wlan security?

[Mark Jones]

Sinsi, perhaps even though the "link speed" is one rate, the data is only buffered up to the physical TX/RX layer at that rate, and the actual physical link bandwidth is much less? Or perhaps the signal quality is not good enough for maximum bandwidth, and the hardware is reducing the link speed? Or perhaps there is a conflicting signal present (from a neighbor) which is forcing a slower bandwidth?

It is for reasons such as these that I dislike wireless links - they introduce a ton of ambiguity. With something like one of these and one of these, it is actually quite easy to drill holes through the walls and run some quality CAT-5 or fiber. :lol

[sinsi]

It is for reasons such as these that I dislike wireless links

Yeah, me too, but I'm as good at drilling holes as I am at brain surgery...

[vanjast]

There is another approach, live stream Kylie continuously across your wireless network and only pass data where you require it. Someone would soon get tired of listening.  :bg

:lol
A simple idea that would be a very effective deterrent

[hutch--]

I have as a footrest on my programming table a 300 metre roll of cat6 network cable which is just a bit fussier about attaching the plugs at either end but the speed is fine, I have 3 computes networked through a couple of gigabit hubs and regularly do backups across this LAN of entire partitions and its no slouch. I would not touch a radio link with a bargepole, either they leak like sieves with outside radio reception or the get slow with enough encryption to try and secure them.

[sinsi]

Yeah, I'm going to get an electrician friend of mine to wire up some access points I reckon.
No point in having the blistering speed of ADSL2+ and not using it, is there :bdg

300 metre roll of cat6 network cable

Isn't the maximum length 100 metres?

[hutch--]

> Isn't the maximum length 100 metres?

Probably but the only box of cable I could buy was 305 metres so I guess I can wire up networks for long enough to wait for higher speed optical to come in.

[daydreamer]

Sinsi, perhaps even though the "link speed" is one rate, the data is only buffered up to the physical TX/RX layer at that rate, and the actual physical link bandwidth is much less? Or perhaps the signal quality is not good enough for maximum bandwidth, and the hardware is reducing the link speed? Or perhaps there is a conflicting signal present (from a neighbor) which is forcing a slower bandwidth?

I was thinking of laziness will have the whole neighbourhood on default channel for router, could be reason for low speed, we should try to download something and optimize which channel is best download speed ,if you dont do this hang your head in great shame being the asm programmer that is NOT optimizing his computer :naughty:

[hutch--]

Sinsi,

I have had adsl+2 here in Sydney for a couple of years and the main problem is speed from the server. I once needed some media files from the big german download site so I joined for a week but found the bandwidth was limited per connection to about 150k/sec so I multiple downloaded the required files running about 6 connections and ended up with a big increase in total download speed.

By spec cat5e is supposed to handle 1 gigbit but as there was no real price difference I bought the box of cat6 as its faster than my connection, a bit harder to put the connectors on but no big deal. If you are something like useful and don't mind climbing around in the roof or under the house, buy yourself a stripping/crimping tool for the normal male plugs which only cost peanuts and also get some wall mounts if you want it to look tidy as well. HPM ones were about $5.00 each so its no big deal.

[sinsi]

if you dont do this hang your head in great shame being the asm programmer that is NOT optimizing his computer :naughty:

Ouch! you are correct though.

The fastest download has been java at around 400kbytes/sec, which I was happy about. It seems to go in bursts though - up to 450, down to 32. Must be the weather...

hutch, yeah that's what I'll do, except for the in-the-roof thing (hey, that's what nephews are for) and my brother is the handyman (he's got 3 drills ffs). So with me as project manager we'll do ok.

[daydreamer]

if you dont do this hang your head in great shame being the asm programmer that is NOT optimizing his computer :naughty:

Ouch! you are correct though.

The fastest download has been java at around 400kbytes/sec, which I was happy about. It seems to go in bursts though - up to 450, down to 32. Must be the weather...

hutch, yeah that's what I'll do, except for the in-the-roof thing (hey, that's what nephews are for) and my brother is the handyman (he's got 3 drills ffs). So with me as project manager we'll do ok.

channel 6 seem to be the default channel  on D-link and you could guess everyone in neighbourhood have routers/recievers will be too lazy to meddle with change advanced settings
so my guess is find out howto change of channel=very high probability you have a different channel with different radio freqency all alone which means full wlan bandwidth, while staying at channel 6, your router etc must play nice with your neiighbours  routers on that radio channel

[sinsi]

Netgear, channel 5. A friend of mine has the same, I've asked him what his is set to.
I have 1 to 13 to choose from, maybe I'll play with them.

Tried a 'bandwidth tester' which came close to the router's connect speed (9 vs 10 mbit), must be the wireless link (just got 900 kbytes/sec via cat5).

[Mark Jones]

The reason why I am assuming it is something on the physical TX/RX layer is that unlike traditional switches and routers, there is no way to prevent a collision on an RF link. (E.g., no way to control traffic flow.) Please let us know how well "changing the channel" works. :U

Also, I've seen problems caused by the router being both too close to an exterior wall (the aluminum siding or mylar insulation in the wall prevents proper signal strength/quality) and also by too close proximity to other sources of RF interference (electric motors, light dimmers, junk PC power supplies, etc.)

For example, in older homes, wiring in the walls is often "tube and knob" type where each wire is (supposed to be) run separately about a foot apart with little insulation. If one of these wires has a lot of current flowing through it (say it is feeding an upstairs air-conditioner or something), then it becomes essentially a one-turn electromagnet. I've seen this effect strong enough to distort a television image before, and that surely could wreak havoc on a router if it were too close. :lol

These issues would be rare to stumble across in practice, but not impossible -- just covering all the bases. :bg

[hutch--]

Mark has a good point here, I am used to this stuff as my older brother is a radio/tv man whose brain I can pick any old time. So far I have found the cat6 reasonably insensitive to normal radio spectrum noise, I have it routed through the floor in parallel with the power main running through the house that runs everything downstairs and it has not bothered it at all.

[sinsi]

Well, changing the channel from 6 to 10 and trying a quick test (downloading a driver from nvidia) gave maybe 50 kbytes/sec more, but still nowhere
near the cat5 speed - 350 vs 600. Still, it's faster for my usual internetting and if I need to download a big file I'll just hook the cat5 up.

It is sort of bugging me though, so I'm going to do some more 'channel surfing' and more download speed tests.

Talking of cables, my old cat5 cable was pretty bad - people walking on it, doors closed on it etc. For about 5 metres of its 20 metre length it was just
untwisted pairs of wires, but worked fine... :8)


daydreamer, your comment still stings.

[hutch--]

Sinsi,

I doubt that a radio link will get the speed of a direct cable connection, too many losses in comparison. I would still get the young fellas to route you a set of cables and wall plugs as it is both faster and far more secure. I would be inclined to use the radio link for surfing from your front lawn or beside the swimming pool and leave the serious stuff to a direct cable connection.