If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a wired
bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't.  Despite the name,
they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't bridge to any other
existing wireless network.  Bastards.

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Ric  wrote:

> If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a wired
> bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't.  Despite the name,
> they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't bridge to any other
> existing wireless network.  Bastards.

But you read the product overview and saw "Wireless bridge requires at
least one additional WNHDE111 unit", so you knew that before you bought
it.  No?

On 20 Aug, 13:10, Rob Morley  wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Ric  wrote:
> > If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a wired
> > bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't.  Despite the name,
> > they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't bridge to any other
> > existing wireless network.  Bastards.
>
> But you read the product overview and saw "Wireless bridge requires at
> least one additional WNHDE111 unit", so you knew that before you bought
> it.  No?

I take your point (and you're right, I guess) but I am irritated that
if I pick up something claiming to be an 802.11n wireless bridge that
their definition of this is "buy two of them"

Ric wrote:
> If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a wired
> bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't.  Despite the name,
> they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't bridge to any other
> existing wireless network.  Bastards.

Hmm, a quick check doesn't even reveal what Ethernet interface they have 
which doesn't inspire confidence...

However you'll struggle to convince me that it's not possible for you to 
attach it by Ethernet to a wired/wireless network (eg a LAN port on a 
wireless router) and make everything work - or is that not what you were 
describing?

Alex

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Ric Harris  wrote:

> On 20 Aug, 13:10, Rob Morley  wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > Ric  wrote:
> > > If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a
> > > wired bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't.  Despite
> > > the name, they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't
> > > bridge to any other existing wireless network.  Bastards.
> >
> > But you read the product overview and saw "Wireless bridge requires
> > at least one additional WNHDE111 unit", so you knew that before you
> > bought it.  No?
> 
> I take your point (and you're right, I guess) but I am irritated that
> if I pick up something claiming to be an 802.11n wireless bridge that
> their definition of this is "buy two of them"

Has 802.11n actually been ratified yet, or are they still at the "we're
all using Draft 2 so it's sort of a standard" stage?

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Ric Harris 
wrote:

> I take your point (and you're right, I guess) but I am irritated that
> if I pick up something claiming to be an 802.11n wireless bridge that
> their definition of this is "buy two of them"

It takes two devices to make a wireless bridge between two wired segments,
so your complaint is that you can't make a bridge from two half-bridges
bought from different suppliers - something that Netgear never implied let
alone claimed.

Is there any specification that could allow different manufacturers to
achieve more general compatibility and compliance?

Tony

On 21 Aug, 08:47, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Ric Harris 
> wrote:
>
> > I take your point (and you're right, I guess) but I am irritated that
> > if I pick up something claiming to be an 802.11n wireless bridge that
> > their definition of this is "buy two of them"
>
> It takes two devices to make a wireless bridge between two wired segments,
> so your complaint is that you can't make a bridge from two half-bridges
> bought from different suppliers - something that Netgear never implied let
> alone claimed.
>
> Is there any specification that could allow different manufacturers to
> achieve more general compatibility and compliance?
>
> Tony

My point is that it seems reasonable to assume that a device sold as a
wireless bridge would allow you to wirelessly connect it to another
wireless bridge or another wireless network, and provide a wired
ethernet port as a result.  This device does just that, *but only
between two identical netgear devices of this type*.  I repeat,
bastards.

Ric wrote:
> If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a wired
> bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't.  Despite the name,
> they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't bridge to any other
> existing wireless network.  Bastards.

I may be misreading what you say, but it sounds as if you wish to
connect the netgear as a bridge to a another manufacturer's unit
providing a WAP. That I have not seen as possible, though I have not
looked extensively.

You will probably find that the pre-existing unit also bridges only to a
similar unit, so your comment applies to them as well.

-- 
PeeGee

"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Ric Harris 
wrote:

> On 21 Aug, 08:47, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Ric Harris 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I take your point (and you're right, I guess) but I am irritated that
>>> if I pick up something claiming to be an 802.11n wireless bridge that
>>> their definition of this is "buy two of them"
>>
>> It takes two devices to make a wireless bridge between two wired segments,
>> so your complaint is that you can't make a bridge from two half-bridges
>> bought from different suppliers - something that Netgear never implied let
>> alone claimed.
>>
>> Is there any specification that could allow different manufacturers to
>> achieve more general compatibility and compliance?
>>
>> Tony
>
> My point is that it seems reasonable to assume that a device sold as a
> wireless bridge would allow you to wirelessly connect it to another
> wireless bridge or another wireless network, and provide a wired
> ethernet port as a result.  This device does just that, *but only
> between two identical netgear devices of this type*.  I repeat,
> bastards.

Just because your own misunderstanding was "reasonable to assume" does not
make someone else a bastard.  Next time you had best read the specs because
you are clearly unqualified to make reliable technical assumptions.

Tony

On 21 Aug, 17:42, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Ric Harris 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Aug, 08:47, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Ric Harris 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> I take your point (and you're right, I guess) but I am irritated that
> >>> if I pick up something claiming to be an 802.11n wireless bridge that
> >>> their definition of this is "buy two of them"
>
> >> It takes two devices to make a wireless bridge between two wired segments,
> >> so your complaint is that you can't make a bridge from two half-bridges
> >> bought from different suppliers - something that Netgear never implied let
> >> alone claimed.
>
> >> Is there any specification that could allow different manufacturers to
> >> achieve more general compatibility and compliance?
>
> >> Tony
>
> > My point is that it seems reasonable to assume that a device sold as a
> > wireless bridge would allow you to wirelessly connect it to another
> > wireless bridge or another wireless network, and provide a wired
> > ethernet port as a result.  This device does just that, *but only
> > between two identical netgear devices of this type*.  I repeat,
> > bastards.
>
> Just because your own misunderstanding was "reasonable to assume" does not
> make someone else a bastard.  Next time you had best read the specs because
> you are clearly unqualified to make reliable technical assumptions.
>
> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for your input.  I still maintain it seems reasonable that
something labelled a wireless bridge would work in a similar way to
WDS et al.  Wireless bridging is a pretty common term, and a pretty
common function, and I think it perverse that the Netgear doesn't.
Have a google for "wireless bridge" and you'll see how blimmin common
it is.

"PeeGee"  wrote in message 
news:5eOdnZ2C2OhVXhPXnZ2dnUVZ8mSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> Ric wrote:
>> If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a wired
>> bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't.  Despite the name,
>> they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't bridge to any other
>> existing wireless network.  Bastards.
>
> I may be misreading what you say, but it sounds as if you wish to
> connect the netgear as a bridge to a another manufacturer's unit
> providing a WAP. That I have not seen as possible, though I have not
> looked extensively.
>
> You will probably find that the pre-existing unit also bridges only to a
> similar unit, so your comment applies to them as well.

I had a Buffalo wireless bridge that connects to any wireless network, and 
gives you four ethernet ports on the back.  Dead easy to set-up, reliable in 
use and does what it sounds like you`re thinking of.

Simon Finnigan wrote:
> "PeeGee"  wrote in message
> news:5eOdnZ2C2OhVXhPXnZ2dnUVZ8mSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> Ric wrote:
>>> If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a wired
>>> bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't.  Despite the name,
>>> they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't bridge to any other
>>> existing wireless network.  Bastards.
>>
>> I may be misreading what you say, but it sounds as if you wish to
>> connect the netgear as a bridge to a another manufacturer's unit
>> providing a WAP. That I have not seen as possible, though I have not
>> looked extensively.
>>
>> You will probably find that the pre-existing unit also bridges only to a
>> similar unit, so your comment applies to them as well.
> 
> I had a Buffalo wireless bridge that connects to any wireless network,
> and gives you four ethernet ports on the back.  Dead easy to set-up,
> reliable in use and does what it sounds like you`re thinking of.

Ok, I stand corrected :-)

I have only used bridging as a dedicated link between LAN segments
(whilst waiting for a wired link to be set up), so never actively looked
for "client" option on a WAP to provide the facility. In such
conditions, the Netgear may be more secure.

-- 
PeeGee

"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

"PeeGee"  wrote in message 
news:hemdndx3Z9-pAQ_XnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> Simon Finnigan wrote:
>> "PeeGee"  wrote in message
>> news:5eOdnZ2C2OhVXhPXnZ2dnUVZ8mSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>> Ric wrote:
>>>> If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a wired
>>>> bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't.  Despite the name,
>>>> they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't bridge to any other
>>>> existing wireless network.  Bastards.
>>>
>>> I may be misreading what you say, but it sounds as if you wish to
>>> connect the netgear as a bridge to a another manufacturer's unit
>>> providing a WAP. That I have not seen as possible, though I have not
>>> looked extensively.
>>>
>>> You will probably find that the pre-existing unit also bridges only to a
>>> similar unit, so your comment applies to them as well.
>>
>> I had a Buffalo wireless bridge that connects to any wireless network,
>> and gives you four ethernet ports on the back.  Dead easy to set-up,
>> reliable in use and does what it sounds like you`re thinking of.
>
> Ok, I stand corrected :-)
>
> I have only used bridging as a dedicated link between LAN segments
> (whilst waiting for a wired link to be set up), so never actively looked
> for "client" option on a WAP to provide the facility. In such
> conditions, the Netgear may be more secure.

It took a while to find a device that acted in this way.  Basically get it 
setup, then plug consoles and a few laptops into it and share the wireless 
connection with a number of devices that only have a wired ethernet socket. 
:-)

On 24 Aug, 15:44, "Simon Finnigan"  wrote:
> "PeeGee"  wrote in message
>
> news:hemdndx3Z9-pAQ_XnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Simon Finnigan wrote:
> >> "PeeGee"  wrote in message
> >>news:5eOdnZ2C2OhVXhPXnZ2dnUVZ8mSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> >>> Ric wrote:
> >>>> If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a wired
> >>>> bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't.  Despite the name,
> >>>> they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't bridge to any other
> >>>> existing wireless network.  Bastards.
>
> >>> I may be misreading what you say, but it sounds as if you wish to
> >>> connect the netgear as a bridge to a another manufacturer's unit
> >>> providing a WAP. That I have not seen as possible, though I have not
> >>> looked extensively.
>
> >>> You will probably find that the pre-existing unit also bridges only to a
> >>> similar unit, so your comment applies to them as well.
>
> >> I had a Buffalo wireless bridge that connects to any wireless network,
> >> and gives you four ethernet ports on the back.  Dead easy to set-up,
> >> reliable in use and does what it sounds like you`re thinking of.
>
> > Ok, I stand corrected :-)
>
> > I have only used bridging as a dedicated link between LAN segments
> > (whilst waiting for a wired link to be set up), so never actively looked
> > for "client" option on a WAP to provide the facility. In such
> > conditions, the Netgear may be more secure.
>
> It took a while to find a device that acted in this way.  Basically get it
> setup, then plug consoles and a few laptops into it and share the wireless
> connection with a number of devices that only have a wired ethernet socket.
> :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

that's the one, except i wanted one that worked at >802.11g speeds to
support video streaming to my xbox - i've sidestepped this by getting
the man installing some extra sensors to the house burglar alarm to
run some gigE cable into the living room.  hopefully this'll also
increase the likelihood of me backing up my macbook pro more often...