

Mark


--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Des Gibbons" <des@f...> wrote:
> If you could set up two bridges to route from one lan to the other,
that
> would be a nice solution, don't suppose anyone has tried it? :) I
would say
> it depends on the software in the bridge to actually route non-
local traffic
> to the other lan. Maybe it is possible to do it with IP subnets?
>
> DesG
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Graham Howe [mailto:graham@xxxxxxx...]
> > Sent: 16 January 2001 10:13
> > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Wireless (again)
> >
> >
> > Are there not wireless 'bridges' or something like that, that can
connect
> > two wired LAN's. Sure I saw something about that on the un-wired
site.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
> >
> >