|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 122 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 18 of 122:
| 
Dec 15 23:24 UTC 2006 |
I was able to access the Linksys and Maxgate routers by plugging in straight
ethernet cable between them and my computer (into Hub not PC in the Maxgate)
and then ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.2 on my computer and I could ping 192.168.0.1
which is the default and current IP address for both. It was written on the
Maxgate. The Cisco is supposed to be 10.0.0.1 but no longer is and it
requires a username and password to change it. Next I need to try pinging
192.168.0.1 via wireless network.
Can a wireless router be used to pick up a signal from one network and pass
it along to another network, as a gateway? Or only inside one network.
The Maxgate lets you access a setup menu via browser, the Linksys does not.
The Cisco should but I don't know the IP number (as URL).
|
gull
|
|
response 19 of 122:
|
Dec 16 01:06 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:17: Actually, Linux *can* get the IP automatically. You need
to run a DHCP client.
|
krokus
|
|
response 20 of 122:
|
Dec 16 05:02 UTC 2006 |
Yes, you can route packets between networks using a wireless router.
But you would have to connect to it from a device in the other network.
Basically you have the wireless router in question tied into one network,
have a wireless connection to a computer that is also wired into another
network, then use that computer to bridge the networks. Unless you
have a specific use in mind, it seems like a lot of effort for little
useful return.
I would be highly surprised if you wern't able to access the Linsys
via a web browser. You have to know the IP for it, and maybe connect
with a SSL connection. (It's an option available in the configuration
menues.)
You also asked about being able to find the address for the NIC, but
not the IP. Did you mean find the MAC of the NICs?
|
keesan
|
|
response 21 of 122:
|
Dec 16 05:43 UTC 2006 |
I meant find the IP address of the three routers, I think.
I was able to access the Maxgate via lynx browser, and the Cisco via kermit
and a serial (modem) cable, and they both told me their IP addresses. Cisco
was changed to 199.174.189.14, and I was not able to access it via browser
or to ping it after doing ifconfig eth0 199.174.189.15 to put my own computer
in the same network. I WAS able to access the Maxgate (192.168.0.1) and both
ping it and go to a setup menu with lynx, which would let me change the
default IP number. The Linksys had the same IP number but no webpage, you
need to use the Windows software to change anything.
I then, after much rebooting (10 times?) and putting CDs in and out, and
copying the Win98 CD to an external USB hard drive, and installing a generic
USB driver in Win98 (nusb23e.exe) but using the DOS usb drivers instead
(usbaspi5.sys and di1000dd.sys in config.sys), and copying the Windows CAB
files to the USB drive and then to the hard disk (since the laptop CD-ROM
drive would not read the disk), I somehow got the drivers for the Linksys
WPC11 ver 4 cardbus card installed (from CD, it read that one) and then
downloaded the Win95 drivers for the Cisco 340 card (1.3MB vs 13MB for XP)
and kept trying until everything got installed and worked. Both cards pick
up the signals from all three routers. The Cisco detected the IP number of
its own router. I had to enter the IP number for the other two, but it
detected the strong signals. 100%. If I put the router in another room it
dropped to 60%, or 70% near the door. I could not manage to ping the routers
with Windows via wireless after setting the Windows IP number one number
higher. I need to try another time with linux, which I find easier to set
up. ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.2 and I could ping over a network cable.
The first ISA pcmcia controller worked once with Win98 then crashed it
whenever I installed the controller. I could detect a weak signal with the
Linksys card. Today we tried the other controller and slot and Windows made
no complaints but then recognized none of the cards. Cardbus does not fit
in these older slots. So we put Windows on another laptop (it would not work
with wireless in the first one) and it works with cardbus. My linux is not
set up for it - what would I need to change, the kernel?
My goals are: 1) to use a linux laptop at the library once in a while so as
to avoid IE, 2) to pick up a county-wide wireless signal using the pcmcia
cards (or the routers if possible instead), and then browse on a desktop
because I don't like laptop keyboards or screens, or having to sit on an
unheated porch to pick up a signal. Put wireless and wired ethernet card in
the same laptop and use it as a gateway. I have a long way to go.
The Maxgate router with no antenna requires its pcmcia card in its pcmcia slot
to send or receive signals.
|
keesan
|
|
response 22 of 122:
|
Dec 16 17:06 UTC 2006 |
This year at the library all I needed to do was plug in the computer and the
wireless card and click on the icon for the Wireless-B and do a Site Survey
and it connected! So the hardware works and I only need to learn to do it
in linux with dhcp or ifconfig. No passwords or codes or anything.
They said I need to enter my library card number but I can telnet without
that. I wonder if the county-wire free wireless would work the same.
This is 53% signal strength.
|
keesan
|
|
response 23 of 122:
|
Dec 17 17:53 UTC 2006 |
I tried the Cisco (airo) and Linksys (orinoco) cards in both Toshiba laptops
- the 100MHz and the 266MHz which Windows worked on (with the airo and another
linksys). In the 100Mhz the airo works perfectly, the orinoco works only with
kernel 2.4.31, not 2.2.26 (it segfaults). In the 266Mhz the airo works only
with kernel 2.2.2.6, the orinoco crashes with 2.2.26, and they both refuse
to insert modules with 2.4.31 - unresolved symbols. So the newer computer
works with the older kernel and vice versa. Windows 98 works with both cards,
but in two desktops with ISA pcmcia controllers, it crashes with one
controller loading drivers, and can't find cards with the other. Anyone have
any aironet cards, non-cardbus, that they don't want?
I got 30K/sec download of a large file (Opera) at the library. At best I get
5K/sec at home. 30K = 384bps? The 84Kbps free connection should be about
8K/sec at best, but let me listen to internet radio and also use the phone.
|
ball
|
|
response 24 of 122:
|
Dec 17 19:44 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
ball
|
|
response 25 of 122:
|
Dec 17 19:45 UTC 2006 |
30 Kbytes/sec is about 246 kilobits per second.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 26 of 122:
|
Dec 17 19:54 UTC 2006 |
I'm curious how you arrived at that number.
To answer Sindi's question, it's pretty plausible that a 384kbit/s
connection might deliver about 30kByte/s useful throughput, as you
need to adjust for 8 bits / byte and also need to add on substantial
protocol overhead, first for the wireless link, then for network
and transport protocols (TCP/IP), and so on. My general rule of
thump with the ISP we run at work is that we expect about 20% of
the speed we limit the customers to to be protocol overhead,
meaning the customer gets about 80% of what we set them to.
|
keesan
|
|
response 27 of 122:
|
Dec 17 22:16 UTC 2006 |
I was at the library sharing a connection with at least 30 other people.
Could that reduce the speed of a 1.5MBit to what I got? I downloaded Opera,
and it started off slow but by the end was up to 30Kbit, which implies there
is some buffer and it might have gotten even faster after the first 5MBytes.
The librarian (not the one that told me I needed to fill in my library card
number to use the internet there, which was not needed) said the internet
would go faster on my computer via wireless, than on their computers, because
their computers were 'old' and 'basic'. We took our fastest laptop along,
but I don't see how the computer speed would limit the internet connection
speed, for just a download. Maybe a game player would notice a difference.
The people at the desk there seem to know less than I do, and gave us a wrong
answer about getting a USB memory stick recognized the previous time.
|
ball
|
|
response 28 of 122:
|
Dec 18 01:26 UTC 2006 |
Re #26: 30 * 1024 = 30,720 bytes/sec
30,720 x 8 = 245,760 bits/sec ~= 246 kilobits per second
of payload data. I made no attempt to guess the overhead,
but 384 kbits/sec sounds entirely reasonable to me.
Re #27: Earlier I thought you said 30 kbytes/sec, but now
you say 30 Kbit (which isn't a sensible measurement in any
case). Keep in mind that during downloads, the bottleneck
need not be at your end. You could have a gigabit
connection to the Internet, but if the chap at the other
end only has ISDN BRI, his upstream speed isn't going to
exceed 128 kbits/sec (discounting any software
compression) and no amount of improvement at your end can
significantly change that.
|
ball
|
|
response 29 of 122:
|
Dec 18 01:43 UTC 2006 |
Ooops. In my reply to #27, I meant to say 30 Kbytes/sec, not 30
kbytes/sec.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 30 of 122:
|
Dec 18 01:57 UTC 2006 |
In your mind, what does the capital "K" mean? I ordinarily
would assume you were just mis-capitalizing the metric prefix
abbreviation representing "kilo".
Are these Kelvin bytes?
|
cross
|
|
response 31 of 122:
|
Dec 18 02:14 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #28; It depends on how many bits are in a kilobit. If one takes
it to be 1024, then the 1024's would just cancel out and you've have a
240kbit/sec. You are clearly taking a `kilobit' to mean 1000 bits.
|
ball
|
|
response 32 of 122:
|
Dec 18 03:06 UTC 2006 |
One Kilobyte is 1,024 bytes. One kilobit is 1,000 bits.
|
cross
|
|
response 33 of 122:
|
Dec 18 03:09 UTC 2006 |
Hmm.
|
keesan
|
|
response 34 of 122:
|
Dec 18 03:36 UTC 2006 |
The computer which downloaded at the library (from opera.com) at 30 per
second, and in which the orinoco Linksys card does not work at al in linux
but works fine in Win98, won't work in Win98 with two hardware modems, 56K
and 33K (per second?) that work in another computer adn also work on this
computer in linux. One can't open port, the other says no dial tone. ???
Another laptop also works online in linux but not Win98, and wont' work with
a different linksys card in Win98 (wireless). Looks like you need to buy
sefverAL PCMCIA CARDS AND EXPERIMENT UNTIL ONE WORKS, THEN RETURN THE REST.
tHEY also keep changing versions, so if Ver 1 works ver 2 won't.
Excuse typos, downloading a 6.5MB file to test a 2wire card with.
|
ball
|
|
response 35 of 122:
|
Dec 18 06:10 UTC 2006 |
56k and 33k (lower case k signifies 1,000 as in km, kg etc.)
Are they PC-Card (16-bit PCMCIA) modems?
|
ball
|
|
response 36 of 122:
|
Dec 18 06:13 UTC 2006 |
make that 33.6 kbits/sec ;-)
|
keesan
|
|
response 37 of 122:
|
Dec 18 17:04 UTC 2006 |
Yes, pcmcia modems. A winmodem sort of works in another laptop - it dials
(usually, sometimes can't find the dial tone), connects (usually), but can't
access any websites or ping. The 33K hardware modem does the same, but in
linux it works perfectly.
Last night I tried to test three cardbus modems in Win98. Netlux driver was
not at driverguide, and netlux driver downloads requires a password. 2wire
driver not available, I found one for the same model number of a Sceptre
(6.5MB download, one hour) but Win98 won't accept it. Had the 30MB CD for
a Linksys 54G but it refuses to install on my computer unless I give it
Internet Explorer 5.5, and the Adobe Acrobat on the same CD refuses to install
without IE 5.01. (I think I have 5.0 in Win98, maybe 4.5). Why does one need
ANY browser to install a pdf reader or network card software????? I would
not pay a penny for anything from Linksys. The non-cardbus card won't work
at all on one computer in linux (unresolved symbols) and it crashes on the
other computer with a 2.2 kernel.
|
ball
|
|
response 38 of 122:
|
Dec 18 17:17 UTC 2006 |
It's a shame that MS Windows is such a pain when it comes to
standard modems. I'm surprised that anyone would build Card
-bus modems, since PC-Card provides adequate bandwidth.
|
keesan
|
|
response 39 of 122:
|
Dec 18 17:36 UTC 2006 |
Win98 would not dial with a Winmodem in one computer, and would dial and not
access websites with a Winmodem in another computer (both laptops) besides
having problems with the hardware modem that worked in linux (could not open
port). Com2 was disabled in BIOS, modem was Com2 (ttyS1 in linux). I don't
think these winmodems are cardbus, the wireless network cards were. 11Mbits
per second 16-bit or 32-bit, so why cardbus for those?
|
ball
|
|
response 40 of 122:
|
Dec 18 19:53 UTC 2006 |
That's a good question. PC-Card would seem to provide enough
bandwidth for 802.11b. Perhaps vendors anticipate host
computers that feature Cardbus slots but lack PC-Card?
|
keesan
|
|
response 41 of 122:
|
Dec 18 20:36 UTC 2006 |
I thought anything that took cardbus also took 16-bit pcmcia.
The 56K modem that would not work in Windows appears to be a hardware modem
that also won't work in linux, but came labelled '56K okay'. That may only
mean the computer found it (at Kiwanis). Combo card ethernet and modem. I
also got two other combo cards one with dead ethernet one with dead modem.
this was too good to be working.
|
ball
|
|
response 42 of 122:
|
Dec 18 21:13 UTC 2006 |
I think all the Cardbus slots I've seen were also PC-Card
(16-bit PCMCIA) compatible, but that may not be the case for
ever.
|