John Doe wrote:
> As per my prior post, there is perfectly fitting advice from product
> reviews and the electronics design group. And in fact I've already set up
> the directional antenna. It greatly boosted both bands. I'm having some
> trouble connecting and staying connected, but I suspect that's to do with
> the built-in WiFi. That will be easy to test by buying a WiFi card, after
> I run out of other leads.
>
> If "using a spare ethernet port" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is
> such a great idea, where is the product, Bozo?

You can plug in an Access Point, to modify the RF landscape.
That gives you another emitter.

There are also Range Extenders. I suppose a Range Extender, is
like a Mesh, only the backhaul is done in the same band as
the client signaling.

https://www.linksys.com/us/r/resource-center/what-is-a-wifi-access-point/

You can also use Mesh Routers - that's similar to having an
Access Point, except instead of using an Ethernet cable, it
uses a 5GHz band for backhaul. There seem to be a couple
5GHz bands, one can be used for backhaul, while the
channels on the other are the conventional 5GHz channels
for client machines.

The benefit of emitters that use wires for their information
source, is the RF usage is all used by clients. Whereas some
of the other mechanisms, have an impact on the RF environment.

When you use an ordinary Wifi interface on a computer
in a point-to-point fashion, that's AdHoc networking, and
the rate that runs at is limited (maybe 50Mbit/sec or so).
That might be similar to an Access Point, but using some
restrictions on what band and standard it uses. Like, if you
had a 60GHz Wifi interface on a PC, and used an AdHoc driver
for it, the 60GHz portion would likely be switched off, and
it might be using 802.11b or so.

The main benefit of a Mesh, it's a "networking is too hard for me"
solution. The saving is on the configuring. Just pick a location
and plug them in (at maybe $250 a unit or something). Mesh can be
very expensive to install. By mixing and matching some of the
cheaper equipment, you can get just as good a solution.

Using wired devices and picking a location, that's better from
an RF perspective. The bands are then only used to solve the
comms problem, not the backhaul problem. It might also
add an air of "manual control", in that you could do some
channel planning in the house to get what you want.

Some of the first Mesh boxes weren't that good, as the
firmware was still in need of work. I think that's improved
for the best of them now. The problem with the multiple 5GHz
bands, is municipal radars have priority, and any of your
boxes have to switch off the optional 5GHz areas, if a radar
is heard on the band. This is similar to a "white space" allocation
from a licensing perspective. Space is "carved out", only if
the band is quiet. The "official" 5GHz portion, no radar
stops that one, as the allocation for that is the unlicensed
low power thing (like a CB radio band, hardly policed).

Before you spend the better part of a thousand on some
mesh setup, read the reviews. As there can be quite a
difference between the very best and the worst of the lot.
The first firmwares were likely homebrew, written by
engineers at the factory, instead of being works by a
company that does nothing but firmwares. On some routers,
the same code base runs on a hundred different products.
The companies simply buy a firmware (similar to Award or
AMI or Phoenix for computers). Then, when there's an exploit
for the firmware, a hundred router designs are in danger
at the same time.

The emission pattern of an Omni antenna (the antenna the
router came with), is not spherical. The signal is
mainly available on the same floor of the house as
the router. The upstairs or the basement, could get
less signal. Programs like 4NEC2 can show what the
radiation pattern is like, for various kinds of antennas.

The "squat" pattern in the middle of this page, would
be a setup where most of the signal was on the main floor.

https://www.mpantenna.com/omnidirectional-antenna-radiation-patterns/

With MIMO gear, you can tilt some of the antennas
to fill in gaps.

Paul

John Doe wrote:
> What the hell is "using a spare Ethernet port" supposed to mean?
>
> WHERE IS THE PRODUCT, BOZO?
>
> This idiot troll is not being distracted well enough... Like it was,
> fortunately, for many months before...

I saw this one, and couldn't resist based on the Ad Copy.
It "does everything" and is only $39.

https://www.newegg.com/wavlink-wl-wn575a3-1/p/1A7-0019-00011

Reading the reviews, the wired interface is 100BT, so not
the best in that regard.

*******

This one is a router, with Access Point mode as a config option.

https://www.newegg.com/tp-link-archer-a6-ieee-802-11ac-n-a-5-ghz-ieee-802-11b-g-n-2-4-ghz/p/N82E16833704463

4. 4. Configure the Router in Access Point Mode

In this mode, your router connects to a wired or wireless router via an Ethernet cable
and extends the wireless coverage of your existing network. Advanced functions like
NAT, Parental Controls and QoS are not supported in this mode.

1. Connect one of the router’s LAN ports to the existing network using an Ethernet
cable.
2. Visit http://tplinkwifi.net," rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://tplinkwifi.net, and log in with your TP-Link ID or the password
you set for the router.
3. Go to Advanced > Operation Mode, select Access Point and click Save.
Log in to the router via http://tplinkwifi.net after the router reboots.
4. Go to Quick Setup or Settings > Wireless > Wireless Settings and
set the SSIDs and passwords for the wireless network.
Now, you can connect to the SSIDs and enjoy your existing network.

Paul

On 04/06/2021 06:57, Paul wrote:
> Configure the Router in Access Point Mode

I don't know how many times I said you set it up as a _bridge_ which is
important because it does _not_ act at all like an access point would.

If you're connecting to the Ethernet port you don't set it up as an AP.
You configure it as a _bridge_ (it's connected directly to your router AP).

*It _bridges_ your PC to your router over the air (instead of by cable).*

Physically the transceiver is connected to your Ethernet via cat5 cable.
Physically the antenna is pointed in the direction of the router AP.

It's a direct connection to your access point - only it doesn't use cable.
Your PC can't tell it's Wi-Fi - the PC thinks it's an Ethernet connection.

I'm sure you will understand but I doubt the OP will ever understand because
the OP doesn't seem to know anything except how to call people bozos.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
> On 04/06/2021 06:57, Paul wrote:
>> Configure the Router in Access Point Mode
>
> I don't know how many times I said you set it up as a _bridge_ which is
> important because it does _not_ act at all like an access point would.
>
> If you're connecting to the Ethernet port you don't set it up as an AP.
> You configure it as a _bridge_ (it's connected directly to your router AP).
>
> *It _bridges_ your PC to your router over the air (instead of by cable).*
>
> Physically the transceiver is connected to your Ethernet via cat5 cable.
> Physically the antenna is pointed in the direction of the router AP.
>
> It's a direct connection to your access point - only it doesn't use cable.
> Your PC can't tell it's Wi-Fi - the PC thinks it's an Ethernet connection.
>
> I'm sure you will understand but I doubt the OP will ever understand
> because
> the OP doesn't seem to know anything except how to call people bozos.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown

The instructions I posted, do not say the word bridge,
but that's implied. That's TPLinks choice of how to design
a UI.

One of the plastic boxes in my network setup is in
bridged mode right now, but it says in plain English
"bridged", leaving it to the user to figure out what
that's good for.

Paul

YOU STILL NEED A BETTER ANTENNA for a week signal.

Pay attention!

The BOZOS don't even know what the other is talking about.

BESIDES... The problem isn't distribution of the signal, the problem is
RECEPTION of the signal.

But Bozos will be Bozos...

--
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!hGrsookgpxVab8ciKZ/QnA.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:21:44 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 22
> Message-ID: <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: hGrsookgpxVab8ciKZ/QnA.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Content-Language: en-GB
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146078
>
> On 04/06/2021 06:57, Paul wrote:
>> Configure the Router in Access Point Mode
>
> I don't know how many times I said you set it up as a _bridge_ which is
> important because it does _not_ act at all like an access point would.
>
> If you're connecting to the Ethernet port you don't set it up as an AP.
> You configure it as a _bridge_ (it's connected directly to your router AP).
>
> *It _bridges_ your PC to your router over the air (instead of by cable).*
>
> Physically the transceiver is connected to your Ethernet via cat5 cable.
> Physically the antenna is pointed in the direction of the router AP.
>
> It's a direct connection to your access point - only it doesn't use cable.
> Your PC can't tell it's Wi-Fi - the PC thinks it's an Ethernet connection.
>
> I'm sure you will understand but I doubt the OP will ever understand because
> the OP doesn't seem to know anything except how to call people bozos.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>

Provide an example use of your mystery product IN THE REAL WORLD that
fits this thread's subject. And No, more babbling on wikishit won't do.

Citations please...

--
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 11:40:02 -0400
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 35
> Message-ID: <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:40:04 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="15a7e83d3152c8c17d8090e97adcacc6"; logging-data="29173"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KyO8BVd9LwstTFZgT1FJFbA6jg0RDG18="
> User-Agent: Ratcatcher/2.0.0.25 (Windows/20130802)
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:pUyYthc7D4OiC1/yjC5kOjZK764=
> In-Reply-To: <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146082
>
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 04/06/2021 06:57, Paul wrote:
>>> Configure the Router in Access Point Mode
>>
>> I don't know how many times I said you set it up as a _bridge_ which is
>> important because it does _not_ act at all like an access point would.
>>
>> If you're connecting to the Ethernet port you don't set it up as an AP.
>> You configure it as a _bridge_ (it's connected directly to your router AP).
>>
>> *It _bridges_ your PC to your router over the air (instead of by cable).*
>>
>> Physically the transceiver is connected to your Ethernet via cat5 cable.
>> Physically the antenna is pointed in the direction of the router AP.
>>
>> It's a direct connection to your access point - only it doesn't use cable.
>> Your PC can't tell it's Wi-Fi - the PC thinks it's an Ethernet connection.
>>
>> I'm sure you will understand but I doubt the OP will ever understand
>> because
>> the OP doesn't seem to know anything except how to call people bozos.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
> The instructions I posted, do not say the word bridge,
> but that's implied. That's TPLinks choice of how to design
> a UI.
>
> One of the plastic boxes in my network setup is in
> bridged mode right now, but it says in plain English
> "bridged", leaving it to the user to figure out what
> that's good for.
>
> Paul
>
>

On 04/06/2021 13:33, Paul wrote:
> You can plug in an Access Point, to modify the RF landscape.

Most routers can be set up as a _bridge_ (not all, but most).
*The router _bridges_ the PC to your Wi-Fi access point (over the air).*

The OP can use any brand but I prefer Mikrotik because of the flexibility.
If the OP goes with Ubiquiti he will get easier setup but less flexibility.

This explains how to set up the Mikrotik routerboard as a bridge.
https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=712335
(ignore the newbies who said to set it up as an AP and look only at what the
experienced master users said, which is to set it up as a brige)

As per the OP's requirement nothing is changed on the router.
And nothing is changed on the PC.

Keeping in mind what the OP requested, he ends up with transmit power up to
the legal limit for his country and receiver sensitivity par excellence.

You can't do better than maximum legal power with excellent sensitivity.

As the OP requested, *NOTHING* changes on the PC or router.
There is simply an _addition_ of a transceiver connected to the PC RJ45.

Optionally the OP can add PC WinBox software (instead of using a browser).
https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Winbox

The only thing you need is to set up the transceiver as a bridge
https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/Bridge

1. Go to System->Reset Configuration, tick "Do Not Backup" and "No Default
Configuration" then click Reset Configuration
2. When the router has rebooted access the Quick Set page using the MAC
address of the hAP
3. Under "Configuration" choose "Bridge"
4. Under Bridge set a static IP in your home wifi subnet along with the
appropriate netmask, gateway and DNS. Select "Bridge All LAN Ports". Make
sure it is not an IP that the home router would assign automatically.
5. Click "Apply Configuration"
6. Access the configuration pages using the MAC address
7. Go to "Interfaces->Interface" tab & enable wlan1
8. Go to Interfaces->Interface List" and change wlan1 to LAN
9. Go to System->Reboot and Reboot the router
10. Access the router and go to the Quick Set page
11. Click the Disconnect button in the bottom middle of the page and then
select your home AP from the Scan List and connect.

Here is a video of the setup
https://youtu.be/cDzaD_trfxY

This solution to the OP's problem satisfies the requirements that nothing is
changed on the PC and nothing is changed on the router and nothing is
changed on the LAN or WAN.

The only addition is the transceiver is plugged into the PC Ethernet card.
The PC thinks it's an Ethernet connect.

The OP can then _test_ both his existing Wi-Fi & his new Ethernet connection
and see for himself what maximum power and sensitivity can get him.

Or, the OP can continue to call me a bozo because he doesn't understand it.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Bozo thinks a transceiver has something to do with increasing reception...

--
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!hGrsookgpxVab8ciKZ/QnA.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:59:44 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 66
> Message-ID: <s9dilc$nrd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9bbts$28s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9co04$s88$3@dont-email.me> <s9d6jl$br1$1@dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: hGrsookgpxVab8ciKZ/QnA.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
> Content-Language: en-GB
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146090
>
> On 04/06/2021 13:33, Paul wrote:
>> You can plug in an Access Point, to modify the RF landscape.
>
> Most routers can be set up as a _bridge_ (not all, but most).
> *The router _bridges_ the PC to your Wi-Fi access point (over the air).*
>
> The OP can use any brand but I prefer Mikrotik because of the flexibility.
> If the OP goes with Ubiquiti he will get easier setup but less flexibility.
>
> This explains how to set up the Mikrotik routerboard as a bridge.
> https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=712335
> (ignore the newbies who said to set it up as an AP and look only at what the
> experienced master users said, which is to set it up as a brige)
>
> As per the OP's requirement nothing is changed on the router.
> And nothing is changed on the PC.
>
> Keeping in mind what the OP requested, he ends up with transmit power up to
> the legal limit for his country and receiver sensitivity par excellence.
>
> You can't do better than maximum legal power with excellent sensitivity.
>
> As the OP requested, *NOTHING* changes on the PC or router.
> There is simply an _addition_ of a transceiver connected to the PC RJ45.
>
> Optionally the OP can add PC WinBox software (instead of using a browser).
> https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Winbox
>
> The only thing you need is to set up the transceiver as a bridge
> https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/Bridge
>
> 1. Go to System->Reset Configuration, tick "Do Not Backup" and "No Default
> Configuration" then click Reset Configuration
> 2. When the router has rebooted access the Quick Set page using the MAC
> address of the hAP
> 3. Under "Configuration" choose "Bridge"
> 4. Under Bridge set a static IP in your home wifi subnet along with the
> appropriate netmask, gateway and DNS. Select "Bridge All LAN Ports". Make
> sure it is not an IP that the home router would assign automatically.
> 5. Click "Apply Configuration"
> 6. Access the configuration pages using the MAC address
> 7. Go to "Interfaces->Interface" tab & enable wlan1
> 8. Go to Interfaces->Interface List" and change wlan1 to LAN
> 9. Go to System->Reboot and Reboot the router
> 10. Access the router and go to the Quick Set page
> 11. Click the Disconnect button in the bottom middle of the page and then
> select your home AP from the Scan List and connect.
>
> Here is a video of the setup
> https://youtu.be/cDzaD_trfxY
>
> This solution to the OP's problem satisfies the requirements that nothing is
> changed on the PC and nothing is changed on the router and nothing is
> changed on the LAN or WAN.
>
> The only addition is the transceiver is plugged into the PC Ethernet card.
> The PC thinks it's an Ethernet connect.
>
> The OP can then _test_ both his existing Wi-Fi & his new Ethernet connection
> and see for himself what maximum power and sensitivity can get him.
>
> Or, the OP can continue to call me a bozo because he doesn't understand it.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>

On 04/06/2021 16:40, Paul wrote:
> One of the plastic boxes in my network setup is in
> bridged mode right now, but it says in plain English
> "bridged", leaving it to the user to figure out what
> that's good for.

It's a very common question of the difference between Bridge & AP modes.
A bridge is one solution for the OP because the OP limited the options.

Nothing can change.
Only additions are allowed.
Even those additions change nothing on the PC.
They're only physical additions (assuming a spare PC Ethernet port).

The OP gains maximum Wi-Fi transmit power & excellent receiver sensitivity.

With a transceiver connected to his PC over cat5 set up as a bridge,
the OP doesn't need to change a single thing on his PC or router.

Even his existing PC Wi-Fi setup doesn't need to be changed.
He can test both his Ethernet & Wi-Fi connections to see the difference.

Anyone with signal strength issues can benefit from maximum output power
(up to the legal limits for his country) & excellent receiver sensitivity).

At about the same cost & complexity as adding a router would be.

Almost every router (and Wi-Fi transceiver) can do bridge mode.
http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/

This is the simplest explanation of a bridge I can find for you.
https://community.netgear.com/t5/Nighthawk-WiFi-Routers/Bridge-Mode-or-Access-Point-What-s-the-difference-Cascade/td-p/498680
"A wireless bridge is an arrangement of devices (minimum two) that link two
wired network segments, wirelessly."

Technically the difference is the network layer versus the data link layer.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-bridge-and-router/

I'm not explaining this for the OP who calls everyone who knows more than he
does a "bozo". I'm explaining this for you and anyone else who can learn.

The OP gave us a stringent requirement that nothing can be changed and yet
he needs greater signal strength & sensitivity. This provides that solution.

I have absolutely no doubt the OP will never understand what I'm saying.
But I'm hoping you (and maybe some of the others) do understand it.

If you do understand (anyone) please just say so as I don't want to waste
your time and mine if I'm not explaining the solution well enough for you.
Regards,
Martin Brown

A persistent troll...

--
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!hGrsookgpxVab8ciKZ/QnA.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:22:26 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 52
> Message-ID: <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: hGrsookgpxVab8ciKZ/QnA.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Content-Language: en-GB
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146093
>
> On 04/06/2021 16:40, Paul wrote:
>> One of the plastic boxes in my network setup is in
>> bridged mode right now, but it says in plain English
>> "bridged", leaving it to the user to figure out what
>> that's good for.
>
> It's a very common question of the difference between Bridge & AP modes.
> A bridge is one solution for the OP because the OP limited the options.
>
> Nothing can change.
> Only additions are allowed.
> Even those additions change nothing on the PC.
> They're only physical additions (assuming a spare PC Ethernet port).
>
> The OP gains maximum Wi-Fi transmit power & excellent receiver sensitivity.
>
> With a transceiver connected to his PC over cat5 set up as a bridge,
> the OP doesn't need to change a single thing on his PC or router.
>
> Even his existing PC Wi-Fi setup doesn't need to be changed.
> He can test both his Ethernet & Wi-Fi connections to see the difference.
>
> Anyone with signal strength issues can benefit from maximum output power
> (up to the legal limits for his country) & excellent receiver sensitivity).
>
> At about the same cost & complexity as adding a router would be.
>
> Almost every router (and Wi-Fi transceiver) can do bridge mode.
> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>
> This is the simplest explanation of a bridge I can find for you.
> https://community.netgear.com/t5/Nighthawk-WiFi-Routers/Bridge-Mode-or-Access-Point-What-s-the-difference-Cascade/td-p/498680
> "A wireless bridge is an arrangement of devices (minimum two) that link two
> wired network segments, wirelessly."
>
> Technically the difference is the network layer versus the data link layer.
> https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-bridge-and-router/
>
> I'm not explaining this for the OP who calls everyone who knows more than he
> does a "bozo". I'm explaining this for you and anyone else who can learn.
>
> The OP gave us a stringent requirement that nothing can be changed and yet
> he needs greater signal strength & sensitivity. This provides that solution.
>
> I have absolutely no doubt the OP will never understand what I'm saying.
> But I'm hoping you (and maybe some of the others) do understand it.
>
> If you do understand (anyone) please just say so as I don't want to waste
> your time and mine if I'm not explaining the solution well enough for you.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:21:42 -0000 (UTC), John Doe wrote:

> Bozo thinks a transceiver has something to do with increasing reception...

You really need to sit down and read a dumbed down book on radio basics.
--
When it comes to sharpening pencils...
There's never a dull moment.

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:22:26 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 04/06/2021 16:40, Paul wrote:
>> One of the plastic boxes in my network setup is in
>> bridged mode right now, but it says in plain English
>> "bridged", leaving it to the user to figure out what
>> that's good for.
>
>It's a very common question of the difference between Bridge & AP modes.
>A bridge is one solution for the OP because the OP limited the options.
>
>Nothing can change.
>Only additions are allowed.
>Even those additions change nothing on the PC.
>They're only physical additions (assuming a spare PC Ethernet port).
>
>The OP gains maximum Wi-Fi transmit power & excellent receiver sensitivity.
>
>With a transceiver connected to his PC over cat5 set up as a bridge,
>the OP doesn't need to change a single thing on his PC or router.
>
>Even his existing PC Wi-Fi setup doesn't need to be changed.
>He can test both his Ethernet & Wi-Fi connections to see the difference.
>
>Anyone with signal strength issues can benefit from maximum output power
>(up to the legal limits for his country) & excellent receiver sensitivity).
>
>At about the same cost & complexity as adding a router would be.
>
>Almost every router (and Wi-Fi transceiver) can do bridge mode.
>http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>
>This is the simplest explanation of a bridge I can find for you.
>https://community.netgear.com/t5/Nighthawk-WiFi-Routers/Bridge-Mode-or-Access-Point-What-s-the-difference-Cascade/td-p/498680
>"A wireless bridge is an arrangement of devices (minimum two) that link two
>wired network segments, wirelessly."
>
>Technically the difference is the network layer versus the data link layer.
>https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-bridge-and-router/
>
>I'm not explaining this for the OP who calls everyone who knows more than he
>does a "bozo". I'm explaining this for you and anyone else who can learn.
>
>The OP gave us a stringent requirement that nothing can be changed and yet
>he needs greater signal strength & sensitivity. This provides that solution.
>
>I have absolutely no doubt the OP will never understand what I'm saying.
>But I'm hoping you (and maybe some of the others) do understand it.
>
>If you do understand (anyone) please just say so as I don't want to waste
>your time and mine if I'm not explaining the solution well enough for you.

Thanks for trying but I think it's (he's) hopeless.

BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
speed. Even so, still a good start.

Nothing about the subject at hand, nothing but
a big ego troll...

--
bill <bill@spam.invalid> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!vKdQamOrxiM9qt47as0ypQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: bill <bill@spam.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Followup-To: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 18:30:50 +0200
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 8
> Message-ID: <s9dkfm$1kat$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9bbts$28s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9co04$s88$3@dont-email.me> <s9d6jl$br1$1@dont-email.me> <s9dilc$nrd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9djum$feb$1@dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: vKdQamOrxiM9qt47as0ypQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41 (51e03d8d.9.298)
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146096
>
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:21:42 -0000 (UTC), John Doe wrote:
>
>> Bozo thinks a transceiver has something to do with increasing reception...
>
> You really need to sit down and read a dumbed down book on radio basics.
> --
> When it comes to sharpening pencils...
> There's never a dull moment.
>
>

Real-world examples of device applications fitting this subject?

Nothing but radio silence from the troll...

--
Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Message-ID: <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 60
> X-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 17:26:03 UTC
> Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com
> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 12:26:04 -0500
> X-Received-Bytes: 3779
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146098
>
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:22:26 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 04/06/2021 16:40, Paul wrote:
>>> One of the plastic boxes in my network setup is in
>>> bridged mode right now, but it says in plain English
>>> "bridged", leaving it to the user to figure out what
>>> that's good for.
>>
>>It's a very common question of the difference between Bridge & AP modes.
>>A bridge is one solution for the OP because the OP limited the options.
>>
>>Nothing can change.
>>Only additions are allowed.
>>Even those additions change nothing on the PC.
>>They're only physical additions (assuming a spare PC Ethernet port).
>>
>>The OP gains maximum Wi-Fi transmit power & excellent receiver sensitivity.
>>
>>With a transceiver connected to his PC over cat5 set up as a bridge,
>>the OP doesn't need to change a single thing on his PC or router.
>>
>>Even his existing PC Wi-Fi setup doesn't need to be changed.
>>He can test both his Ethernet & Wi-Fi connections to see the difference.
>>
>>Anyone with signal strength issues can benefit from maximum output power
>>(up to the legal limits for his country) & excellent receiver sensitivity).
>>
>>At about the same cost & complexity as adding a router would be.
>>
>>Almost every router (and Wi-Fi transceiver) can do bridge mode.
>>http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>>
>>This is the simplest explanation of a bridge I can find for you.
>>https://community.netgear.com/t5/Nighthawk-WiFi-Routers/Bridge-Mode-or-Access-Point-What-s-the-difference-Cascade/td-p/498680
>>"A wireless bridge is an arrangement of devices (minimum two) that link two
>>wired network segments, wirelessly."
>>
>>Technically the difference is the network layer versus the data link layer.
>>https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-bridge-and-router/
>>
>>I'm not explaining this for the OP who calls everyone who knows more than he
>>does a "bozo". I'm explaining this for you and anyone else who can learn.
>>
>>The OP gave us a stringent requirement that nothing can be changed and yet
>>he needs greater signal strength & sensitivity. This provides that solution.
>>
>>I have absolutely no doubt the OP will never understand what I'm saying.
>>But I'm hoping you (and maybe some of the others) do understand it.
>>
>>If you do understand (anyone) please just say so as I don't want to waste
>>your time and mine if I'm not explaining the solution well enough for you.
>
> Thanks for trying but I think it's (he's) hopeless.
>
> BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
> I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
> speed. Even so, still a good start.
>
>
>

On 04/06/2021 17:26, Char Jackson wrote:
> Thanks for trying but I think it's (he's) hopeless.

I'm saying this for everyone else to know bridging works well when you don't
have a working Wi-Fi card but you have a spare RJ45 port in the back.

Paul may be able to tell us how to use _both_ the Wi-Fi card and the
Ethernet card at the same time in Windows 10.

I seem to be able to only use one or the other at any given time.
If you know how to use both at the same time that would be a nice bonus.

> BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
> I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
> speed. Even so, still a good start.

It's a very common question of how bridging differs from routing.

I don't know it well enough to summarize perfectly but a router deals with
IP addresses while that router set up as a bridge deals with MAC addresses.

Instead of physically laying a cat5 cable from the MAC address at the RJ45
of the PC Ethernet card to the MAC address of the router RJ45, we use Wi-Fi.

A Wi-Fi bridge connects _only_ from the PC RJ45 MAC to the router RJ45 MAC.
It's just a wire but without using wires.

In addition, you're transmitting at the highest (EIRP) signal strength you
can (legally) transmit & your receiver sensitivity is as good as it gets.

This is a good solution for anyone who wants to spend about as much as
either a new router or repeater costs and who doesn't want to change
anything in the PC or in the router or on the network.

Bridging is like adding a wire directly & only from the PC to the router.

Regards,
Martin Brown

A directional antenna is best since this is a desktop PC, and apparently
the antenna does what it's supposed to do. But... The connection drops
immediately, or it doesn't connect at all. After two clean installations,
one with all the motherboard drivers, no joy. That eliminates all sorts of
stuff. I have a spare motherboard, but no built-in WiFi there. The
extender could be attached to the directional antenna, but it's currently
my only connection and doing that without the proper connectors might
require some soldering finesse. Probably need a WiFi card and some
connectors. Kinda sucks that the motherboard WiFi doesn't work, if so.
Seems to be a dearth of information on the subject, usually that indicates
it's a local problem...

--

I wrote:

> The source cannot be changed.
>
> The extender used to work consistently but lately Internet service is
> frequently interrupted. The signal exists, but it's probably weaker.
>
> Bought some supposedly good WiFi antennas from Amazon but got ripped off.
> Maybe should have returned them, but it was only $18 and I wanted to see what
> was inside.
>
> I have two Netgear extenders... EX7300 and WN2500RP (seems the latter works
> better than the former, maybe the EX7300 is a v1 lemon, from Amazon).
>
> I want to NUKE the problem (but of course not spend a fortune).
>
> Amplifying a weak crappy signal produces a strong crappy signal. I don't know
> how that works with WiFi.
>
> Thanks.

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 20:38:11 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 04/06/2021 17:26, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>I'm saying this for everyone else to know bridging works well when you don't
>have a working Wi-Fi card but you have a spare RJ45 port in the back.
>
>Paul may be able to tell us how to use _both_ the Wi-Fi card and the
>Ethernet card at the same time in Windows 10.
>
>I seem to be able to only use one or the other at any given time.
>If you know how to use both at the same time that would be a nice bonus.

If your goal is to establish two simultaneous network connections to the
same network, whether it's via wired or wireless or multiples of either,
you probably don't want to do that. Doing so requires special 'trunking'
software on both ends of those connections if you actually expect to use
more than one of those connections at a time. You can easily _connect_
both, but you can't easily _use_ both at the same time.

The problem is that, without that special software, the OS (Windows in this
case) makes sure you don't accidentally do that by giving each of your NICs
a different metric, which you can see when you do a 'route print'. The
wired NIC gets preference over the WiFi NIC, if you have one of each and
both are enabled and connected. If you were able to use more than one
connection to the same network at the same time, your host wouldn't know
how to split its outbound traffic across the different connections and the
remote host wouldn't know how to reassemble everything, and of course
likewise for incoming traffic. That's why you need specialized software and
it has to be running and configured identically at both endpoints.

OTOH, if you want to connect to two or more _different_ networks
simultaneously, that's easy. That part just works. No special software is
needed. You can connect to about as many networks as you like, using a
single NIC or as many NICs as you have, regardless of whether they're wired
or wireless.

>> BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
>> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>> I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
>> speed. Even so, still a good start.
>
>It's a very common question of how bridging differs from routing.
>
>I don't know it well enough to summarize perfectly but a router deals with
>IP addresses while that router set up as a bridge deals with MAC addresses.

It can also be helpful to note that a router joins two or more different
networks, while switches and bridges deal only with MAC addresses and have
no knowledge of the concept of a 'network'. That's why you can have as many
different networks as you'd like, within your LAN, and connect all of their
hosts together via switches, for example. Different networks in that
example, but no router. A router is only required if you need to get to a
network that your system isn't already a member of.

>Instead of physically laying a cat5 cable from the MAC address at the RJ45
>of the PC Ethernet card to the MAC address of the router RJ45, we use Wi-Fi.

Remember that all WiFi is bridging. All WiFi works at Layer 2, the MAC
layer.

>A Wi-Fi bridge connects _only_ from the PC RJ45 MAC to the router RJ45 MAC.
>It's just a wire but without using wires.

There are devices that are explicitly sold as wireless bridges, but you can
also use any WiFi router as a wireless bridge, even if they don't offer a
bridge mode.

>In addition, you're transmitting at the highest (EIRP) signal strength you
>can (legally) transmit & your receiver sensitivity is as good as it gets.
>
>This is a good solution for anyone who wants to spend about as much as
>either a new router or repeater costs and who doesn't want to change
>anything in the PC or in the router or on the network.
>
>Bridging is like adding a wire directly & only from the PC to the router.

At its core, that describes every WiFi connection, but you're suggesting
that it be done with better than average equipment. I concur.

On 05/06/2021 01:08, Char Jackson wrote:
> If your goal is to establish two simultaneous network connections to the
> same network, whether it's via wired or wireless or multiples of either,
> you probably don't want to do that.

That's not my goal but I always wondered why the PC can't "share" two
connections easily. I know there are "metrics" in the routing table which
determine _which_ connection the PC uses, but it seems to only use one.

> Doing so requires special 'trunking'
> software on both ends of those connections if you actually expect to use
> more than one of those connections at a time. You can easily _connect_
> both, but you can't easily _use_ both at the same time.

Thanks for the suggestion of the "trunking" software.
I concur that you can easily connect to _either_ but not to both.

> The problem is that, without that special software, the OS (Windows in this
> case) makes sure you don't accidentally do that by giving each of your NICs
> a different metric, which you can see when you do a 'route print'.

Yep. How they arrive at those numbers is black magic to me.
But I'm aware the metric determines which connection is used.

> The
> wired NIC gets preference over the WiFi NIC, if you have one of each and
> both are enabled and connected.

Yep.
In my case both are wireless only the PC doesn't realize that.
The PC "thinks" the Ethernet port is connected directly to the router.

But the Ethernet port is connected to the router also by Wi-Fi.

> If you were able to use more than one
> connection to the same network at the same time, your host wouldn't know
> how to split its outbound traffic across the different connections and the
> remote host wouldn't know how to reassemble everything, and of course
> likewise for incoming traffic. That's why you need specialized software and
> it has to be running and configured identically at both endpoints.

Sounds reasonable.
> OTOH, if you want to connect to two or more _different_ networks
> simultaneously, that's easy. That part just works.

Oh! I never thought of that. Thanks.

> No special software is
> needed. You can connect to about as many networks as you like, using a
> single NIC or as many NICs as you have, regardless of whether they're wired
> or wireless.

I need to think about that.
And how it would work.

I don't have two networks but my first thought is that if I connected the PC
Wi-Fi to my neighbor's network and if I simultaneously connect the PC
Ethernet Wi-Fi bridge to my own router, don't I have the same routing table
metric problem that I had before?

When I ping Google, how does the ping command know _which_ network to use?
>>> BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
>>> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>>> I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
>>> speed. Even so, still a good start.
>>
>>It's a very common question of how bridging differs from routing.
>>
>>I don't know it well enough to summarize perfectly but a router deals with
>>IP addresses while that router set up as a bridge deals with MAC addresses.
>
> It can also be helpful to note that a router joins two or more different
> networks, while switches and bridges deal only with MAC addresses and have
> no knowledge of the concept of a 'network'.

Sounds good.
I never really understand things that "just work" so all I know about
bridges is that they "just work" once you follow the setup directions.

To me the main difference between a router and a bridge is a router deals in
IP addresses while a bridge deals in MAC addresses. The rest is just setup.

Given what you said maybe I'll summarize to the next person that a router
deals in IP addresses and networks while a bridge deals in MAC addresses and
a single net. ;-)

> That's why you can have as many
> different networks as you'd like, within your LAN, and connect all of their
> hosts together via switches, for example. Different networks in that
> example, but no router. A router is only required if you need to get to a
> network that your system isn't already a member of.

Good explanation.
Better than mine was.

>>Instead of physically laying a cat5 cable from the MAC address at the RJ45
>>of the PC Ethernet card to the MAC address of the router RJ45, we use Wi-Fi.
>
> Remember that all WiFi is bridging. All WiFi works at Layer 2, the MAC
> layer.

Another good summary.

>
>>A Wi-Fi bridge connects _only_ from the PC RJ45 MAC to the router RJ45 MAC.
>>It's just a wire but without using wires.
>
> There are devices that are explicitly sold as wireless bridges, but you can
> also use any WiFi router as a wireless bridge, even if they don't offer a
> bridge mode.

That's news to me but I'll accept it as I only know what I've had to do.
>
>>In addition, you're transmitting at the highest (EIRP) signal strength you
>>can (legally) transmit & your receiver sensitivity is as good as it gets.
>>
>>This is a good solution for anyone who wants to spend about as much as
>>either a new router or repeater costs and who doesn't want to change
>>anything in the PC or in the router or on the network.
>>
>>Bridging is like adding a wire directly & only from the PC to the router.
>
> At its core, that describes every WiFi connection, but you're suggesting
> that it be done with better than average equipment. I concur.

Yep. It's better than home equipment at the same price as home equipment.

With Mikrotik you can actually transmit (EIRP) at far better than legal
because you can choose your country code in the equipment whereas Ubiquiti
has that choice locked down better than my old Mikrotik equipment did.

With Ubiquiti as I recall you get something like a choice of US or Australia
or something like that, which isn't much of a choice at all.

With my Mikrotik transceiver I get a choice of a hundred or so countries as
I recall. But even so the US allows pretty high EIRP limits so it's not
meaningful in the long run to bother to pick anything other than the US.

What the OP doesn't understand is the receiver sensitivity is critical since
the effective transmit power (EIRP) of the typical Netgear, Cisco, or TPLink
home router is anemic at best and for a variety of unfixable reasons.

The OP is all about antenna gain but it turns out given the anemic transmit
power of a typical home router radio you can't source an antenna to overcome
that anemic typical router's transmit power limitation.

When you're _already_ able to transmit at the legal limit, when you add the
antenna you actually have to dial _down_ the transmit power in order to stay
within legal limits.

And just as the starting point is greater on transmit than the typical home
router but also the starting point on receiver sensitivity is also greater.

So the far weaker return signals from the home router can be picked up at
the PC over the noise due to the greater sensitivity of the transceiver.

All for around the same price (give or take) as the typical home router.
(although usually the antenna is much larger than an omni would be)

None of this do I say for the OP per se since, as you said, the OP is a lost
cause from the start - but I say all this by way of communication where I
appreciate that you know more than I do which is nice to learn from you.

Hopefully others will learn too and add knowledge where we both are weak.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
> On 05/06/2021 01:08, Char Jackson wrote:
>> If your goal is to establish two simultaneous network connections to the
>> same network, whether it's via wired or wireless or multiples of either,
>> you probably don't want to do that.
>
> That's not my goal but I always wondered why the PC can't "share" two
> connections easily. I know there are "metrics" in the routing table which
> determine _which_ connection the PC uses, but it seems to only use one.
>
>> Doing so requires special 'trunking'
>> software on both ends of those connections if you actually expect to use
>> more than one of those connections at a time. You can easily _connect_
>> both, but you can't easily _use_ both at the same time.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion of the "trunking" software. I concur that you
> can easily connect to _either_ but not to both.
>
>> The problem is that, without that special software, the OS (Windows in
>> this
>> case) makes sure you don't accidentally do that by giving each of your
>> NICs
>> a different metric, which you can see when you do a 'route print'.
>
> Yep. How they arrive at those numbers is black magic to me.
> But I'm aware the metric determines which connection is used.
>
>> The
>> wired NIC gets preference over the WiFi NIC, if you have one of each and
>> both are enabled and connected.
>
> Yep.
> In my case both are wireless only the PC doesn't realize that.
> The PC "thinks" the Ethernet port is connected directly to the router.
>
> But the Ethernet port is connected to the router also by Wi-Fi.
>
>> If you were able to use more than one
>> connection to the same network at the same time, your host wouldn't know
>> how to split its outbound traffic across the different connections and
>> the
>> remote host wouldn't know how to reassemble everything, and of course
>> likewise for incoming traffic. That's why you need specialized
>> software and
>> it has to be running and configured identically at both endpoints.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
>> OTOH, if you want to connect to two or more _different_ networks
>> simultaneously, that's easy. That part just works.
>
> Oh! I never thought of that. Thanks.
>
>> No special software is
>> needed. You can connect to about as many networks as you like, using a
>> single NIC or as many NICs as you have, regardless of whether they're
>> wired
>> or wireless.
>
> I need to think about that. And how it would work.
>
> I don't have two networks but my first thought is that if I connected
> the PC
> Wi-Fi to my neighbor's network and if I simultaneously connect the PC
> Ethernet Wi-Fi bridge to my own router, don't I have the same routing table
> metric problem that I had before?
>
> When I ping Google, how does the ping command know _which_ network to use?
>
>>>> BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
>>>> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>>>>
>>>> I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
>>>> speed. Even so, still a good start.
>>>
>>> It's a very common question of how bridging differs from routing.
>>>
>>> I don't know it well enough to summarize perfectly but a router deals
>>> with
>>> IP addresses while that router set up as a bridge deals with MAC
>>> addresses.
>>
>> It can also be helpful to note that a router joins two or more different
>> networks, while switches and bridges deal only with MAC addresses and
>> have
>> no knowledge of the concept of a 'network'.
>
> Sounds good.
> I never really understand things that "just work" so all I know about
> bridges is that they "just work" once you follow the setup directions.
>
> To me the main difference between a router and a bridge is a router
> deals in
> IP addresses while a bridge deals in MAC addresses. The rest is just setup.
>
> Given what you said maybe I'll summarize to the next person that a router
> deals in IP addresses and networks while a bridge deals in MAC addresses
> and
> a single net. ;-)
>
>> That's why you can have as many
>> different networks as you'd like, within your LAN, and connect all of
>> their
>> hosts together via switches, for example. Different networks in that
>> example, but no router. A router is only required if you need to get to a
>> network that your system isn't already a member of.
>
> Good explanation. Better than mine was.
>
>>> Instead of physically laying a cat5 cable from the MAC address at the
>>> RJ45
>>> of the PC Ethernet card to the MAC address of the router RJ45, we use
>>> Wi-Fi.
>>
>> Remember that all WiFi is bridging. All WiFi works at Layer 2, the MAC
>> layer.
>
> Another good summary.
>
>>
>>> A Wi-Fi bridge connects _only_ from the PC RJ45 MAC to the router
>>> RJ45 MAC.
>>> It's just a wire but without using wires.
>>
>> There are devices that are explicitly sold as wireless bridges, but
>> you can
>> also use any WiFi router as a wireless bridge, even if they don't offer a
>> bridge mode.
>
> That's news to me but I'll accept it as I only know what I've had to do.
>>
>>> In addition, you're transmitting at the highest (EIRP) signal
>>> strength you
>>> can (legally) transmit & your receiver sensitivity is as good as it
>>> gets.
>>>
>>> This is a good solution for anyone who wants to spend about as much as
>>> either a new router or repeater costs and who doesn't want to change
>>> anything in the PC or in the router or on the network.
>>>
>>> Bridging is like adding a wire directly & only from the PC to the
>>> router.
>>
>> At its core, that describes every WiFi connection, but you're suggesting
>> that it be done with better than average equipment. I concur.
>
> Yep. It's better than home equipment at the same price as home equipment.
>
> With Mikrotik you can actually transmit (EIRP) at far better than legal
> because you can choose your country code in the equipment whereas Ubiquiti
> has that choice locked down better than my old Mikrotik equipment did.
>
> With Ubiquiti as I recall you get something like a choice of US or
> Australia
> or something like that, which isn't much of a choice at all.
>
> With my Mikrotik transceiver I get a choice of a hundred or so countries as
> I recall. But even so the US allows pretty high EIRP limits so it's not
> meaningful in the long run to bother to pick anything other than the US.
>
> What the OP doesn't understand is the receiver sensitivity is critical
> since
> the effective transmit power (EIRP) of the typical Netgear, Cisco, or
> TPLink
> home router is anemic at best and for a variety of unfixable reasons.
>
> The OP is all about antenna gain but it turns out given the anemic transmit
> power of a typical home router radio you can't source an antenna to
> overcome
> that anemic typical router's transmit power limitation.
>
> When you're _already_ able to transmit at the legal limit, when you add the
> antenna you actually have to dial _down_ the transmit power in order to
> stay
> within legal limits.
> And just as the starting point is greater on transmit than the typical home
> router but also the starting point on receiver sensitivity is also greater.
>
> So the far weaker return signals from the home router can be picked up at
> the PC over the noise due to the greater sensitivity of the transceiver.
>
> All for around the same price (give or take) as the typical home router.
> (although usually the antenna is much larger than an omni would be)
>
> None of this do I say for the OP per se since, as you said, the OP is a
> lost
> cause from the start - but I say all this by way of communication where I
> appreciate that you know more than I do which is nice to learn from you.
>
> Hopefully others will learn too and add knowledge where we both are weak.
> -- Regards,
> Martin Brown

Again... A typical WiFi communications device through a directional
antenna has its signal CONCENTRATED in one direction.

As pointed out in the electronics design group...

"The directional antenna simply directs the available transmitter power in
a single direction. It'll beam about 20 times as much power in that
direction as an omni would (at the expense of sending far less power in
other directions). You'll get 4-5x (rough guesstimate) the range with an
antenna like this than you would with an omni."

I thought this idiot had given up on suggesting it's idea is good for my
application, but apparently it's still spewing that nonsense.

If it's such a good idea, where are the APPLICATIONS??? There are none,
that's why the trolls never respond to that repeated question.

At least the idiot troll admits it's clueless...

--
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!hGrsookgpxVab8ciKZ/QnA.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 14:58:36 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 169
> Message-ID: <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: hGrsookgpxVab8ciKZ/QnA.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Content-Language: en-GB
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146140
>
> On 05/06/2021 01:08, Char Jackson wrote:
>> If your goal is to establish two simultaneous network connections to the
>> same network, whether it's via wired or wireless or multiples of either,
>> you probably don't want to do that.
>
> That's not my goal but I always wondered why the PC can't "share" two
> connections easily. I know there are "metrics" in the routing table which
> determine _which_ connection the PC uses, but it seems to only use one.
>
>> Doing so requires special 'trunking'
>> software on both ends of those connections if you actually expect to use
>> more than one of those connections at a time. You can easily _connect_
>> both, but you can't easily _use_ both at the same time.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion of the "trunking" software.
> I concur that you can easily connect to _either_ but not to both.
>
>> The problem is that, without that special software, the OS (Windows in this
>> case) makes sure you don't accidentally do that by giving each of your NICs
>> a different metric, which you can see when you do a 'route print'.
>
> Yep. How they arrive at those numbers is black magic to me.
> But I'm aware the metric determines which connection is used.
>
>> The
>> wired NIC gets preference over the WiFi NIC, if you have one of each and
>> both are enabled and connected.
>
> Yep.
> In my case both are wireless only the PC doesn't realize that.
> The PC "thinks" the Ethernet port is connected directly to the router.
>
> But the Ethernet port is connected to the router also by Wi-Fi.
>
>> If you were able to use more than one
>> connection to the same network at the same time, your host wouldn't know
>> how to split its outbound traffic across the different connections and the
>> remote host wouldn't know how to reassemble everything, and of course
>> likewise for incoming traffic. That's why you need specialized software and
>> it has to be running and configured identically at both endpoints.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
>> OTOH, if you want to connect to two or more _different_ networks
>> simultaneously, that's easy. That part just works.
>
> Oh! I never thought of that. Thanks.
>
>> No special software is
>> needed. You can connect to about as many networks as you like, using a
>> single NIC or as many NICs as you have, regardless of whether they're wired
>> or wireless.
>
> I need to think about that.
> And how it would work.
>
> I don't have two networks but my first thought is that if I connected the PC
> Wi-Fi to my neighbor's network and if I simultaneously connect the PC
> Ethernet Wi-Fi bridge to my own router, don't I have the same routing table
> metric problem that I had before?
>
> When I ping Google, how does the ping command know _which_ network to use?
>
>>>> BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
>>>> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>>>> I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
>>>> speed. Even so, still a good start.
>>>
>>>It's a very common question of how bridging differs from routing.
>>>
>>>I don't know it well enough to summarize perfectly but a router deals with
>>>IP addresses while that router set up as a bridge deals with MAC addresses.
>>
>> It can also be helpful to note that a router joins two or more different
>> networks, while switches and bridges deal only with MAC addresses and have
>> no knowledge of the concept of a 'network'.
>
> Sounds good.
> I never really understand things that "just work" so all I know about
> bridges is that they "just work" once you follow the setup directions.
>
> To me the main difference between a router and a bridge is a router deals in
> IP addresses while a bridge deals in MAC addresses. The rest is just setup.
>
> Given what you said maybe I'll summarize to the next person that a router
> deals in IP addresses and networks while a bridge deals in MAC addresses and
> a single net. ;-)
>
>> That's why you can have as many
>> different networks as you'd like, within your LAN, and connect all of their
>> hosts together via switches, for example. Different networks in that
>> example, but no router. A router is only required if you need to get to a
>> network that your system isn't already a member of.
>
> Good explanation.
> Better than mine was.
>
>>>Instead of physically laying a cat5 cable from the MAC address at the RJ45
>>>of the PC Ethernet card to the MAC address of the router RJ45, we use Wi-Fi.
>>
>> Remember that all WiFi is bridging. All WiFi works at Layer 2, the MAC
>> layer.
>
> Another good summary.
>
>>
>>>A Wi-Fi bridge connects _only_ from the PC RJ45 MAC to the router RJ45 MAC.
>>>It's just a wire but without using wires.
>>
>> There are devices that are explicitly sold as wireless bridges, but you can
>> also use any WiFi router as a wireless bridge, even if they don't offer a
>> bridge mode.
>
> That's news to me but I'll accept it as I only know what I've had to do.
>>
>>>In addition, you're transmitting at the highest (EIRP) signal strength you
>>>can (legally) transmit & your receiver sensitivity is as good as it gets.
>>>
>>>This is a good solution for anyone who wants to spend about as much as
>>>either a new router or repeater costs and who doesn't want to change
>>>anything in the PC or in the router or on the network.
>>>
>>>Bridging is like adding a wire directly & only from the PC to the router.
>>
>> At its core, that describes every WiFi connection, but you're suggesting
>> that it be done with better than average equipment. I concur.
>
> Yep. It's better than home equipment at the same price as home equipment.
>
> With Mikrotik you can actually transmit (EIRP) at far better than legal
> because you can choose your country code in the equipment whereas Ubiquiti
> has that choice locked down better than my old Mikrotik equipment did.
>
> With Ubiquiti as I recall you get something like a choice of US or Australia
> or something like that, which isn't much of a choice at all.
>
> With my Mikrotik transceiver I get a choice of a hundred or so countries as
> I recall. But even so the US allows pretty high EIRP limits so it's not
> meaningful in the long run to bother to pick anything other than the US.
>
> What the OP doesn't understand is the receiver sensitivity is critical since
> the effective transmit power (EIRP) of the typical Netgear, Cisco, or TPLink
> home router is anemic at best and for a variety of unfixable reasons.
>
> The OP is all about antenna gain but it turns out given the anemic transmit
> power of a typical home router radio you can't source an antenna to overcome
> that anemic typical router's transmit power limitation.
>
> When you're _already_ able to transmit at the legal limit, when you add the
> antenna you actually have to dial _down_ the transmit power in order to stay
> within legal limits.
>
> And just as the starting point is greater on transmit than the typical home
> router but also the starting point on receiver sensitivity is also greater.
>
> So the far weaker return signals from the home router can be picked up at
> the PC over the noise due to the greater sensitivity of the transceiver.
>
> All for around the same price (give or take) as the typical home router.
> (although usually the antenna is much larger than an omni would be)
>
> None of this do I say for the OP per se since, as you said, the OP is a lost
> cause from the start - but I say all this by way of communication where I
> appreciate that you know more than I do which is nice to learn from you.
>
> Hopefully others will learn too and add knowledge where we both are weak.
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>

Since you continue to insist it's a good device for my situation...

WHERE'S THE APPLICATION???

--
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2021 12:12:48 -0400
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 247
> Message-ID: <s9g7q2$pf6$1@dont-email.me>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 16:12:50 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f3c86d401552725efc0f2931218dd00b"; logging-data="26086"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ihFDVJ1nUm/30wDxHeHeuqESj/EcSa4U="
> User-Agent: Ratcatcher/2.0.0.25 (Windows/20130802)
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:NCBZn7Wz5ZUD1Ws1zQxvU36enVg=
> In-Reply-To: <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146152
>
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 05/06/2021 01:08, Char Jackson wrote:
>>> If your goal is to establish two simultaneous network connections to the
>>> same network, whether it's via wired or wireless or multiples of either,
>>> you probably don't want to do that.
>>
>> That's not my goal but I always wondered why the PC can't "share" two
>> connections easily. I know there are "metrics" in the routing table which
>> determine _which_ connection the PC uses, but it seems to only use one.
>>
>>> Doing so requires special 'trunking'
>>> software on both ends of those connections if you actually expect to use
>>> more than one of those connections at a time. You can easily _connect_
>>> both, but you can't easily _use_ both at the same time.
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion of the "trunking" software. I concur that you
>> can easily connect to _either_ but not to both.
>>
>>> The problem is that, without that special software, the OS (Windows in
>>> this
>>> case) makes sure you don't accidentally do that by giving each of your
>>> NICs
>>> a different metric, which you can see when you do a 'route print'.
>>
>> Yep. How they arrive at those numbers is black magic to me.
>> But I'm aware the metric determines which connection is used.
>>
>>> The
>>> wired NIC gets preference over the WiFi NIC, if you have one of each and
>>> both are enabled and connected.
>>
>> Yep.
>> In my case both are wireless only the PC doesn't realize that.
>> The PC "thinks" the Ethernet port is connected directly to the router.
>>
>> But the Ethernet port is connected to the router also by Wi-Fi.
>>
>>> If you were able to use more than one
>>> connection to the same network at the same time, your host wouldn't know
>>> how to split its outbound traffic across the different connections and
>>> the
>>> remote host wouldn't know how to reassemble everything, and of course
>>> likewise for incoming traffic. That's why you need specialized
>>> software and
>>> it has to be running and configured identically at both endpoints.
>>
>> Sounds reasonable.
>>
>>> OTOH, if you want to connect to two or more _different_ networks
>>> simultaneously, that's easy. That part just works.
>>
>> Oh! I never thought of that. Thanks.
>>
>>> No special software is
>>> needed. You can connect to about as many networks as you like, using a
>>> single NIC or as many NICs as you have, regardless of whether they're
>>> wired
>>> or wireless.
>>
>> I need to think about that. And how it would work.
>>
>> I don't have two networks but my first thought is that if I connected
>> the PC
>> Wi-Fi to my neighbor's network and if I simultaneously connect the PC
>> Ethernet Wi-Fi bridge to my own router, don't I have the same routing table
>> metric problem that I had before?
>>
>> When I ping Google, how does the ping command know _which_ network to use?
>>
>>>>> BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
>>>>> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
>>>>> speed. Even so, still a good start.
>>>>
>>>> It's a very common question of how bridging differs from routing.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know it well enough to summarize perfectly but a router deals
>>>> with
>>>> IP addresses while that router set up as a bridge deals with MAC
>>>> addresses.
>>>
>>> It can also be helpful to note that a router joins two or more different
>>> networks, while switches and bridges deal only with MAC addresses and
>>> have
>>> no knowledge of the concept of a 'network'.
>>
>> Sounds good.
>> I never really understand things that "just work" so all I know about
>> bridges is that they "just work" once you follow the setup directions.
>>
>> To me the main difference between a router and a bridge is a router
>> deals in
>> IP addresses while a bridge deals in MAC addresses. The rest is just setup.
>>
>> Given what you said maybe I'll summarize to the next person that a router
>> deals in IP addresses and networks while a bridge deals in MAC addresses
>> and
>> a single net. ;-)
>>
>>> That's why you can have as many
>>> different networks as you'd like, within your LAN, and connect all of
>>> their
>>> hosts together via switches, for example. Different networks in that
>>> example, but no router. A router is only required if you need to get to a
>>> network that your system isn't already a member of.
>>
>> Good explanation. Better than mine was.
>>
>>>> Instead of physically laying a cat5 cable from the MAC address at the
>>>> RJ45
>>>> of the PC Ethernet card to the MAC address of the router RJ45, we use
>>>> Wi-Fi.
>>>
>>> Remember that all WiFi is bridging. All WiFi works at Layer 2, the MAC
>>> layer.
>>
>> Another good summary.
>>
>>>
>>>> A Wi-Fi bridge connects _only_ from the PC RJ45 MAC to the router
>>>> RJ45 MAC.
>>>> It's just a wire but without using wires.
>>>
>>> There are devices that are explicitly sold as wireless bridges, but
>>> you can
>>> also use any WiFi router as a wireless bridge, even if they don't offer a
>>> bridge mode.
>>
>> That's news to me but I'll accept it as I only know what I've had to do.
>>>
>>>> In addition, you're transmitting at the highest (EIRP) signal
>>>> strength you
>>>> can (legally) transmit & your receiver sensitivity is as good as it
>>>> gets.
>>>>
>>>> This is a good solution for anyone who wants to spend about as much as
>>>> either a new router or repeater costs and who doesn't want to change
>>>> anything in the PC or in the router or on the network.
>>>>
>>>> Bridging is like adding a wire directly & only from the PC to the
>>>> router.
>>>
>>> At its core, that describes every WiFi connection, but you're suggesting
>>> that it be done with better than average equipment. I concur.
>>
>> Yep. It's better than home equipment at the same price as home equipment.
>>
>> With Mikrotik you can actually transmit (EIRP) at far better than legal
>> because you can choose your country code in the equipment whereas Ubiquiti
>> has that choice locked down better than my old Mikrotik equipment did.
>>
>> With Ubiquiti as I recall you get something like a choice of US or
>> Australia
>> or something like that, which isn't much of a choice at all.
>>
>> With my Mikrotik transceiver I get a choice of a hundred or so countries as
>> I recall. But even so the US allows pretty high EIRP limits so it's not
>> meaningful in the long run to bother to pick anything other than the US.
>>
>> What the OP doesn't understand is the receiver sensitivity is critical
>> since
>> the effective transmit power (EIRP) of the typical Netgear, Cisco, or
>> TPLink
>> home router is anemic at best and for a variety of unfixable reasons.
>>
>> The OP is all about antenna gain but it turns out given the anemic transmit
>> power of a typical home router radio you can't source an antenna to
>> overcome
>> that anemic typical router's transmit power limitation.
>>
>> When you're _already_ able to transmit at the legal limit, when you add the
>> antenna you actually have to dial _down_ the transmit power in order to
>> stay
>> within legal limits.
>> And just as the starting point is greater on transmit than the typical home
>> router but also the starting point on receiver sensitivity is also greater.
>>
>> So the far weaker return signals from the home router can be picked up at
>> the PC over the noise due to the greater sensitivity of the transceiver.
>>
>> All for around the same price (give or take) as the typical home router.
>> (although usually the antenna is much larger than an omni would be)
>>
>> None of this do I say for the OP per se since, as you said, the OP is a
>> lost
>> cause from the start - but I say all this by way of communication where I
>> appreciate that you know more than I do which is nice to learn from you.
>>
>> Hopefully others will learn too and add knowledge where we both are weak.
>> -- Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
> When two identical NICs share the transfer of packets,
> that's called "teaming".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation
>
> Advantages over static configuration [... "equal" metric based multi-route]
>
> Failover occurs automatically: When a link fails and there is (for example)
> a media converter between the devices, a peer
> system will not perceive any connectivity problems.
>
> With static link aggregation, the peer would
> continue sending traffic down the link causing
> the connection to fail.
>
> It's possible some (cheap) routers support teaming.
> A typical usage scenario (if there's any excuse at all
> to do it), would be two Ethernet wires stretched
> directly between two PCs.
>
> The most absurd example, is my ISP (reseller) offers to team seven
> ADSL modems in parallel, to give seven times the bandwidth.
> You pay seven times as much per month,
> but they run the protocol necessary on their end "for free".
> (The real reason for offering the option, was you could
> switch on teaming on ADSL with only one modem, and this
> prevented the Deep Packet Inspection box upstream of
> the ISP, from being able to "inspect your torrent". That
> is the reason they offered the option, not because they
> thought anyone would buy 7x modems.)
>
> Most of these schemes, do not allow a single connection
> to have "double the bandwidth". To use up the full bandwidth
> of a teamed pair, takes two connections. This would mean,
> using an FTP agent that can open multiple connections, to make
> your FTP transfer run "faster than GbE" of a single link.
>
> Since most of these schemes are hardly implementable (can't
> buy the equipment, no longer for sale), there aren't too many
> questions about the topic. Most people are pretty happy
> when the simplest networking scenario works for them, and
> aren't willing to play "double or nothing" against the house.
>
> A recent development, is TPLink has two home router boxes for
> sale for >GbE links, so finally it may be possible for the
> well-heeled, to wire the home LAN with 10GbE. Might be in the
> $500 range for the small one, plus $100+ per PC for a NIC. As a
> result, you might dispense with that teaming setup you'd
> made out of GbE links. The nearest Wifi equivalent, is
> the 60GHz wifi at 700MB/sec (works only inside the same room
> you're in, does not penetrate walls or doorways). That's the
> closest you'd get to the 10GbE wired linkage.
>
> Paul
>

John Doe wrote:
> Since you continue to insist it's a good device for my situation...
>
> WHERE'S THE APPLICATION???
>

central ------ Eth ------- AccessPoint /\/\/ RemoteMachine
router
\
/
\
/

Local
WifiMachine

On 05.06.2021 18:02, John Doe wrote:
> Again... A typical WiFi communications device through a directional
> antenna has its signal CONCENTRATED in one direction.
>
> As pointed out in the electronics design group...
>
> "The directional antenna simply directs the available transmitter power in
> a single direction. It'll beam about 20 times as much power in that
> direction as an omni would (at the expense of sending far less power in
> other directions). You'll get 4-5x (rough guesstimate) the range with an
> antenna like this than you would with an omni."
>
> I thought this idiot had given up on suggesting it's idea is good for my
> application, but apparently it's still spewing that nonsense.
>
> If it's such a good idea, where are the APPLICATIONS??? There are none,
> that's why the trolls never respond to that repeated question.
>
> At least the idiot troll admits it's clueless...

What is the output transmit power (in dBm) of your wifi card measured at the
RF connector to whatever antenna you want to connect to that wifi card?

On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 12:12:48 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>When two identical NICs share the transfer of packets,
>that's called "teaming".
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation

From your link, in addition to teaming it's also called trunking, bundling,
bonding, channeling, or link aggregation. In my job in the Enterprise
networking space, we call it trunking and we use LACP (Link Aggregation
Control Protocol) to implement it. It generally works well, but there are
certain limitations one should be aware of, especially at higher throughput
rates.

DOCSIS cable modems call it 'channel bonding', but it's essentially the
same thing.

>
> Advantages over static configuration [... "equal" metric based multi-route]
>
> Failover occurs automatically: When a link fails and there is (for example)
> a media converter between the devices, a peer
> system will not perceive any connectivity problems.
>
> With static link aggregation, the peer would
> continue sending traffic down the link causing
> the connection to fail.
>
>It's possible some (cheap) routers support teaming.

pfSense can do teaming and it's free. I have pfSense running on a couple of
VMs but of course you can also run it on hardware. Many people only think
of it as an excellent firewall, but it does so much more than that.

https://techexpert.tips/pfsense/pfsense-link-aggregation/

>A typical usage scenario (if there's any excuse at all
>to do it), would be two Ethernet wires stretched
>directly between two PCs.

Another example would be to connect other networking devices to a NAS.

>The most absurd example, is my ISP (reseller) offers to team seven
>ADSL modems in parallel, to give seven times the bandwidth.
>You pay seven times as much per month,

The absurd part is the ISP expecting people to pay 7 times as much. That's
crazy.

>but they run the protocol necessary on their end "for free".
>(The real reason for offering the option, was you could
>switch on teaming on ADSL with only one modem, and this
>prevented the Deep Packet Inspection box upstream of
>the ISP, from being able to "inspect your torrent". That
>is the reason they offered the option, not because they
>thought anyone would buy 7x modems.)
>
>Most of these schemes, do not allow a single connection
>to have "double the bandwidth".

Correct. That's one of the limitations, but keep in mind there is very
rarely a single connection vying for bandwidth. Two or more physical
network links bundled into a single larger link allows more connections to
run at full speed.

>To use up the full bandwidth of a teamed pair, takes two connections.

Think bigger. A home PC might have dozens of concurrent TCP streams, while
equipment in the Enterprise space might have tens of thousands, or hundreds
of thousands, of concurrent streams.

>This would mean,
>using an FTP agent that can open multiple connections, to make
>your FTP transfer run "faster than GbE" of a single link.

FTP is a bad example since it only has a single data connection (plus a
mostly idle control connection). Torrents and download managers are better
examples of things that can open multiple connections to the same remote
endpoint and request 'chunks' of a remote resource. The chunks get
transferred in parallel and reassembled locally, but it's that parallel
transfer that results in higher throughput. Those parallel connections
could be load balanced across the physical links that make up a
bundle/trunk.

>Since most of these schemes are hardly implementable (can't
>buy the equipment, no longer for sale), there aren't too many
>questions about the topic. Most people are pretty happy
>when the simplest networking scenario works for them, and
>aren't willing to play "double or nothing" against the house.

The situation isn't that dire, but it's a topic that's beyond the typical
home user. Most people just have no real need for that much speed.

>A recent development, is TPLink has two home router boxes for
>sale for >GbE links, so finally it may be possible for the
>well-heeled, to wire the home LAN with 10GbE. Might be in the
>$500 range for the small one, plus $100+ per PC for a NIC. As a
>result, you might dispense with that teaming setup you'd
>made out of GbE links. The nearest Wifi equivalent, is
>the 60GHz wifi at 700MB/sec (works only inside the same room
>you're in, does not penetrate walls or doorways). That's the
>closest you'd get to the 10GbE wired linkage.

USB 3.2 Gen 2 is supposed to offer 10GbE, and you can supposedly team a
pair of those things and get USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 to get 20GbE.

Newegg sells USB 3.2 Gen 2 PCIe cards for $30-$50 or so. Here's the first
hit that came up. The Similar Items section has more.
https://www.newegg.com/p/17Z-00HW-00060