On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:11:36 -0600, Callum Lerwick <seg at haxxed.com> wrote: > Pre-N is a bit bleeding edge, and obviously not standard. It will be > obsolete when the real N comes out. Well, yes it is very bleeding edge. However it is still backward compatible with b and g (apparently without drooping the entire network speed either) and I am sure that future Belkin adapters will support their pre-n (non)standard. > > Reading through forums, there's some concern than Belkin's Pre-N gets > its speed by stomping all over the 2.4ghz spectrum, ruining reception > for everyone else, I wonder how well a building full of them will get > along with each other, let alone any other wireless networks in the > area... Maybe you can disable the Pre-N, but then why use pricier pre-N > AP's. Is the range really that much better, even without using Pre-N? Yeah, that is a good point. I have only so far tested 2 in relatively close proximity and as long as they are about 5 channels apart it is fine. I plan to spread the channels as far apart as I can between the floors. > > Have you tried something more conventional, like the WRT54G series or a > Belkin F5D7230-4 (Which I've written custom firmware for, which I really > should release today... *self plug*) Well, I will say this. Before I came on the scene my predecessor had tried to set up a similar gig using conventional Cisco Aironet 802.11b equipment and failed miserably to get signal very far into the building. This time around my employer wanted to try something with more power. I do not profess to be any kind of wireless expert but I do know that the Pre-N range is bloody unbelievable. > > The WRT54G series, F5D7230-4, and others based on the same chipset, > (Buffalotech, ASUS, etc...) are well known and widely hacked at this > point, and thus custom firmware can be written to do absolutely anything > you could want it to do. You can make them firewall and route however > whatever you want. I do wish that I had time to research this issue more before hand, but I am stuck with what I have at this point. I will make it work. > > And if you use the router models instead of AP's, you don't have to hook > them all to a switch, because they ARE switches. well yes, albeit 4 port switches. I was thinking I could go 4 floors at a time hooked into one AP but that would still leave 6 NAT gateways (better than 35 for sure) I think I am going to go with the central switch idea though, a lot more cabling, but probably the best option. > > Or you could use WDS. Which cuts your bandwidth in half, but thats still > should be enough to share internet. But I don't know how well WDS scales > up to 34 AP's... Plus the Pre-N APs don't appear to have bridging capability. -- Loren H. Burlingame <loren at lhb.name> GPG Key ID: 0x112DCF4F "Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes." -William Shatner (a.k.a. Buck Murdock)