Wireless access setup for chapel

Discussions about Internet service providers (ISPs), the Meetinghouse Firewall, wired and wireless networking, usage, management, and support of Meetinghouse Internet
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 31125
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Wed May 28, 2008 7:47 pm

Alan_Brown wrote:I was not making a general statement for all possible Internet connections
Understood, but someone might interpret it that way.
And then you had to go and mention even more irrelevant hardware . :p
Hey, as long as I'm on a roll .... cybr mentioned the FHC was on "POTS" Internet - I wonder if they have the old networked dial-up modem that was issued to some FHCs when the program was first started.

In fact our center was first approved for dial-up but I nixed that before the install and went with DSL. Given that a new phone line cost as much as DSL service at the time it made absolutely no sense to me to go with dial-up.

User avatar
Mikerowaved
Community Moderators
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:56 am
Location: Layton, UT

Postby Mikerowaved » Wed May 28, 2008 11:16 pm

Somewhat back on topic, would there be a problem using 802.11n (draft, of course) gear for meetinghouse use? I guess what I'm asking is the Cisco ASA 5505 firewall fairly forgiving as to what's behind it, or should the STS folks stick with an "approved" list of gear to make their lives easier?
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

User avatar
hkk2
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:25 pm
Location: Anthem Stake (Henderson, NV)
Contact:

Postby hkk2 » Wed May 28, 2008 11:23 pm

Sorry to cause contention. I must be of the devil. 3 Ne. 11: 29

The reason I mentioned a PIX is cause that's what was mentioned in the attachment my stake clerk sent me initially. I later read about the ASA 5505 not reading into that it's not a "PIX" firewall even though they're both Cisco. (A Ford is a Ford even though one is a truck and one is a car and even then.)

But once again, I'm not as concerned right now about the internetworking access as I am the WLAN accessibility and layout. Otherwise I could just run a bunch of cables to the each clerks office and be done with it (within strict Clark County, NV guidelines). But the stake president was looking at wireless access. WPA/WPA2 implementation was kind of a forethought as I started to initially plan after I was told the other week that we were authorized for internet access and the stake president wanting wireless access as an option. I'm looking for best physical layout and issues.
I'm alone in my own little world.

User avatar
hkk2
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:25 pm
Location: Anthem Stake (Henderson, NV)
Contact:

Postby hkk2 » Wed May 28, 2008 11:28 pm

Mikerowaved wrote:Somewhat back on topic, would there be a problem using 802.11n (draft, of course) gear for meetinghouse use? I guess what I'm asking is the Cisco ASA 5505 firewall fairly forgiving as to what's behind it, or should the STS folks stick with an "approved" list of gear to make their lives easier?
I'm all for 802.11n as this leaves more room for improvement. I have not yet found an "approved" list of tech to make my life easier. But with this still being a relatively new program that is one of the down and upsides as different designs are implemented and tested for best viability. But again, wireless is not yet a strong suite for me.
I'm alone in my own little world.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 31125
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu May 29, 2008 12:44 am

cybr wrote:Otherwise I could just run a bunch of cables to the each clerks office and be done with it (within strict Clark County, NV guidelines).
That's still not a bad idea. Done right that can make the clerk computers completely inaccessible from the wireless users.

If I was in your shoes I think I'd call CHQ and chat with the folks there and then talk to your stake president. Given the comment of keeping people from borrowing the neighbor's wireless and requirement for WPA/WPA2, that seems like a conflict of expectations

As for 802.11n, I remember in the days of going from B to G that if there was even one B device, the whole network dropped to B. I'm not sure if that's true with N or not. It's not a bad idea, I'm just not sure of how much extra I'd pay for it.

As for recommended units, I wish there was more advice out there. I suspect some of the home units are lower power. You will want units with as much range as possible and then start doing a little testing.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15128
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Thu May 29, 2008 6:46 am

Mikerowaved wrote:Somewhat back on topic, would there be a problem using 802.11n (draft, of course) gear for meetinghouse use? I guess what I'm asking is the Cisco ASA 5505 firewall fairly forgiving as to what's behind it, or should the STS folks stick with an "approved" list of gear to make their lives easier?

I used 802.11n gear for my recent Meetinghouse Internet project. There is absolutely no list of "approved" gear for what is downstream from the firewall, so each STS needs to make his best decision. The firewall doesn't care in the slightest what is connected to it (and not just because it's an inanimate object :D).

I need to post my experience (over in the Meetinghouse Internet forum, which is more appropriate) to give the details, but I'm pretty impressed with the range of the fairly inexpensive 802.11n routers I purchased.

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Thu May 29, 2008 8:05 am

By the way, here's some info on 802.11n from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#802.11n

It appears that it is slated to be official a year from now. The current version (Draft 2.0) will be finalized as an amendment to the original spec in about 4 months from now.

Hopefully this will give you some information to help in making your decisions about employing 802.11n in your rollouts.

*****

EDIT: My apologies, it appears there is a Draft 4.0 as of a month ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n

Although, products on the market seem to be exclusively 2.0 don't they?

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 31125
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu May 29, 2008 12:05 pm

Hopefully the upgrade from draft to final is just a firmware update.

User avatar
hkk2
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:25 pm
Location: Anthem Stake (Henderson, NV)
Contact:

Postby hkk2 » Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:27 am

Alright, I think I got what I need now. Thanks.
I'm alone in my own little world.

berglundbp-p40
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:23 am
Location: Örebro, Sweden

Postby berglundbp-p40 » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:16 pm

RussellHltn wrote:Hopefully the upgrade from draft to final is just a firmware update.

A little bit of history:

I remember the time when we where installing Cisco Access-points based on the 802.11b standard in the FHCs. A lot of people pushed for the faster 54Mbps pre-standard of 802.11g, as it only required a firmware upgrade. But when the 802.11g standard finally came out, it wasn't just a firmware upgrade - new hardware was needed and all wireless NICs did not support the offical 802.11g standard so they only ran on 11 Mbps.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes it's better to stick with what exists today - it will save both time and money in the future. :D

And based on my experience of wireless, I wouldn't recomend products for home-use - but that's true - I'm a big fan of Cisco. :D

Regards,
Patrik


Return to “Meetinghouse Internet”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users