On 05/20/2015 03:29 AM, John M Andersen wrote:

Why do you need a wifi router in each room? Your walls made of steel or something?

Maybe they are ... sort of. At home, house is wood frame, wood floor, little structural steel. At office, floors are concrete with rebar -- steel rods. Context is everything but OP doesn't say what the rooms are in. Possible institutional building with concrete/rebar walls and floors. Not exactly Tempest quality, but not signal friendly. OP is good at not being explicit enough about context! Yes, I've seen schools/university where each room, large, think lecture room, would need its own subnet. Perhaps hundreds of users aka students attending lecture. OP fails to provide description so I'm hypothesising. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 08:23 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Yes, I've seen schools/university where each room, large, think lecture

...

room, would need its own subnet. Perhaps hundreds of users aka students attending lecture. I understand that is the case precisely.

If that's the case, he'll also have to do some WiFi planning, to minimize interference between rooms. Though I can't tell from his responses, I suspect his problem is getting through NAT. Also, the proper way to do this is to use proper routing, rather than NAT, but consumer level routers generally don't support that. The idea, when serving a large area, with many users is to limit the size of the IP broadcast zones. With separate subnets, connected by non NAT routers, that is easily done. NAT just adds complexity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 08:54 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:

You know that; I know that. But then we've had mucho exposure to the network world, hung out at various InterOps (and have the shirts to prove it). Much "learning experiences".

I'm also a CCNA and first worked with LANs in 1978.

...

...

NAT just adds complexity. Well, yes and no. For the ordinary home user its a simple plug-n-play. It may screw his security and other things he's not paying attention to, but that's the way of such compromises. But for anything non-trivial, the replication that the OP is envisioning, its going to add complications. If the OP want to use these sub euro-30 devices then he is going to have to do a lot of careful planning and even so my still end up with some areas where service is either unacceptable or impossible.

And that's a technical matter not a philosophical one.

In this situation, as I was referring to, NAT adds complexity. I'm getting the impression this guy isn't talking about a home network. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

buhorojo wrote:

On 20/05/15 11:19, Per Jessen wrote:

...

buhorojo wrote:

...

Hi We have a wired connection to each room (dating to 2003). I want a cheap way to go wireless from that.

This works using old stuff: wall to up on switch switch to existing computer 172.16.. switch to wifi router 172.16.. to 192.168.1.

2 boxes and a mess of cables. Total cost, about €30 per room tested on a mix of devices. We've tested it with 20 or so of us doing random stuff.

Only problem: Getting our existing files. Looking at windows explorer on the existing wired computer we can see the files at \\172.16.5.105\estudiantes

Before the route, we can see them at: smb://172.16.5.105/estudiantes

On wifi, smb:// always asks us for a username and password. None of our passwords work. How do you access smb:// ? with 'mount' or dolphin or something else? I suspect the problem may lie in how the userid+password is specified/transmitted.

Hi We've tried both dolphin smb:/ and mount.cifs. Both ask for username and password:(

What does this do: mount -o username=uid,password=pwd -t cifs //172.16.5.105/estudiantes mnt Perhaps the share isn't enabled/allowed for 192.168.1.0/24 ? -- Per Jessen, Zürich (10.7°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-05-20 13:23, Per Jessen wrote:

...

buhorojo wrote:

...

What does this do: mount -o username=uid,password=pwd -t cifs //172.16.5.105/estudiantes mnt

Perhaps the share isn't enabled/allowed for 192.168.1.0/24 ?

Good point.

I wonder if the server will be confused with the many 192.168.1.0/24 subnets it will see, one per room. By default it would be made direct routing, maybe he needs NAT.

I'm sure the wifi router already does the NAT'ing. Otherwise nothing would work. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (11.2°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - dedicated server rental in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-05-20 13:38, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

I wonder if the server will be confused with the many 192.168.1.0/24 subnets it will see, one per room. By default it would be made direct routing, maybe he needs NAT.

I'm sure the wifi router already does the NAT'ing. Otherwise nothing would work.

Mmm... Mmm... should be, yes... :-?

But it can be done without it. I have. Not with wifi, just a normal router cable to cable... Just two private networks, plain routing.

Sure, but buhorojo doesn't have access to the windows server, so we have to assume no static route for 192.168.1.0/24. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (12.8°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-05-20 14:33, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Sure, but buhorojo doesn't have access to the windows server, so we have to assume no static route for 192.168.1.0/24.

Routers have automatic protocols to add routes as they discover other routers in the vicinity. Even home units.

Maybe, but I doubt if windows servers do that too. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (13.4°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - dedicated server rental in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 09:06 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

Maybe, but I doubt if windows servers do that too. No, not the server. The router. And it handles them over dhcp to clients. Ah, oh, right... I see. The server would not know how to send to 192.168.1.0/24., it is a different network. Unless it hands off to the default gateway.

A NAT router appears to the rest of the network as another computer. So, the server would have to know how to reach the "WAN" side on the local network. It doesn't even know the traffic is actually from another network. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 01:38 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-05-20 16:09, James Knott wrote:

...

On 05/20/2015 09:06 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

...

Maybe, but I doubt if windows servers do that too. No, not the server. The router. And it handles them over dhcp to clients. Ah, oh, right... I see. The server would not know how to send to 192.168.1.0/24., it is a different network. Unless it hands off to the default gateway. A NAT router appears to the rest of the network as another computer. So, the server would have to know how to reach the "WAN" side on the local network. It doesn't even know the traffic is actually from another network. If it is NAT. On the previous paragraphs, I was assuming not.

Then there should be a router somewhere that knows the way. If the destination is not on the local network, send data to the router and let it worry about it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 20/05/15 15:06, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

On 2015-05-20 14:33, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Sure, but buhorojo doesn't have access to the windows server, so we have to assume no static route for 192.168.1.0/24. Routers have automatic protocols to add routes as they discover other routers in the vicinity. Even home units. Maybe, but I doubt if windows servers do that too. No, not the server. The router. And it handles them over dhcp to clients. Ah, oh, right... I see. The server would not know how to send to 192.168.1.0/24., it is a different network. Unless it hands off to

On 2015-05-20 14:44, Per Jessen wrote: the default gateway.

Hi Firstly, thank you to all contributors. We are not sure whether it is correct to reply to everyone individually, so until you can tell us, we'll give a general reply taking as many of the relevant points raised as possible. Also, if we have not trimmed, top posted or otherwise been incorrect, do please let us know. We will do our best to adapt to the rules. Thanks for the ideas. We do not understand many of them but we have done more tests and got a little further. 1. a switch and a router (swr) costs less than a ap 2. we set swrs in 2 classrooms a. ssid cr1 b. ssid cr2 3. set the same password at cr1 and cr2 4. 19 of us connected to both cr1 and cr2 5. gave the instruction to switch off in all combinations walking between rooms, into the corridor, device on, device off. No problem reconnecting. 6. we now know the server is at 172.16.6.2 which feeds the existing fixed (non wifi) computers at 172.16.5.x/255.255.255.0 (check: 3x255, zero). We will be given the adequate username and password to test the smb:/ or mount.cifs. We apologise for wasting list time with incorrect information on this last point 7. the gw out is 172.16.5.1 8. if we cannot connect, we can copy our data directly from the sf to drive, or if it has no internet, to a portable disk results So far looking good. As expected, you connect in the range specified in the dhcp to the nearest wifi. TOL for a moment, it makes sense that this will work as it does in a complex of residences all with their own wifi: it's the ssid that counts, not the IP. The next step is to scale. That will involve buying hardware so if anyone has hands on and recent experience. Also, we are a team. Please do not reply to this address. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 21/05/15 02:13, James Knott wrote:

...

we now know the server is at 172.16.6.2 which feeds the existing fixed (non wifi) computers at 172.16.5.x/255.255.255.0 If this is accurate, then the problem is your server is in the wrong subnet. This is why we suggest you try things like logging into the server from a wired connection and also pinging it from wireless

Hi. Just one last time. Don't worry about the server or trying to connect to it. We'll get our data from it next week. Then the server will be out of the equation completely. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, buhorojo wrote:

TOL for a moment, it makes sense that this will work as it does in a complex of residences all with their own wifi: it's the ssid that counts, not the IP.

So how are you handling the SSID? A unique SSID per room? If so, I agree it should work relatively straight forwardly. Are you familiar with WLAN channel overlap issues? That is multiple routers on the same channel can interfere, but they also have shoulders so you typically need to keep them well separated. (ie. I think I recall 2, 6, 11 being good ones to restrict your usage to. You can have more than one router on a channel, but hopefully not too many). I have a WLAN signal analyzer app the runs on my tablet. One example: http://www.bestandroidappsreview.com/2010/04/top-android-app-wifi-analyzer.h... (I don't recall which one I have installed). Anyway in my "complex of residences" I find it best to use that app to manually pick the best channel. I do that by looking for a less used channel, then set the router to use it. Then walk around with my tablet running that app and make sure the signal is relatively strong where I need it to be. In my case I have concrete floors in my house so I use a Wireless Extender to "amplify" the signal for upstairs. For small user situations it works well. Probably not a great fit for classrooms, but for your athletic field areas you might need something like that to cover the spectator areas well. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:48 PM, buhorojo wrote:

On 21/05/15 18:43, Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, buhorojo wrote:

...

TOL for a moment, it makes sense that this will work as it does in a complex of residences all with their own wifi: it's the ssid that counts, not the IP.

So how are you handling the SSID? A unique SSID per room? If so, I agree it should work relatively straight forwardly.

Hi. yes. Simplicity. I'm surprised no one has recommended this in their comments.

Good

...

Are you familiar with WLAN channel overlap issues? That is multiple routers on the same channel can interfere, but they also have shoulders so you typically need to keep them well separated. (ie. I think I recall 2, 6, 11 being good ones to restrict your usage to. You can have more than one router on a channel, but hopefully not too many).

So far not seen any issues. cr1 has channel 1, cr2, channel 2 etc.

Just keep it in mind. You could even put both cr1 and cr2 on the same channel and have it work, but not as well as if you used channels 2 and 6 as an example.

...

I have a WLAN signal analyzer app the runs on my tablet.

One example: http://www.bestandroidappsreview.com/2010/04/top-android-app-wifi-analyzer.h... (I don't recall which one I have installed).

Anyway in my "complex of residences" I find it best to use that app to manually pick the best channel.

Actually, that would be a bad thing for us as we want the users to connect to the strongest signal, not the one down the corridor which may be the best channel. We're not sure about the difference between the two, only that in the router documentation it recommends each has a distinct channel.

Question: what would the symptoms of not picking the best channel?

Reduced range due to interference from other routers on similar frequencies. When considering interference you have to take into account the shoulder channels. Remember wireless is analog so you get spillover between the channels. ie. Channel 2 also generates noise on channels 3,4, etc. Those are the shoulder channels.

Surely, we'd prefer the strongest signal wouldn't we? That's what our tests show anyway.

You've confused me. The wireless router is what picks the channel. In automode it listens to the WIFI coming from other SSIDs and then picks what it thinks is the clearest channel for its SSID. (ie. the one with the least interference). My experience is it often makes a bad choice, at least in high density housing setups. Thus, you should go to the first room (when it is idle and with that room's router turned off) and walk around with the signal strength app. Try to determine which channel of 2-6-11 is the cleanest (least interference) for the entire room. Then configure the router to use that channel. Then go to every other room and repeat that. Only use channels 2, 6, or 11 for your new equipment. If there is old WLAN equipment see if you can force it to one of those 3 channels.

...

I do that by looking for a less used channel, then set the router to use it. Then walk around with my tablet running that app and make sure the signal is relatively strong where I need it to be.

Yep. Makes sense. The big difference here is logistics. It's one thing walking around a residential and quite another to test in a school.

Hopefully you can walk around the inside of each of the rooms when your installing the router. Just do the walk around and take your measurements and pick your channel before you turn on the new router.

...

In my case I have concrete floors in my house so I use a Wireless Extender to "amplify" the signal for upstairs. For small user situations it works well. Probably not a great fit for classrooms, but for your athletic field areas you might need something like that to cover the spectator areas well.

ATM, we are only going where there is an existing ethernet glued to the wall but we take your point of throwing it out into the open too. It is surprising how quickly the signal drops when moving through a wall.

Good Luck Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 21/05/15 20:42, Greg Freemyer wrote:

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:48 PM, buhorojo wrote:

...

On 21/05/15 18:43, Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, buhorojo wrote:

...

TOL for a moment, it makes sense that this will work as it does in a complex of residences all with their own wifi: it's the ssid that counts, not the IP. So how are you handling the SSID? A unique SSID per room? If so, I agree it should work relatively straight forwardly. Hi. yes. Simplicity. I'm surprised no one has recommended this in their comments. Good

...

...

Are you familiar with WLAN channel overlap issues? That is multiple routers on the same channel can interfere, but they also have shoulders so you typically need to keep them well separated. (ie. I think I recall 2, 6, 11 being good ones to restrict your usage to. You can have more than one router on a channel, but hopefully not too many).

So far not seen any issues. cr1 has channel 1, cr2, channel 2 etc. Just keep it in mind. You could even put both cr1 and cr2 on the same channel and have it work, but not as well as if you used channels 2 and 6 as an example.

...

...

I have a WLAN signal analyzer app the runs on my tablet.

One example: http://www.bestandroidappsreview.com/2010/04/top-android-app-wifi-analyzer.h... (I don't recall which one I have installed).

Anyway in my "complex of residences" I find it best to use that app to manually pick the best channel.

Actually, that would be a bad thing for us as we want the users to connect to the strongest signal, not the one down the corridor which may be the best channel. We're not sure about the difference between the two, only that in the router documentation it recommends each has a distinct channel. Question: what would the symptoms of not picking the best channel? Reduced range due to interference from other routers on similar frequencies.

When considering interference you have to take into account the shoulder channels. Remember wireless is analog so you get spillover between the channels.

ie. Channel 2 also generates noise on channels 3,4, etc. Those are the shoulder channels.

...

Surely, we'd prefer the strongest signal wouldn't we? That's what our tests show anyway. You've confused me. The wireless router is what picks the channel. In automode it listens to the WIFI coming from other SSIDs and then picks what it thinks is the clearest channel for its SSID. (ie. the one with the least interference). Our routers have auto and 1 to 14 to choose from. But then you say that it is the router which picks the channel. That's not true in our case as it only chooses the channel when set to auto, no? We're having problems in translating exactly what you mean.

My experience is it often makes a bad choice, at least in high density housing setups.

Thus, you should go to the first room (when it is idle and with that room's router turned off) and walk around with the signal strength app. Try to determine which channel of 2-6-11 is the cleanest (least interference) for the entire room. Then configure the router to use that channel. Yes, but this contradicts what you have said. You said,

Then go to every other room and repeat that. Only use channels 2, 6, or 11 for your new equipment. If there is old WLAN equipment see if you can force it to one of those 3 channels.

...

...

I do that by looking for a less used channel, then set the router to use it. Then walk around with my tablet running that app and make sure the signal is relatively strong where I need it to be.

Yep. Makes sense. The big difference here is logistics. It's one thing walking around a residential and quite another to test in a school. Hopefully you can walk around the inside of each of the rooms when your installing the router. Just do the walk around and take your measurements and pick your channel before you turn on the new router. Yep, we're really getting somewhere with this. Not that stupid question: What you are describing can be done by one

'The wireless router is what picks the channel.' On the one hand you say it is the router but then say we choose it. If we could clarify that, it would be good. TIA person? Stupid question: Does the channel we choose depend on the likely number of users in that room? eg. we know some teachers who will hardly ever use computers, let alone allow their students to use them. We must however cover the possibility of room changes. Thanks

Good Luck Greg

Thanks for your input. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 3:09 PM, buhorojo wrote:

On 21/05/15 20:42, Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:48 PM, buhorojo wrote:

...

On 21/05/15 18:43, Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, buhorojo wrote:

...

TOL for a moment, it makes sense that this will work as it does in a complex of residences all with their own wifi: it's the ssid that counts, not the IP.

So how are you handling the SSID? A unique SSID per room? If so, I agree it should work relatively straight forwardly.

Hi. yes. Simplicity. I'm surprised no one has recommended this in their comments.

Good

...

...

Are you familiar with WLAN channel overlap issues? That is multiple routers on the same channel can interfere, but they also have shoulders so you typically need to keep them well separated. (ie. I think I recall 2, 6, 11 being good ones to restrict your usage to. You can have more than one router on a channel, but hopefully not too many).

So far not seen any issues. cr1 has channel 1, cr2, channel 2 etc.

Just keep it in mind. You could even put both cr1 and cr2 on the same channel and have it work, but not as well as if you used channels 2 and 6 as an example.

...

...

I have a WLAN signal analyzer app the runs on my tablet.

One example:

http://www.bestandroidappsreview.com/2010/04/top-android-app-wifi-analyzer.h... (I don't recall which one I have installed).

Anyway in my "complex of residences" I find it best to use that app to manually pick the best channel.

Actually, that would be a bad thing for us as we want the users to connect to the strongest signal, not the one down the corridor which may be the best channel. We're not sure about the difference between the two, only that in the router documentation it recommends each has a distinct channel. Question: what would the symptoms of not picking the best channel?

Reduced range due to interference from other routers on similar frequencies.

When considering interference you have to take into account the shoulder channels. Remember wireless is analog so you get spillover between the channels.

ie. Channel 2 also generates noise on channels 3,4, etc. Those are the shoulder channels.

...

Surely, we'd prefer the strongest signal wouldn't we? That's what our tests show anyway.

You've confused me. The wireless router is what picks the channel. In automode it listens to the WIFI coming from other SSIDs and then picks what it thinks is the clearest channel for its SSID. (ie. the one with the least interference).

Our routers have auto and 1 to 14 to choose from. But then you say that it is the router which picks the channel. That's not true in our case as it only chooses the channel when set to auto, no? We're having problems in translating exactly what you mean.

In auto mode - the router picks In manual mode - the router administrator picks The choice "should" in theory based on where the least interference is. The client laptop / tablet / phone typically looks at the various SSIDs available and picks the strongest one that it can see.

...

My experience is it often makes a bad choice, at least in high density housing setups.

Thus, you should go to the first room (when it is idle and with that room's router turned off) and walk around with the signal strength app. Try to determine which channel of 2-6-11 is the cleanest (least interference) for the entire room. Then configure the router to use that channel.

Yes, but this contradicts what you have said. You said,

'The wireless router is what picks the channel.' On the one hand you say it is the router but then say we choose it. If we could clarify that, it would be good. TIA

Hopefully clarified above

...

Then go to every other room and repeat that. Only use channels 2, 6, or 11 for your new equipment. If there is old WLAN equipment see if you can force it to one of those 3 channels.

...

...

I do that by looking for a less used channel, then set the router to use it. Then walk around with my tablet running that app and make sure the signal is relatively strong where I need it to be.

Yep. Makes sense. The big difference here is logistics. It's one thing walking around a residential and quite another to test in a school.

Hopefully you can walk around the inside of each of the rooms when your installing the router. Just do the walk around and take your measurements and pick your channel before you turn on the new router.

Yep, we're really getting somewhere with this. Not that stupid question: What you are describing can be done by one person?

Yes, by one person.

Stupid question: Does the channel we choose depend on the likely number of users in that room? eg. we know some teachers who will hardly ever use computers, let alone allow their students to use them. We must however cover the possibility of room changes.

If you know 2 or 3 rooms close together will have light (and slow bandwidth) usage you can have them all share the same channel. That is because the routers don't 100% occupy a channel. If they have light usage, they may only occupy the channel 10% of the time. During the other 90% another router and clients can share the same channel. Thus a few people lightly web browsing on the same channel but different SSIDs won't collide too often. But 2 people streaming HD video to their laptop at the same time on different SSIDs but the same channel will cause lots of collisions. Those collisions I called interference. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 08:40 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-05-20 14:33, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Sure, but buhorojo doesn't have access to the windows server, so we have to assume no static route for 192.168.1.0/24. Routers have automatic protocols to add routes as they discover other routers in the vicinity. Even home units.

Ummm... Home units generally know only about what they learn from the DHCP server or static routes. With NAT, that home router looks like a single computer to the outside world. On the other hand, commercial grade routers can use OSPF or EIGRP to learn of other routers, at least with IPv4. With IPv6, they can learn of other routers through the router advertisements. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 10:55 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Ummm... Home units generally know only about what they learn from

...

the DHCP server or static routes. All (or those I remember) home units I could check have RIP. Yes, it may be old, but it exists :-)

I have never seen a home unit that uses RIP, OSPF, EIGRP or any other routing protocol. All I have seen are those that use DHCP to obtain a route from an ISP and they also could use static configuration. When you look at how they're used, you'll see there's no need to use a routing protocol, as there is only one route out. You'd normally use a routing protocol in a complex network, where there may be multiple routes and the possibility of routes changing. RIP or other gains you absolutely nothing, when all you have is a default route. With home routers, that appear to the ISP's network as a single device, DHCP or static config work fine. Further, with NAT, there's nothing a routing protocol could tell the ISP about the network behind the router. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 02:38 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

If you don't believe me I'll have to post a photo

What purpose would it serve on a home router, where there's only one route? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 08:11 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-05-20 22:46, James Knott wrote:

...

On 05/20/2015 02:38 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

If you don't believe me I'll have to post a photo

...

What purpose would it serve on a home router, where there's only one route?

Normally yes, there is only one. But some people do add hardware to their nets, say another router with a wifi to extend the network. It is cheap to include the facility, so they do.

Two home models used here:

http://www.tp-link.es/resources/document/TD-W8970_V1_User_Guide_1910010882.p...

Page 64 4.9.4 RIP Settings Choose “Route Settings” “RIP Settings”, you can see the RIP (Routing Information Protocol) screen which allows you to configure the RIP.

You missed an important point: "RIP cannot be configured on the WAN Interface which has NAT enabled (such as PPPoE)." This means it's intended to be used with a public address subnet, which is not a common configuration for home use and even many businesses. In order to use RIP (or any other routing protocol) you need a subnet for which it can forward routing info. Even then, it's only useful when there are multiple paths, which you don't have if you only have a default route. It also requires the ISP to support RIP, which is unlikely given that it's obsolete. As an example, I have an IPv6 subnet, which contains public addresses. I have a Linux box set up as a firewall/router. It still has only a default gateway configured. Linux supports RIP and OSPF, but there is no need with only one connection to the Internet. Now, if I had multiple connections and sites, then a routing protocol might be useful. The purpose of a routing protocol, such as RIP or OSPF is to find the best route, when more than one available and to reconverge on a best route when something changes. So, no multiple routes, no need for a routing protocol. Even with the scenario you mentioned, with another router behind the first, you still have only one default route to the Internet.

http://www.movistar.es/rpmm/estaticos/residencial/fijo/banda-ancha-adsl/manu...

Page 65.

6.7.4 RIP To activate RIP, configure the RIP version/operation mode and select the Enabled checkbox for at least one WAN interface before clicking Save/Apply.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/21/2015 07:19 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I have tested RIP inside a LAN, with private address ranges. What it does is simply that routes to the other nets behind routers appear automatically on each router, and all hosts see one another. And this with plain, home type, eth routers. Not business hardware.

RIP may be designed for more, but this is just what is used for on these cheap units.

The fact is that they have it.

RIP works well with private address ranges, provided that it is not used to send the network info off net. The only thing I can see it being useful for is if that box is connected to another router that runs RIP, to provide it with the local network configuration. It won't be used to determine the best route in that instance, which is the primary purpose of routing protocols and which is not typical for a home or even small office network. Yes, I know what RIP, OSPF, EIGRP etc. are used for. I'm a Cisco CCNA and first came across them when I was taking a Novell Netware CNE course several years ago. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/21/2015 12:04 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Not the best. A route.

Actually, they're supposed to find the lowest cost route, according to the selected metrics. RIP is limited in this respect, in that it only looks at hop count. So, if one route is 1 hop and another is 2 hops, it will choose the 1 hop as "best". However, this only works properly with equal bandwidth hops. If the 1 hop link is 10 Mb and the 2 hop, 1 Gb, then the wrong route gets picked. OSPF and EIGRP look at other factors such as bandwidth, delay, link state etc. to determine what is actually the best choice.. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/21/2015 02:54 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Actually, they're supposed to find the lowest cost route, according to

...

the selected metrics. RIP is limited in this respect, in that it only looks at hop count. So, if one route is 1 hop and another is 2 hops, it will choose the 1 hop as "best". However, this only works properly with equal bandwidth hops. If the 1 hop link is 10 Mb and the 2 hop, 1 Gb, then the wrong route gets picked. OSPF and EIGRP look at other factors such as bandwidth, delay, link state etc. to determine what is actually the best choice.. Mmm... yes... I remember being told that, now that you say it.

I thought you were a CCNA. You should have known that. I have ever since I took that CNE course 18 years ago. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-05-21 02:11, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-05-20 22:46, James Knott wrote:

I have seen james answer on the web archive, it will take two hours to arrive on the list :.-(

Normally yes, there is only one. But some people do add hardware to their nets, say another router with a wifi to extend the network. It is cheap to include the facility, so they do.

Two home models used here:

James answered:

You missed an important point: "RIP cannot be configured on the WAN Interface which has NAT enabled (such as PPPoE)."

No, I did not miss it. For two reasons. One, is that you can activate it on the LAN side of the ISP router: WAN---> ISP router ---- LAN -----> 2nd home router --- second LAN -> True, not many people activate a second router inside their local network, but I have seen it. And it just works with RIP active on both routers. Plug and play. Two, is that the first model I posted, the one from TP-Link, is a a versatile home unit. The WAN side can be telephone (ADSL), ETH, or USB wireless dongle. You choose mode of operation. In some of those modes, NAT can be disabled. The second model is an ethernet router, ISP provided (and not a good one). The name says "fiber router", but it is not really true, the wan is ethernet. It's current status page says: +++········································ Routing -- RIP Configuration NOTE: RIP CANNOT BE CONFIGURED on the WAN interface which is PPP mode. And the WAN interface which has NAT enabled only can be configured the operation mode as passive. To activate RIP for the WAN Interface, select the desired RIP version and operation and place a check in the 'Enabled' checkbox. To stop RIP on the WAN Interface, uncheck the 'Enabled' checkbox. Click the 'Apply/Save' button to star/stop RIP and save the configuration. Interface Version Operation Enabled eth0.2 2 Passive yes eth0.3 2 Passive yes ········································++- Thus RIP is active by default in this home router (ISP defaults). - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlVdSsgACgkQja8UbcUWM1wlUQD9FmbWmwQXismzfwDTaoUNE+SE LqYySqA7gWGEf0b3UkwA/0jfmLfsFwLsPm14zsiEyZD8pilg7Q5WTKR1q5VM8JaB =qMcR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-05-21 13:44, James Knott wrote:

On 05/20/2015 11:02 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

One, is that you can activate it on the LAN side of the ISP router:

WAN---> ISP router ---- LAN -----> 2nd home router --- second LAN ->

Again, you have only one route, so no need for a routing protocol to determine best route. Further, if either of those routers use NAT, you'd better not be using RIP to advertise them.

We use different terminology, I see :-) Above I see two routes, in that the routers may have two entries in the routing table, one for each net. But there is only one road, all traffic to ouside from LAN-2 goes via LAN-1.

...

NOTE: RIP CANNOT BE CONFIGURED on the WAN interface which is PPP mode. And the WAN interface which has NAT enabled only can be configured the operation mode as passive.

I found that curious as PPP is a perfectly valid way to connect routers, including those that run RIP or OSPF.

Well, I haven't given much thought to it. I only commented that home units do have RIP :-)

The only possible reason I can think of for having RIP on that box is so that you can connect it to another router, also running RIP, so you don't have to set up routes in it.

That's exactly what I said much earlier.

However, I doubt you'll find an ISP running RIP because it has problems and is obsolete. So, if they did have a router that was running RIP, it would have to be running whatever routing protocol they use to pass on your network info, a process called "redistribution".

I think that is not their intention. It's only to facilitate interconnection inside the LANs

BTW, I also have a piece of TP-Link gear here and it has me wondering about their designers. It's a TL-WA901ND access point. I configured it to use VLANs and multiple SSIDs, so I could set up a guest WiFi connection. In doing that, I found IPv6 multicast traffic from the main network, VLAN1 also being transmitted on the guest SSID, which messed up assigning an IPv6 address to guest devices. I filed a bug report, but the person I was dealing with insisted that was normal. He clearly didn't understand the concept of VLANs where they are logically independent, in that they're supposed to behave as though they were on physically independent networks.

Oh, yes. Mine had a few bugs that allowed remote entry. The last firmware update I applied did not plug it completely, I had to disable something - what was it? No, I think I had to resend some external management service or port to another internal IP, instead of being handled by the buggy router. They are relatively cheap, have many features, but they are buggy. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On 05/20/2015 11:02 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Interface Version Operation Enabled eth0.2 2 Passive yes eth0.3 2 Passive yes

That "passive" means that interface is not sending out RIP advertisements, so even if you had another router behind it, RIP would not be used. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/21/2015 02:45 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

That "passive" means that interface is not sending out RIP

...

advertisements, so even if you had another router behind it, RIP would not be used. Unless that other router asks.

No, not at all. Passive means that interface doesn't participate in RIP, but it's network information is made available to other routers that aren't on a passive interface. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/21/2015 03:26 AM, Per Jessen wrote:

Check out older Zyxel devices, they have had the support for years.

I have never seen a Zyxel device. However, routers that are intended to be used in a business environment may have a need for a routing protocol. I've seen home level devices from D-Link, Linksys etc. I have also worked with industrial grade Cisco and Adtran routers and they definitely support routing protocols, as does Linux. In my work, I have set up small routers from Adtran, that are similar to home routers, in that they have a 4 port Ethernet switch etc., but also have support for other things, such as IPSec VPNs built in. They also support routing protocols, but I never had a need to configure them, even in a business environment, as there was just a single route back to the main office. These were used to allow people to work from home. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/21/2015 05:00 AM, James Knott wrote:

...

...

Check out older Zyxel devices, they have had the support for years. I have never seen a Zyxel device. However, routers that are intended to be used in a business environment may have a need for a routing

On 05/21/2015 03:26 AM, Per Jessen wrote: protocol.

FWIW, I've got a Zyxel USG 20W and really like it. It's more expensive than home kit, but for me it's worth it. It has RIP, OSPF, Policy Routing, VPN (IPSec, SSL, L2TP), load balancing, content filters, and more. I wouldn't recommend it for a typical home user, but it's great if you know what you're doing. (not that I claim to know what I'm doing!) Regards, Lew -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/21/2015 08:55 AM, James Knott wrote:

On 05/21/2015 10:13 AM, Lew Wolfgang wrote:

...

FWIW, I've got a Zyxel USG 20W and really like it. It's more expensive than home kit, but for me it's worth it. It has RIP, OSPF, Policy Routing, VPN (IPSec, SSL, L2TP), load balancing, content filters, and more. I wouldn't recommend it for a typical home user, but it's great if you know what you're doing. (not that I claim to know what I'm doing!) That's definitely above a home grade router.

Does it do IPv6?

Yes, it does IPv6, but I haven't turned that part on. My ISP (Cox) says they will have v6 available for residential customers this year (2015). I may have to start fiddling with it! Now I'm wondering if I'll have to get a new cable modem? Regards, Lew -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 07:03 AM, James Knott wrote:

On 05/20/2015 08:40 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

On 2015-05-20 14:33, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Sure, but buhorojo doesn't have access to the windows server, so we have to assume no static route for 192.168.1.0/24. Routers have automatic protocols to add routes as they discover other routers in the vicinity. Even home units.

Ummm... Home units generally know only about what they learn from the DHCP server or static routes. With NAT, that home router looks like a single computer to the outside world. On the other hand, commercial grade routers can use OSPF or EIGRP to learn of other routers, at least with IPv4. With IPv6, they can learn of other routers through the router advertisements.

He's not buying commercial grade routers. He's having trouble justifying cheap off the shelf routers. I get the distinct impression this project has zero budget, only begrudging management approval, and has to make do with stuff retrieved from Anton's closet of anxieties. -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 08:33 AM, Per Jessen wrote:

...

But it can be done without it. I have. Not with wifi, just a normal

...

router cable to cable... Just two private networks, plain routing. Sure, but buhorojo doesn't have access to the windows server, so we have to assume no static route for 192.168.1.0/24.

If NAT is used, it shouldn't make a difference, as the "WAN" side of the router would be in the network that the server knows about, assuming there's no other routers in the way. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 07:38 AM, Per Jessen wrote:

I'm sure the wifi router already does the NAT'ing. Otherwise nothing would work.

Most do. Other have commented that the 1918 mode breaks a lot of assumptions about IP connectivity. perhaps something like that is happening here. It will of course depend on matters such as the overall network map, location of services, protocols used and as mentioned duplicity. This isn't philosophical, its purely technical. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-05-20 14:31, Anton Aylward wrote:

On 05/20/2015 07:33 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

I'm confused.

As I've pointed out before, the OP is good at short but inadequate or ambiguous descriptions.

Yep :-)

I gather that there is an existing wired network on place. I *suspect* that this is something like a school or educational establishment.

Yes, yes.

I would like to know more about the wired network. What is its address range?

As the server is on 172.16.5.105, that gives the (wired) net.

Does each "room" (what is a room? classroom? lecture room?)

Yes.

have a single IP address at its outlet or is there a a subnet per room?

I guess they have a socket in the wall, and perhaps a switch for a computer or two. It was made on 2003.

If the latter what is it? is it a /24?

I guess they get addresses directly from the main pool, 172.16...

I suppose one way of asking that is "How many users per room are supported?

I guess few now, that's why they want to go over wifi, to allow "all". They can not cable them all, currently. Then each room gets a 192.168.1.* router. But that means NAT, which is a problem, I think, to get samba working across to the central server. The alternative is plain routing, with a different 192.168.* subnet per "room". Or use an access point per room, and be directly in the main pool... in which case, they should consider switching to 10.*.*.* How well does that support traffic, I'm unsure. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On 05/20/2015 09:53 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:

But the NAT does not get in the way of my accessing the SAMBA server on my desktop or the server under my desk that runs ownCloud as well as SAMBA.

I also run a couple of Windows virtual machines, which use NAT to provide network access to the VM. Samba works fine through it.

...

Or use an access point per room, and be directly in the main pool... in which case, they should consider switching to 10.*.*.*

How well does that support traffic, I'm unsure.

I think we are well past the point of this being a Suse problem. its not that this group lacks networking & wifi experience, its that this is a problem more directly suited for a group that focuses on networking and wifi problems and has core experience in that area. We, for the most part, are Linux generalists. There are undoubtedly specialists who have addresses this exact situation before. The OP would be better off finding that other forum.

Actually, many of us here have plenty of networking experience. The problem is lack of info from the OP about what he's trying to do and what problems he's experiencing. For example, he talks about problems logging into the server, but hasn't mentioned if he can ping the server. If he can't ping it, he can't log onto it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 20/05/15 16:41, Anton Aylward wrote:

...

Actually, many of us here have plenty of networking experience. The problem is lack of info from the OP about what he's trying to do and what problems he's experiencing. For example, he talks about problems logging into the server, but hasn't mentioned if he can ping the server. If he can't ping it, he can't log onto it. You and I know to approach the problem in parts, back off along the

On 05/20/2015 10:23 AM, James Knott wrote: problem chain and determine what does work then move along step by step.

This 'scientific' & "methodological" approach has become second nature to us. I don't know about you but I can't remember doing things any other way ...

It may seem pedantic to a younger generation but this reductionist approach is extremely powerful and when properly applied is actually very rapid in converging on the real problem. You and I think in terms of a test being related to an objective and that answer conveying information that lets us traverse a 'decision tree' in the fault determination approach. I was taught this as FMEA but the principle is quite general. Build up what you are sure of and can verify.

The problem is that doing it by email with the time lags and with a proxy agent who has his own ideas and doesn't follow the Q&A & testing protocols, we can't get very far fast.

Like you, I agree that the connectivity problem and the layered. The OP has made some confusing statement about being able to "see" (whatever that means) the files but not log in to "access" them. My experience with Samba is that f you can't log in you can't see/list the files anyway. So there's something here we're not being told.

Forget samba. We don't need it now. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 20/05/15 15:53, Anton Aylward wrote:

I think we are well past the point of this being a Suse problem. its not that this group lacks networking & wifi experience, its that this is a problem more directly suited for a group that focuses on networking and wifi problems and has core experience in that area. We, for the most part, are Linux generalists. There are undoubtedly specialists who have addresses this exact situation before. The OP would be better off finding that other forum.

Fortunately for all concerned, it is not you who decides. It is very difficult starting out on a project such as ours. The experience which you lack is more than made up for by the others who actually do want to help. Their positive attitude has helped us stay on course. I hope that we read this correctly and that you will no longer be participating in threads which we start. If we do give up here, it will be in the most part because of your noise. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-05-20 16:18, James Knott wrote:

On 05/20/2015 09:17 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Or use an access point per room, and be directly in the main pool... in which case, they should consider switching to 10.*.*.*

Unless they have a *LOT* of users, a 172.16.0.0/16 network should be adequate. It'll support 64K IP addresses.

Oh, yes, but a 10.** has more flexibility in configuration. You also need a subnet per "room". It looks "neat" :-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On 05/21/2015 01:52 AM, buhorojo wrote:

...

On 05/20/2015 09:17 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Or use an access point per room, and be directly in the main pool... in which case, they should consider switching to 10.*.*.* Unless they have a *LOT* of users, a 172.16.0.0/16 network should be adequate. It'll support 64K IP addresses. Please: read the posts. We have already specified the requirements. There are 600 users of which perhaps 100 will connect at any one time. Our provider claims that with our new line, 600 at once is also

On 20/05/15 16:18, James Knott wrote: possible. And we believe them; 3d games are the best ever:)

The best possible solution would be for each room to have their own subnet as in 192.168.X.X and also their own SSID/passcode. This will eliminate any possibility of collisions between the rooms. This will also help with the routing within the building. Before retiring I managed a small company with over 60 offices. Each office had it's own subnet. The best so9lution will be the one that not only works for you but can also be passed onto someone else with little training needed to learn the topology of your network. -- Ken Schneider SuSe since Version 5.2, June 1998 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 21/05/15 19:58, James Knott wrote:

On 05/21/2015 01:01 PM, Ken Schneider - openSUSE wrote:

...

and also their own SSID/passcode. This will eliminate any possibility of collisions between the rooms. SSIDs do not prevent collisions, only connections. If you have another AP nearby, on the same channel, you will have interference. WiFi has mechanisms to ensure sharing the channel among different devices, including different SSIDs, to reduce, but not eliminate the potential for collisions. Hi What are the symptoms of collisions? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 21/05/15 21:43, James Knott wrote:

On 05/21/2015 03:10 PM, buhorojo wrote:

...

What are the symptoms of collisions? Lost frames, which mean reduced throughput. Like the original Ethernet, WiFi is designed to accept packet loss, which then causes the device to retransmit. This happens transparently, as it's handled entirely by the WiFi hardware.

Hi Yeah, OK. I suppose we'd see it slow down? Today's update: We now have 5 wifi rooms. The most time consuming bit is the very thing we're trying to replace, the cable. We have a high failure rate. In the real world, it looks like this: https://db.tt/foaeBf8E So far we don't see any slowing but that is certainly due to the fibra, not our choice of channel. We had about 40 games running this lunch break starting with all of us in one room. Testing isn't easy although one thing we didn't think about is the wifi password. It's a pain having to set a password for each room. Thanks to everyone for their patience once again -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

On 2015-05-21 23:15, buhorojo wrote:

...

Today's update: We now have 5 wifi rooms. The most time consuming bit is the very thing we're trying to replace, the cable. We have a high failure rate. In the real world, it looks like this: https://db.tt/foaeBf8E ROTFL!

I hope nobody opens the tap ;-) Carlos, your name betrays you and suggests you may just know something about life and work in this country of ours. The tap stopped working months ago. It is unlikely that it will be fixed any time in the next ten years. Shame really. It would be use to cool the router when the air conditioning fails. But no. Neither because someone will have the

On 22/05/15 02:22, Carlos E. R. wrote: tripped the automático by then by turning on the lights at the same time as the cleaner was using the vacuum mop. So we'd have no electricity anyway. Familiar?

...

So far we don't see any slowing but that is certainly due to the fibra, not our choice of channel. We had about 40 games running this lunch break starting with all of us in one room. Testing isn't easy although one thing we didn't think about is the wifi password. It's a pain having to set a password for each room. Thanks to everyone for their patience once again 40 people in the same room sharing the same WiFi point means slow, because basically only one device talks at a time.

I wonder how airports do it, but even then and I suppose they've a stash of money to throw at it you still can't watch a video without it stopping.

It really doesn't matter if all rooms have the same password; anyway, everybody will know them...

Yes, of course. A password is secret for as long as someone who doesn't know it asks someone who has been told not to tell it for it. Do we need passwords? Apart from our Google accounts, probably not. What do others do? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-05-22 08:19, buhorojo wrote:

On 22/05/15 02:22, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

https://db.tt/foaeBf8E ROTFL!

I hope nobody opens the tap ;-)

Carlos, your name betrays you and suggests you may just know something about life and work in this country of ours. The tap stopped working months ago. It is unlikely that it will be fixed any time in the next ten years. Shame really. It would be use to cool the router when the air conditioning fails. But no. Neither because someone will have the tripped the automático by then by turning on the lights at the same time as the cleaner was using the vacuum mop. So we'd have no electricity anyway. Familiar?

Indeed, absolutely :-)))

...

40 people in the same room sharing the same WiFi point means slow, because basically only one device talks at a time. I wonder how airports do it, but even then and I suppose they've a stash of money to throw at it you still can't watch a video without it stopping.

Well, you can have overlapping points, but I doubt anyway that video streaming can work well with a wifi point shared by dozens of people. It is like a walkie-talkie radio, only one can talk, the rest wait. It happens so fast (switching from one to another) that it seems that everybody has access, but it is not so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Multiple_access_points

...

It really doesn't matter if all rooms have the same password; anyway, everybody will know them... Yes, of course. A password is secret for as long as someone who doesn't know it asks someone who has been told not to tell it for it. Do we need passwords? Apart from our Google accounts, probably not. What do others do?

I'm unsure. You should use client isolation, to somewhat protect people from one another. The secure method involves enterprise wpa, where the basic idea is that each person gets his own password. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On 05/22/2015 10:58 AM, Ken Schneider - openSUSE wrote:

(memory fading slowly over time)

You can always buy more. ;-)

Others will have to clarify, but I seem to remember that for a multi room setup it's possible to set up all of the routers with the same SSID/password, all with the same subnet and this would allow devices to move from room to room maintaining the same IP address and there by providing seemless access with no need for the user to do anything. Some what how cell phones work going cell tower to cell tower.

Yes, WiFi is designed to work with multiple access points in that manner. There are even systems designed for this use, where all the "smarts" are located in a controller, with the access points little more than a bridge. This means that you connect to the controller and wander around as you wish. However, multiple access points, with the same SSID and connected to the same network will work too. See the link about "extended service set". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_set_%28802.11_network%29#Extended_serv...

I also seem to recall that the subnet mask could be set to something other then 255.255.255.0 to provide a greater number of addresses available for one subnet. Perhaps 255.255.252.0. Perhaps James can verify this as being possible.

Yes, it is, though some equipment may not allow a bigger subnet than the "class". For example, the 192.168.x.y block is considered class c, so the equipment may limit it to /24 or smaller. In general though, classes have been obsolete for a long time and you should be able to set up any size network. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/22/2015 07:58 AM, Ken Schneider - openSUSE wrote:

...

Others will have to clarify, but I seem to remember that for a multi room setup it's possible to set up all of the routers with the same SSID/password, all with the same subnet and this would allow devices to move from room to room maintaining the same IP address and there by providing seemless access with no need for the user to do anything. No, not when wifi is as a nat / router. The dhcp server built into the wifi only checks its own connected (associated) machines for the existance of an ip being on-line before assigning it. It wont check the associated machines of the room next door.

That only works when wifi unit is set up as an Access point. (I explained this in another subthread.)

Key here is that you must turn off the dhcp server and the nat in each wifi, and do dhcp from a central source, connect the wifi using only the 4port switch ports (if present) and not use the WAN port. Phew, this is getting confusing. We have not done anything to the dhcp setting, it starts at 192.168.1.21 on all 5 routers ATM. Maybe what you are describing is for small rooms where the wifi penetrates everywhere. We have large rooms. We have tested with 80 connections over 5 rooms,

On 22/05/15 20:29, John Andersen wrote: three of which are separated by a wall. These are separated by a 4m air gap corridor to two other rooms. Nothing gets across the air. Maybe that's why it's working? Thanks Oh, and we don't seem to have an ap setting. Or at least, using only the switch ports on the router doesn't give any wifi.

This works great by the way. I run my house with two APs, one in the central area and one out in the (separate building) garage. Set up this way, and I can move from one to the other with my phone while streaming music from the net with barely a hickup. Everybody is on the same subnet.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-05-20 23:11, buhorojo wrote:

On 20/05/15 15:17, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Then each room gets a 192.168.1.* router. But that means NAT, which is a problem, I think, to get samba working across to the central server.

Hi Carlos, Thanks. You make a lot of sense. And save us a lot of time;)

Think about a block of 50 residential apartments all with their own wifi router, all on 192.168.1.something.

Yes. But that way you can not connect from one apartment to another, and that would worry me. You will only be able to connect to the server, not to other rooms. That's what happens with homes and providers: you can not connect directly to other homes. If you want that isolation, fine. If not, then you can not use NAT on the wifi routers, and each one needs a different range. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On 05/20/2015 10:03 AM, buhorojo wrote:

On 20/05/15 13:23, Per Jessen wrote:

...

mount -o username=uid,password=pwd -t cifs //172.16.5.105/estudiantes mnt mount -o username=xxx,password=xxx -t cifs //172.16.5.105/estudiantes mount: can't find //172.16.5.105/estudiantes in /etc/fstab

A perfectly reasonable error. A RTFM would have made the reason clear. <quote> The standard form of the mount command, is mount -t type device dir This tells the kernel to attach the filesystem found on device (which is of type type) at the directory dir. The previous contents (if any) and owner and mode of dir become invisible, and as long as this filesystem remains mounted, the pathname dir refers to the root of the filesystem on device. If only directory or device is given, for example: mount /dir then mount looks for a mountpoint and if not found then for a device in the /etc/fstab file. </quote> You command hasn't said WHERE to mount "//172.16.5.105/estudiantes" so it tries looking it up in /etc/fstab. Mount doesn't have a default destination! -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 10:03 AM, buhorojo wrote:

On 20/05/15 13:23, Per Jessen wrote:

...

mount -o username=uid,password=pwd -t cifs //172.16.5.105/estudiantes mnt mount -o username=xxx,password=xxx -t cifs //172.16.5.105/estudiantes mount: can't find //172.16.5.105/estudiantes in /etc/fstab

First off, can you even ping the server? Can you connect to the server if you're behind NAT? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 20/05/15 16:34, James Knott wrote:

On 05/20/2015 10:03 AM, buhorojo wrote:

...

On 20/05/15 13:23, Per Jessen wrote:

...

mount -o username=uid,password=pwd -t cifs //172.16.5.105/estudiantes mnt mount -o username=xxx,password=xxx -t cifs //172.16.5.105/estudiantes mount: can't find //172.16.5.105/estudiantes in /etc/fstab

First off, can you even ping the server? Can you connect to the server if you're behind NAT? Hi again everyone. Update. Forget cifs. Forget trying to connect to the server. We don't need it any longer:) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 20/05/15 12:29, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-05-20 12:18, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

On 2015-05-20 08:20, buhorojo wrote:

...

switch to wifi router 172.16.. to 192.168.1. One per room? Why not one per group of rooms? This isn't the issue. By room you mean a classroom? OK then. If it's important: Yes. Classroom, laboratory, hall, long corridor, tennis court, patio... The rooms are large compared with the rooms in e.g. an office. We did a test one room to the next. We have a committee to check both the English and the content of everything that is posted here. Thanks -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-05-20 14:11, James Knott wrote:

On 05/20/2015 08:05 AM, buhorojo wrote:

...

OK then. If it's important:

Yes, it is important. With WiFi, there's a big difference between a home and a large building, such as a school or office, both in terms of size and construction materials. Again, why a router in each room? It's likely getting in the way, when an access point is likely to be more suitable.

Maybe to isolate classroom traffic from the next room traffic. :-? -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On 05/20/2015 08:19 AM, James Knott wrote:

On 05/20/2015 08:15 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

On 2015-05-20 14:11, James Knott wrote:

...

On 05/20/2015 08:05 AM, buhorojo wrote:

...

OK then. If it's important: Yes, it is important. With WiFi, there's a big difference between a home and a large building, such as a school or office, both in terms of size and construction materials. Again, why a router in each room? It's likely getting in the way, when an access point is likely to be more suitable. Maybe to isolate classroom traffic from the next room traffic. :-?

Could be, but then verify the server connection before going through the router, so that the problem can be isolated. The lack of detail on what he's trying to do makes it difficult to help. If we have to guess, we might not be able to provide the appropriate answer.

+1 That committee to verify the English and content is also ensuring the content we need is not getting though! Wifi is very different from wired connections. Overlapping coverage had better be different. it better have different subnets. The OP hasn't made that clear. It better have different frequencies. Again, the OP hasn't made that clear. There is, as I've said, a lot of very straight forward network mapping testing. The OP hasn't made it clear if the wired connection in each room will, without the wifi, allow connection for the servers and login, if the ID/passwords work at that level. If, after verifying that, connection one and only one wifi device and similar tests are performed, documenting what the wifi settings are, document what subnet & IPs its DHCP is handing out, verifying connectivity & that the relevant protocols are getting though (use nmap perhaps?) and report, then we can better advise. Of course this is going to take some RTFM/googling on the part of the OP to find out about how to use nmap, about the protocols and more. The key here is to be methodological, approach this in a step by step manner, testing one thing and one thing only at a time, documenting everything and see where the "break/disconnect" occurs. This is no place for Sherlockian philosophising or leaps of deduction. This has to be evidence based and the evidence has to be presented so that the logic of the deduction makes sense. As a few of us have said, right now we don't have the hard facts. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 20/05/15 15:09, Anton Aylward wrote: As a few of us have said, right now we don't have the hard facts. Interesting as they may be to others, we do not find your comments helpful or relevant. Thank you -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 03:12 PM, buhorojo wrote:

A switch and router is cheaper to implement than an ap.

Almost any consumer grade wifi router, even those costing around than 20 dollars usually include a 4 port switch (so you won't need another one), AND often internal settings to make it work as an Access Point. Even if your router doesn't provide this setting as a check box, you can easily set this up in almost any wifi router http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/basics/wireless-basics/30338-how-to-convert-a... -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/21/2015 02:56 PM, buhorojo wrote:

On 21/05/15 23:27, John Andersen wrote:

...

On 05/20/2015 03:12 PM, buhorojo wrote:

...

A switch and router is cheaper to implement than an ap. Almost any consumer grade wifi router, even those costing around than 20 dollars usually include a 4 port switch (so you won't need another one),

AND often internal settings to make it work as an Access Point.

Even if your router doesn't provide this setting as a check box, you can easily set this up in almost any wifi router

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/basics/wireless-basics/30338-how-to-convert-a...

Hi Yeah, we didn't realise that. One of the reasons we went for the separate switch is that we have to maintain the existing wired computer _exactly_ as it is, we are not allowed to change its (fixed) IP. We need the switch to maintain the 172.16.. IP for the wired computer. Don't we?

Well, when you go to an AP sort of setup, you are usually going to a flat address space, where all IPs will be in the same subnet, rather than separate subnets assigned by DHCP serves residing in EACH wifi router. So with an AP setup, all addresses are assigned by one DHCP sever, regardless of how each computer connects, wired, or wifi. Greatly simplifies things as far as routing. You turn off the dhcp server in the router when it is set up as an AP, and you use the same IP address range on both sides (wired and wifi). The key bit here is you never use the WAN port on the AP's switch, only the LAN ports. See linked howto. So short answer: No, the currently hard wired computer will not see any difference when moved to a LAN port on the Router-as-AccessPoint. It will have the same IP. Side note: (This has nothing to do with SSIDs, or WIFI passwords. They can be the same or different for each Access Point. Some people like them all the same, because roaming laptops and phones become are easier to service this way, roaming becomes almost transparent to the end user, and they will be able to hold the same IP as they walk from one room to another. The computer connects to the strongest signal it can see with only a minimal interuption. Other people prefer to use Different AP SSIDs just to help isolate problems. ) I tossed that idea out there only for information purposes, and I presume you are past this decision point in your process by now. -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-05-20 14:05, buhorojo wrote:

On 20/05/15 12:29, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

On 2015-05-20 12:18, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

One per room? Why not one per group of rooms? This isn't the issue. By room you mean a classroom? OK then. If it's important: Yes. Classroom, laboratory, hall, long corridor, tennis court, patio... The rooms are large compared with the rooms in e.g. an office. We did a test one room to the next. We have a committee to check both the English and the content of everything that is posted here. Thanks

Thanks. Yes, it is important so that we understand things. :-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:08 AM, James Knott wrote:

On 05/20/2015 02:20 AM, buhorojo wrote:

...

Hi We have a wired connection to each room (dating to 2003). I want a cheap way to go wireless from that.

This works using old stuff: wall to up on switch switch to existing computer 172.16.. switch to wifi router 172.16.. to 192.168.1.

2 boxes and a mess of cables. Total cost, about €30 per room tested on a mix of devices. We've tested it with 20 or so of us doing random stuff.

Only problem: Getting our existing files. Looking at windows explorer on the existing wired computer we can see the files at \\172.16.5.105\estudiantes

One unusual feature is that to get that unc, we have to mask 255.255.255.0.

Before the route, we can see them at: smb://172.16.5.105/estudiantes

On wifi, smb:// always asks us for a username and password. None of our passwords work.

So 2 questions: 1. Any advance on €30 per room, preferably on 1 box. The existing computer has to remain. We are not allowed to alter that. 2. The smb:// rubbish. We may be able to have access to the file server or will get it if we can get specific help.

But please, no general advice on how or how not to do networks. Thanks.

Perhaps a bit more info on what you're trying to do. For example, why NAT in each room? Can you access the server when not going through a router?

RE: WLAN Range Extenders I'm not sure this is relevant, but I prefer range extenders where possible instead of adding a standalone wireless router for every room. Depending on the layout of your buildings/rooms you might end up with a mix of primary WLAN routers and Range Extenders. As an example I bought a Engenius ERB9250 Wireless Range Extender a couple months ago ($35). No cat5 wires needed it simply connected to my existing WLAN and re-broadcast it to extend the WLAN range. (It has a wall wart for power and needs a place for the extender to be mounted (or sat on a table.)) http://www.engeniustech.com/home-networking/149-range-extenders-media-bridge... It is by far the best range extender I have used. (And I've had 4 or 5 I've installed in the last few years). Previous ones I've installed created a new SSID for every wireless router and for every wireless range extender (repeater). Walking around my house with a WIFI tablet I would have to manually disconnect and reconnect to a different SSID to use the router with the strongest signal where I was. The ERB9250 (and other new ones I assume) uses the same SSID as the WLAN router it is extending. Thus laptops/tablets/phones can be set to just use the one SSID and they will connect to whichever WLAN device has the best signal. fyi: In my case, I am also using the ERB9250 as a media bridge. I have a printer physically distant from any cat5 connections, so I have a short cat5 cable coming out of the ERB9250 that allows the printer to pretend it is on the WLAN. That functionality has been working great for the last couple months. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/20/2015 01:26 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:

I'm not sure this is relevant, but I prefer range extenders where possible instead of adding a standalone wireless router for every room.

Extenders don't work well, when there's a lot of traffic, as may be the case in a school etc. They cause a lot more transmissions, to carry the same data. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 20/05/15 16:11, James Knott wrote:

On 05/20/2015 09:08 AM, Billie Walsh wrote:

...

I can't answer your question but I have much the same problem. Sometimes I can just get right into the shared folders on a Windows computer, no problem. Then the next time it will ask for a user name and password. None were ever set up for access. The log in for that computer doesn't work. Nothing seems to work. THEN, sometimes when I click "Cancel" the connection goes right in. The first thing this guy has to do is identify where the problems are. What works and what doesn't. Server login problems are quite different from getting through NAT. For example, can he ping the server through NAT?

Please: forget logging into the server. As of July, there will be no server. What we'll do is simply take our data from the server and upload it to drive. So please forget NAT, complicated routing patterns, and anything to do with domains, workgroups and logons. We no longer need to login to windows. It was just a thought to save us time getting our data up to drive as each user could do it for themselves. So, thanks for the input but we now need to concentrate on the thread topic. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 05/21/2015 03:22 AM, Per Jessen wrote:

Well, it seems your access to your data on the windows server was the main issue

My impression was his main issue was that he didn't know what his main issue was. ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

buhorojo wrote:

On 21/05/15 14:03, James Knott wrote:

...

...

Well, it seems your access to your data on the windows server was the main issue My impression was his main issue was that he didn't know what his

On 05/21/2015 03:22 AM, Per Jessen wrote: main issue was. ;-)

The main issue is stated clearly. It is the subject of the thread. Had our main issue been with problems connecting to a windows server then our subject would have been problems connecting to a windows server;)

Sorry, but if $SUBJ is your main issue, it isn't stated at all. What is the problem? People inter-connect wired/wifi all the time. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (9.4°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-05-21 19:52, buhorojo wrote:

On 21/05/15 14:03, James Knott wrote:

...

On 05/21/2015 03:22 AM, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Well, it seems your access to your data on the windows server was the main issue My impression was his main issue was that he didn't know what his main issue was. ;-)

The main issue is stated clearly. It is the subject of the thread. Had our main issue been with problems connecting to a windows server then our subject would have been problems connecting to a windows server;)

The Subject is the "attractor". We understood that your issue was connecting to the server because that's what the body of the email indicated. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

* buhorojo [05-21-15 15:36]:

On 21/05/15 21:22, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

O The Subject is the "attractor". We understood that your issue was connecting to the server because that's what the body of the email indicated.

We have apologised for that error and corrected it since. Once again, we apologise if we have misled. Thanks

Apologies are not necessary. What *is* necessary is a complete and definitive description of your problem. *Not* dismissals and half answers. DEFIND the problem and you will get better answers. If you cannot or continue to decline to give a comprehensive discription of the problem, you will continue to get guesses for answers. Crystal balls do not work!. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org