"Gregg Hill" <bo***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OGTAkgR1GHA.4392@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hello!,
>
> I need to replace a client's wireless bridge to cover a gap that is
> roughly 90 feet between buildings (I am a lousy estimator of distance. I
> thought it was 300', but I paced it off the other day and it's only about
> 90'). I took a close look at their antennas from across the street, and
> the main building's Yagi appears to be pointing about six feet over the
> top of the receiving Yagi. I think the person who initially installed it
> used the wrong antennas for this distance. Since a Yagi has a very narrow
> beam, I would expect them to have to be pointing down each other's throats
> to work well.
>
> This theory also fits what is seen at the site. The remote antenna points
> directly at the main one, while the main one shoots over the remote's
> head. The data transfer from remote to main is 20Mbps and the transfer
> from main to remote is 3Mbps. The current bridge is done using Netgear
> WG102 units (two years old) with PoE. The client does not have the
> password to get into them to see the settings, and I cannot down the link
> to reset the units to default for access unless I go there on a Sunday.
> Therefore, I want to replace the equipment with something faster.
>
> Out of curiosity, and before I go with very expensive Proxim (thank you
> for the link, Jack!) or Ceragon equipment, I asked Netgear which unit
> would be best and they recommended the WAG302, partly because you can use
> 802.11a to eliminate a lot of interference. Since they tout this unit as
> 108Mbps-capable, I asked about the maximum theoretical bridge speed, which
> they said would be 54Mbps. I wonder if that is correct. I tried D-Link's
> DWL-2100AP set to use 108 and it only bridged at 23Mbps, according to
> QCheck. I tried two Linksys WAP54G units and they bridged at 25Mbps, even
> in the same room.
>
> I have tested Netgear's 108-rated stuff used in normal fashion with a
> WGT624 wireless router and a WG511T laptop card, and I get about 76Mbps
> speed, better than hard-wired cheap NICs with Realtek chipsets.
>
> Do you know what the theoretical maximum bridge speed would be for 54G and
> 108G equipment?
>
> Gregg Hill
>
>

"Jack (MVP-Networking)." <J***@discussiongroup.com> wrote in message
news:OURGnGU1GHA.1568@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
>
> The speed that network devices are market under is the speed of the
> electronic circuitry on the device, not the Network's transfer speed.
>
> This page has some functional info. http://www.ezlan.net/net_speed.html
>
> Yagi or not at 90’ you get less then what you get at 20’
>
> Jack (MVP-Networking).
>
>
> "Gregg Hill" <bo***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:OGTAkgR1GHA.4392@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hello!,
>>
>> I need to replace a client's wireless bridge to cover a gap that is
>> roughly 90 feet between buildings (I am a lousy estimator of distance. I
>> thought it was 300', but I paced it off the other day and it's only about
>> 90'). I took a close look at their antennas from across the street, and
>> the main building's Yagi appears to be pointing about six feet over the
>> top of the receiving Yagi. I think the person who initially installed it
>> used the wrong antennas for this distance. Since a Yagi has a very narrow
>> beam, I would expect them to have to be pointing down each other's
>> throats to work well.
>>
>> This theory also fits what is seen at the site. The remote antenna points
>> directly at the main one, while the main one shoots over the remote's
>> head. The data transfer from remote to main is 20Mbps and the transfer
>> from main to remote is 3Mbps. The current bridge is done using Netgear
>> WG102 units (two years old) with PoE. The client does not have the
>> password to get into them to see the settings, and I cannot down the link
>> to reset the units to default for access unless I go there on a Sunday.
>> Therefore, I want to replace the equipment with something faster.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, and before I go with very expensive Proxim (thank you
>> for the link, Jack!) or Ceragon equipment, I asked Netgear which unit
>> would be best and they recommended the WAG302, partly because you can use
>> 802.11a to eliminate a lot of interference. Since they tout this unit as
>> 108Mbps-capable, I asked about the maximum theoretical bridge speed,
>> which they said would be 54Mbps. I wonder if that is correct. I tried
>> D-Link's DWL-2100AP set to use 108 and it only bridged at 23Mbps,
>> according to QCheck. I tried two Linksys WAP54G units and they bridged at
>> 25Mbps, even in the same room.
>>
>> I have tested Netgear's 108-rated stuff used in normal fashion with a
>> WGT624 wireless router and a WG511T laptop card, and I get about 76Mbps
>> speed, better than hard-wired cheap NICs with Realtek chipsets.
>>
>> Do you know what the theoretical maximum bridge speed would be for 54G
>> and 108G equipment?
>>
>> Gregg Hill
>>
>>
>
>

"Gregg Hill" <bo***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ukqTokV1GHA.720@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Jack,
>
> When I tested with Linksys WAP54G units, they got 26Mbps in the same room
> and 23Mbps bridging across the street 125' away using a 6dbi D-Link
> internal antenna on one end and the built-in antennas on the remote end.
>
> I understand that marketed speed and real speed will be different. The
> same goes for 100Mbps hard-wired speed marketing vs. real world speed.
> When using the Netgear 108-advertised equipment noted in my last post, I
> got around 75-80 between my wireless laptop and a desktop with an Intel
> NIC hard-wired, while a hard-wired Realtek card in another system only got
> only 38. I popped a 3Com NIC into that system and got 85.
>
> What I am trying to find out is if bridging can **only** be half the speed
> of normal wireless NIC-to-AP speed. Or is it possible to get higher than
> half the rated speed?
>
> I wish 802.11n were available in APs that will bridge. The ones I have
> seen so far can only be used as an AP, not a bridge.
>
> Thank you for the link. I'll go take a look at it now.
>
> Gregg Hill
>
>
>
>
> "Jack (MVP-Networking)." <J***@discussiongroup.com> wrote in message
> news:OURGnGU1GHA.1568@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Hi
>>
>> The speed that network devices are market under is the speed of the
>> electronic circuitry on the device, not the Network's transfer speed.
>>
>> This page has some functional info. http://www.ezlan.net/net_speed.html
>>
>> Yagi or not at 90’ you get less then what you get at 20’
>>
>> Jack (MVP-Networking).
>>
>>
>> "Gregg Hill" <bo***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:OGTAkgR1GHA.4392@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello!,
>>>
>>> I need to replace a client's wireless bridge to cover a gap that is
>>> roughly 90 feet between buildings (I am a lousy estimator of distance. I
>>> thought it was 300', but I paced it off the other day and it's only
>>> about 90'). I took a close look at their antennas from across the
>>> street, and the main building's Yagi appears to be pointing about six
>>> feet over the top of the receiving Yagi. I think the person who
>>> initially installed it used the wrong antennas for this distance. Since
>>> a Yagi has a very narrow beam, I would expect them to have to be
>>> pointing down each other's throats to work well.
>>>
>>> This theory also fits what is seen at the site. The remote antenna
>>> points directly at the main one, while the main one shoots over the
>>> remote's head. The data transfer from remote to main is 20Mbps and the
>>> transfer from main to remote is 3Mbps. The current bridge is done using
>>> Netgear WG102 units (two years old) with PoE. The client does not have
>>> the password to get into them to see the settings, and I cannot down the
>>> link to reset the units to default for access unless I go there on a
>>> Sunday. Therefore, I want to replace the equipment with something
>>> faster.
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, and before I go with very expensive Proxim (thank you
>>> for the link, Jack!) or Ceragon equipment, I asked Netgear which unit
>>> would be best and they recommended the WAG302, partly because you can
>>> use 802.11a to eliminate a lot of interference. Since they tout this
>>> unit as 108Mbps-capable, I asked about the maximum theoretical bridge
>>> speed, which they said would be 54Mbps. I wonder if that is correct. I
>>> tried D-Link's DWL-2100AP set to use 108 and it only bridged at 23Mbps,
>>> according to QCheck. I tried two Linksys WAP54G units and they bridged
>>> at 25Mbps, even in the same room.
>>>
>>> I have tested Netgear's 108-rated stuff used in normal fashion with a
>>> WGT624 wireless router and a WG511T laptop card, and I get about 76Mbps
>>> speed, better than hard-wired cheap NICs with Realtek chipsets.
>>>
>>> Do you know what the theoretical maximum bridge speed would be for 54G
>>> and 108G equipment?
>>>
>>> Gregg Hill
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>