Otherwise, what you're describing *can* be done, but not with an off-the-shelf router. Is the device you want to attach an ordinary computer? If so, you're better off just buying a PCI wifi card. Or you could buy a pair of HomePlug bridges and send the network signal over your power lines.
Otherwise, what you're describing *can* be done, but not with an
off-the-shelf router. Is the device you want to attach an ordinary
computer? If so, you're better off just buying a PCI wifi card. Or
you could buy a pair of HomePlug bridges and send the network signal
over your power lines.
Well that's the problem the machine (an ordinary PC) has a pci wifi card in it and it loses signal all the time.
So I bought my parents a shiny new super range n router and then ran into the political problem of the havoc it would cause to take out the old one and put the new one in and reconfigure it. So I'm trying to think of ways to make it go without having to touch the existing router.
My dad said he tried a range extender/reamplifier (I forget what they're called) half way between floors 1 and 3 where the router and the PC are with no effect.
Didn't know about homeplug bridges though. I'll check that out, thanks. Do they actually work?
hm, maybe an USB plug one would allso do the job? you can put a longer wire inbetween the thumd thing and the PC to find a place with better reception
I use a pair of HomePlugs, they work well, get around 80mbit/s sustained throughput without issues. Latency is around 3ms.
If you are looking for one, make sure they use the 'AV' standard (200mbit/s physical layer), not the earlier models.
If you are looking for one, make sure they use the 'AV' standard
(200mbit/s physical layer), not the earlier models.
thanks for the tip.
Ok.. this is odd.
From work, with my web server and citadel server running, I can't access any of my other ports except for 80.
When I disable (shutdown) the VM's for web and citadel, I can connect to all of my other ports. (5800, 10000, etc...)
Is there any explaination for that or am I going insane?
I havent tried running web and citadel on a different machine on network because i dont have a 2nd machine to do so...
--
Stephen D King
Network Admin
Blurred Vizion Studios
outsider@blurredvizionstudios.com
We did something kinda cool today.
A caption company wants to do captioning in Israel, but obviously can't afford either the phone lines to Israel, or to hire/train writers in Israel.
So, they want to use our TCP/IP based solution.
Unfortunately, their writers kept having drop-outs and so on when they tried to connect to our machine over there. But, we didn't have these problems.
After examining some network packets, it seems there's something very bad that leads to occasional dropped IP packets and such when the west coast tries to communicate to this box. But the East coast doesn't have these problems.
So, we routed the a/v and steno feeds to one of our boxes in the east coast (where the writers have no problems connecting), and had the writers connect to the east coast instead of directly to Israel. Worked like a charm!
This would not have worked if we hadn't designed the product in a unix-like way.
When I disable (shutdown) the VM's for web and citadel, I can connect
to all of my other ports. (5800, 10000, etc...)
IP address conflict?
After examining some network packets, it seems there's something very
bad that leads to occasional dropped IP packets and such when the
west coast tries to communicate to this box. But the East coast
doesn't have these problems.
Clever solution, but it only goes to underscore how inferior the West Coast is. Now it is time to get a bunch of gangsta rappers to have extremely violent fights over packet routing.
Yeah, in some ways, I don't understand why the west coast would have these problems. You'd think someone could route around them.
Looks like the internet is full up.....
I thought we had a backup plan: IPv6. Wasn't that ready to be implemented?
Wed Feb 02 2011 12:43:09 AM EST from Harbard @ Uncensored
I thought we had a backup plan: IPv6. Wasn't that ready to be implemented?
Its here. Blame the beancounters if your ISP doesn't have it.
Its here. Blame the beancounters if your ISP doesn't have it.
waste of money. Wouldn't it be cheaper to write a small layer of bigger ip address routing on top of your favorite ip layer than to buy all this fancy new ipv6 hardware?
Sure, you could modify the software on hosts and routers to accomodate any kind of expanded addressing scheme, but with the amount of traffic carried by modern routers, you'd be hard pressed to make a software-only solution capable of handling those loads. Some kind of hardware assist would still be necessary for performance reasons.
FastPath Binder
I thought we had a backup plan: IPv6. Wasn't that ready to be
implemented?
World IPv6 Day is on June 8. Everyone ready?
The idea is for everyone to get a chance to see what works and what breaks when IPv6 is deployed as a top-level protocol instead of a side offering.
If there are problems, they're going to be hot-potatoes regardless of whether those companies switch back or not. None of them are going to have much tolerance for downtime. Once those problems are fixed, the costs of switching over would essentially have been amortized, so what would they be buying by only doing IPv6 for 24 hours?
The one big reason I could see why they're only doing a temporary switch is the worst-case where there's some kind of issue that can't be resolved in that 24 hour period. I'm not an admin of any large network, but I would think that any problem that couldn't be solved within a 24 hour period would affect more than just IPv6 service.
IPv6 Binder