wireless bridge recommendation please

[nalooti]

Hi,

It's very frustrating that there aren't that much choice for wireless bridge devices. Either there is a single ethernet port (almost all of them: linksys, netgear, ...), or no GigE port, or performance is not there (d-link), or they don't support this band or that one not even considering simultaneous radios.
I want to bridge wirelessly two ethernet segments in my home and am very surprised they aren't more people confronted to this problem. Maybe there is another solution that I've missed.

Anyway, could you please suggest me not the best one (it doesn't exist) but the less worse one ?

Also, is there any way to bridge these two segments via another method ? Is it possible to buy a classic wireless router and use it as a bridge ? (no problem to pay a little bit more and not use all the feature of a router)

thanks
nalooti

 

[thiggins]

Wireless Ethernet bridges act like clients. So they'll connect to any router and you need only one.

You don't find Gigabit Ethernet ports on wireless bridges because you're not really going to get 100+ Mbps through them. Multiple built-in ports is just a convenience. Just connect a switch if you need more ports.

You can also use a pair of routers that support WDS bridging / repeating. But you need both of them to support WDS.

Some folks get a router that can be flashed with DD-WRT, Open-WRT, Tomato or other alternative firmware.

Consider MoCA if you have the coax drops and don't have satellite TV. Your throughput will be much more consistent.

The Cisco / Linksys WET610N is probably representative of current bridges.

 

[nalooti]

Thanks Tim for your answer

You don't find Gigabit Ethernet ports on wireless bridges because you're not really going to get 100+ Mbps through them. Multiple built-in ports is just a convenience. Just connect a switch if you need more ports.

This is the proof that the theoretical 150 or 300Mbps promised by 802.11n is just another marketing slogan.
Actually I bought a Linksys WUSB600N, a USB key able to do 2.4 & 5 GHz but it didn't install on my XP and there is no driver for W7 (being a certified product) ! The Linksys support suggested me to change it for another device! How just can they sell a product they know it doesn't work is beyond me.
I though about the wireless bridge for 2 reasons: no driver to install and more ports for more devices (not just one with a USB key) but for the latter there isn't any decent device.

Putting a switch may not be as simple as it sounds because no bridge vendor tells you how many MAC @ their products can bridge. So it may work but not guaranteed.

You can also use a pair of routers that support WDS bridging / repeating. But you need both of them to support WDS.

Some folks get a router that can be flashed with DD-WRT, Open-WRT, Tomato or other alternative firmware.

WDS is tricky because not a standard so no guaranteed it works even between the same vendor's product. I have the WRT610N. I think the flashable one is the old g model (WRT54something).

Anyway, for the price of one WET610N I could buy two USB keys not even counting the price of a switch that I must add to the WET610N.
What do you suggest ?

 

[thiggins]

Are you thinking of setting up an AdHoc connection? Wireless adapters usually only connect via an AP/router.

You're right that bridges don't spec how many MACs they support. But how many do you need? I'm pretty sure they'll support 8 and maybe even up to 32.

 

[nalooti]

Are you thinking of setting up an AdHoc connection? Wireless adapters usually only connect via an AP/router.

You're right that bridges don't spec how many MACs they support. But how many do you need? I'm pretty sure they'll support 8 and maybe even up to 32.

No I'm not setting up an ADhoc connection: all through base station (my WRT610N router). I suppose then I don't need WDS which adds to the bridging, the AP function. I just need to wirelessly interconnect my 2 wired ethernet segments.

Ok for the # of MAC @. In the meantime, Linksys support told me they've got a W7 64bits driver not yet in their site and they'll mail it to me (I know lots of people on the net are looking for that . Hope it works so I have more time to buy a good bridge.

 

[thiggins]

Sorry, but I'm not following you as to how using two wireless adapters is going to bridge two network segments. Connect clients, yes. Bridge segments, no.

 

[nalooti]

Sorry, but I'm not following you as to how using two wireless adapters is going to bridge two network segments. Connect clients, yes. Bridge segments, no.

As I said I have a router and I'll have either a bridge or a USB adapter. Here is my conf:

room#1(Ethernet segment#1): PC1, and maybe PC2
room#2(Ethernet segment#2): Router WRT610N + modem and Internet access, TV (with ethernet port), Wii (with ethernet port), HTPC

No wire between room#1 and room#2 but each room is ethernet wired.

Obviously I have to interconnect room#1 and room#2 with wireless. Room#2 having already the wireless router, I have to install a wireless device in room#1. So either I do it via a USB adapter in each PC1 and PC2 or I put a wireless bridge (WET610N) connected to a switch which connects PC1 and PC2.

Please note that I don't want to "extend" the wireless network via an Access Point. I want just to interconnect two ethernet network (both on the same IP subnet of course). That's why I don't need WDS feature which provides AP function in addition to bridging (WDS being not a standard feature).

Put it simply the router connects to an AP via Ethernet while it connects to a -wireless- bridge via wireless. AP is to expand wireless (a kind of relay of waves) while a wireless bridge to connect two wired segments that can't be connected via wires (e.g. 2 separated buildings).

If in room#1 I have just one PC then a USB key is maybe more suitable but if I want to have a second PC (and so on), maybe it's better to think of a bridge.

 

[Likvid]

How come there are less bridges out on the market? is it because the USB sticks are taking over their purpose?

 

[nalooti]

How come there are less bridges out on the market? is it because the USB sticks are taking over their purpose?

This is one reason. But USB sticks can only be used with computers. I think there will be more bridge products in the future because more and more CE devices now have ethernet ports (e.g. TV, game consoles, etc.) and you can't use USB sticks with them.
Recently I was looking for HomePlug devices as a replacement. These devices act more like bridges. Either you have multi-ports (ethernet) HomePlug products or you can put a switch and connect it to a mono-port HomePlug which will bridge all the devices behind the switch to the other end (where you'll have your router).
Interestingly, Belkin has a new one called Gigabit Powerline HD (http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=495008) where the term Gigabit is very confusing (I should say marketing .
Actually the ethernet ports are GigE but the electrical part (outlet) seems to do a bit better than 200 Mbps. However, I understand that anything above 100Mbps (i.e. the new HomePlug 200) will need a GigE interface so Belkin's choice of GigE is a good one IMO. That was exactly my complaints about Wi-Fi bridges which don't have GigE port but just 100Base-T while the 802.11n is rated (theoretically) at 300Mbps. So even if you have a good environment letting you traffic more than 100Mbps in the air, you'll be limited by the ethernet part which is very frustrating.

IMHO, designing devices today with 100Mbps ethernet ports just to get few cents more margin is a mistake.

 

[thiggins]

How come there are less bridges out on the market? is it because the USB sticks are taking over their purpose?

It's a matter of demand. Most products come with wireless built in, including CE products like game consoles, Blu-ray players, etc. So there is less need for them.

And, as nalooti points out, powerline and Coax (MoCA) networking are alternatives if you can't run Ethernet.

Expect to see a few more bridges come out this year, specially designed to support HD streaming. NETGEAR's should be first. See
2010: The Year of HD Streaming Wirelessly? Part 2