LITTLEBLACKDOG.COM

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2001 4:22 am Post subject:

Feel free to post any questions, comments, or feedback regarding this article. We will do our best to answer any questions you may have, and look forward to your feedback on this article!

Original Article - http://www.littlewhitedog.com/reviews_hardware_00026.asp

- Spot
Spot@LittleWhiteDog.com

"AssPunching is not allowed!"

Moderator Joined: 05 Dec 2000 Posts: 5941 Location: USA

Great Job Spot !!! I was choking on the initial $320 ... NOW I know that price doesn't include a wireless adapter ... one needs an additional $120 per wireless adapter to actually use this wireless capable router ... OUCH !!! ...

[b]I'm sitting in a magic chair ... Evil Smile

</font i

Stray Dog Joined: 29 Mar 2001 Posts: 2 Location: USA

The one problem with the wireless products is currently back under IEEE guidance, and a WEP2 specification will be released; that problem being the security portion, since it's only a 40 bit RC4 encryption with a *static* key. Apple's AirPort has been hushed up for the most part, but has glaring security holes. Cisco's implementation of wireless security has been stated to be the most secure to date using LEAP on their Aironet products.

I suppose for extending a LAN party, any current wireless products would be o.k., but using one of them in a business with extremely important data flowing across the network, I'd highly advise against it until the newer specifications are completed.

Stray Dog Joined: 29 Mar 2001 Posts: 2

I have a DSL modem from SWB. It requires me to connect via a dial-up similar to a standard modem. I don't know if this is typical for DSL, but I would asume it is (being a modem after all). Anyway my question is this: How is the Router capable of handling such a dial-up situation? Is it necessary for each of the client systems to individually connect? I can't figure out how this would work. I know for a cable modem, that once you have the physical connection, no other dial-up is necessary. Thanks for any help.

BC

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2001 1:47 pm Post subject:

Does it interfere with your 2.4 ghz cordless phones if you have any???
That is the only concern i have other than the price.

Quote:
I have a DSL modem from SWB. It requires me to connect via a dial-up similar to a standard modem. I don't know if this is typical for DSL, but I would asume it is (being a modem after all). Anyway my question is this: How is the Router capable of handling such a dial-up situation? Is it necessary for each of the client systems to individually connect? I can't figure out how this would work. I know for a cable modem, that once you have the physical connection, no other dial-up is necessary. Thanks for any help.

BC

I think that is called PPPoE (point to point protocol over ethernet). No that is not typical, Some of the providers are switching to PPPoE because they can monitor and limit your bandwidth easier. Dlink has PPPoE listed as a supported feature.
I can't be sure of this part but i think that the gateway/router does the log on for you each time you need to connect to the internet. That is the way that linksys does it.

http://www.dlink.com/products/broadband/di713/SpecsTable.htm

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2001 8:03 pm Post subject:

FordFairlane - It looks like your ISP requires PPPoE from what you said above. The way it will work is.... whenever a machine tries to make a connection to the Internet, the router will simply authorize and connect just as you would normally. You can fill the connection information into the router.

Sorry - it was the only screen I didn't cap during the review - but here it is:

Hope that is what you were looking for. [ Very Happy

]

- Spot
Spot@LittleWhiteDog.com

"AssPunching is not allowed!"

Stray Dog Joined: 29 Mar 2001 Posts: 2

Thanks for the info guys. I thought I was out of luck. Now I can look forward to lounge-surfing in my hammock. :)

BC

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:42 pm Post subject:

I can tell you from directly dealing with Cisco on their wireless 802.11b stuff that they are way way way way way way way way more expensive. Try $1000 for a stupid (no DHCP or Routing capability) access point and no more range than D-links or LinkSys equipment. Then another $300 for the PCMCIA card plus a PCI slot converter. They maybe more secure but with those prices it's no wonder their stock is taking a major beating. As for 40-bit encryption how many of us could break that and if so how long would it take you?? I'm guessing at least 4 to 6 hours with the right program and equipment. That's secure enough in my book for all but the most sensitive information.

Rover

Toilet bowls...the chalice of dogs everywhere.

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2001 7:01 am Post subject:

You gave some outside distance specs. Does that mean I can add an antenna and use the router to connect between two different buildings?

"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow."
John Wayne.

Big Dog Joined: 20 Oct 2000 Posts: 3689 Location: USA

Quote:

The one problem with the wireless products is currently back under IEEE guidance, and a WEP2 specification will be released; that problem being the security portion, since it's only a 40 bit RC4 encryption with a *static* key. Apple's AirPort has been hushed up for the most part, but has glaring security holes. Cisco's implementation of wireless security has been stated to be the most secure to date using LEAP on their Aironet products.

I suppose for extending a LAN party, any current wireless products would be o.k., but using one of them in a business with extremely important data flowing across the network, I'd highly advise against it until the newer specifications are completed.

somebody's been reading Cnet lately

or was it ZDnet Question

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2001 11:40 am Post subject:

Quote:

You gave some outside distance specs. Does that mean I can add an antenna and use the router to connect between two different buildings?

"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow."
John Wayne.

First: Very nice review Spot! Wish I had one. Kind of pricy.

Second:Yea John Wayne!

Finally... Those outside distance specs were probablly the results of testing line-of-sight over salt water. I wouldn't expect to get 300m range. A connection between two buildings would be quite possible if the buildings were close with no trees or other obstructions and the units were near facing windows. This things power output is only about 25 milli-watts, one-fourth the power of a child's walkie-talkie.

I've more than doubled the range of my cordless phone by replacing the stock antenna on the base unit with one I built. It's a 3-halfwaves in phase omni directional verticle. No reason why the same couldn't be done with this wireless thingy. Or better yet, you could use an antenna with directional gain for greater distance. Don't know if this would violate any F.C.C. regulations though, but I wouldn't worry about it.

- Ed.

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2001 3:02 am Post subject:

Ed you the Antenna man. We currently are hooking a wireless network to one of our outer buildings and we are well over line of site BUT the power out put is hellatious. Plus the antenna is huge like 4 ft tall.

Ed, how do you modify your cordless antenna. I've got a 2.4 GHz cordless phone and the range absolutely sucks cat balls. Not because the phone sucks but because the building I'm in is heavily shielded to keep the gamma rays from penetrating my groin.

Rover

Toilet bowls...the chalice of dogs everywhere.

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2001 6:49 pm Post subject:

Hey Rover - You can't modify the existing antenna, a totally new one has to be made. My phones operate in the 900 mHz band but the design could be easily scaled for 2.4 gHz use. The tricky part is getting the demensions just right. They're pretty critical at 900 and much more so at 4200.

Is that wireless network 2.4 gHz? If so I think you found a new antenna for your phone! I mean your supplier could get you one. I'm courious as to what that 4' antenna looks like and is it mounted to the device or in another location? And if it's for 900 mHz, I'd be interested in buying one.

If you really want to build your own vertical omni gain antenna I could do you up a CAD drawing and e-mail it to you with an .exe to see it. Humm... I wonder if I could do it in ASCII and still have it be understandable? It'd be quicker.

That well-shielded building is a problem. The North side of my house has a double-sided foil vapor barrier that limits my range in that direction when I'm outside walking around with the phone.

- Ed.

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2001 3:32 am Post subject:

Well, the big antenna I have not personally seen, but I have seen the other antenna that is a bit smaller. It doesn't look like anything special although the wire running from the antenna to the access point is friggin' amazing. It's shielded with like a 1/4 inch of plastic and metal. I'm not sure what the freq that it uses, but I think its 900Mhz. I'll check and get back to you later with more detail

As for modifing my cordless I guess I shouldn't since it is company property, but it was a nice thought. Thanks.

Rover

Toilet bowls...the chalice of dogs everywhere.

Stray Dog Joined: 29 Mar 2001 Posts: 2 Location: USA

Egad, I go away for a bit, and a couple of network-religious replies decide to pop up.

Anyway, C|Net? ZD Net? Gimme a break, I read the specs and follow what the committee agrees to. Ugh...that's almost like saying you're replying to this forum through an AOL account or something. I'd like to believe that LWD readers are more technically inclined than that.

As for security, you *obviously* didn't read the whole post. If you plan on putting it into a business environment, then you're leaving your business at risk. It doesn't matter if your browser has 128 bit encryption or the SSL page you're reading is 256 bit triple DES; the wireless link with 40 bit, static key encryption will be the weakest point. And if some hacker figured out you were using that, he could put down something to repeat the signal and transmit or send it elsewhere for decryption. Did you know that there are cordless phones that can do:

Quote:

Range can be over eight miles in open terrain and 12 floors within a building (independent testing lab).
Range in a typical suburban environment is usually 2 miles or more (AbleComm test).

If you're gonna do things right, then you should only do it once. Prices are high for Cisco Aironet devices, because they know they can charge that based on the features, one of which is the security.
For home use, just stick with regular cabling, since you can get better speeds and save money as well. BTW, with today's hot rods for computers, 56 bit encryption can be broken in a matter of a couple of hours, and that's with a dynamic key. Cluster a few of these machines together and grab a peer-to-peer number crunching app and 40 bits and a static key will disappear in tens of minutes.

There's not a need to be paranoid, but there's also not a need to be careless and unknowing as well.

Quote:

Code: Select all

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: