[geeks] Rant: Network "Industry Leaders" That Don't.

[Kris Kirby]

On Wed, 1 May 2002, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> No, I understand perfectly.  I've also done WISP as my day job.  The
> problem is the initial setup:
>
> [router]-----[lan]----<fibre media convertor>----[lan w/ AP]
>
> That is, the AP is on the lan that needs to be NATed, not on the other
> side of it, as it should be.  Granted, this wouldn't be a problem if there
> weren't three networks on the other side of the router that -also- need to
> be NATed through that connection.

Ok, I missed the fact that you have a LAN on the *other* side of the
network.

> The AP doesn't have it's own line to the router, so popping the AP in
> bridge mode means that -all- the LAN traffic would be flowing over the
> wireless.

>                      {Internet}
>  (Lucent) wireless  /          \ wireless (Lucent)
>                    /  wireless  \
>             {site 1}------------{site 2}
>                                  |
>                                  | fibre
>                  {site 4}-------{site 3}---------{site 5}
>                             T1           Frac T1

ouchie. my condolences.

> They left the r/w neighborhood at the default.  I have since changed that,
> and they no-longer have access to that AP.  If they want it, they can call
> me.

They probably won't like that. If it was my call, I'd cut you off, but our
radios were different[0].

[0]: I highly recommend WiLAN Hopper radios. They have a DB9 management
interface, which, when disturbed, turns off the transmitter.

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR          | TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said.
<kris at nospam.catonic.net>   | IM: KrisBSD | HSV, AL.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."