|
Posted by Jeff Liebermann on June 28, 2008, 2:15 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>> > For all else who are interested, the pseudo-generic name for what I am
>> > looking for is "SoftAP".
Sorry, I missed your posting. See the URL's I posted for clues on
Windoze Soft AP's.
>> Hint: A clear explanation of what you're trying to accomplish, and
>> what you have to work with, would be helpful.
>
> I'm rewriting TCP/IP. :)
If you have some spare time, could you also fix the economy, end the
war in middle east, end global warming, find a tolerable US
presidential candidate, and figure out why my truck is getting lousy
gas mileage?
That also only answers half my question. What do you have to work
with? If a spare PC, you might consider some Linux firewall/router
mutations that are intended to run access points, such as M0n0wall.
If all you want is wireless connectivity, you don't need an AP. You
could setup an Ad-Hoc (peer-to-peer) wireless network, where the
various wireless clients talk to each other directly. Any out of the
box Windoze wireless device will do that.
I'm kinda suprised that you've selected Windoze as your initial
platform for wireless global domination. Most such development I've
seen is initially done on Linux (because it's better and easier) and
later ported to Windoze.
>Incidentally, the model that I decided to buy is the Zyxel AG-225H:
>http://computers.pricegrabber.com/wireless-networking/m/11754328/search=zyxel/st=product/sv=title/
No experience with that model. I'm kinda suprised that you would
chose a USB devices for a Soft AP. Soft AP is commonly used on
laptops to do man-in-the-middle type attacks at hot spots by creating
a fake AP. Also, for various wireless DoS attacks. I would think
that you would have selected a PCI or MiniPCI card instead.
Anyway, good luck and please let me know when you can fix my truck.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
|
  | |
Posted by Le Chaud Lapin on June 28, 2008, 3:22 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> > I'm rewriting TCP/IP. :)
>
> If you have some spare time, could you also fix the economy, end the
> war in middle east, end global warming, find a tolerable US
> presidential candidate, and figure out why my truck is getting lousy
> gas mileage? =A0
>
> That also only answers half my question. =A0What do you have to work
> with? =A0If a spare PC, you might consider some Linux firewall/router
> mutations that are intended to run access points, such as M0n0wall.
I have spare PC's, but I intend to use the same test PC I use for
everything else.
> If all you want is wireless connectivity, you don't need an AP. =A0You
> could setup an Ad-Hoc (peer-to-peer) wireless network, where the
> various wireless clients talk to each other directly. =A0Any out of the
> box Windoze wireless device will do that.
Yes, but I wanted an actual AP so that I could create worst-case-
scenario according to 802.11 spec, meaning testing all the functions
of AP. Will minimize any suprises when I port software to something
like WRT54G.
> I'm kinda suprised that you've selected Windoze as your initial
> platform for wireless global domination. =A0Most such development I've
> seen is initially done on Linux (because it's better and easier) and
> later ported to Windoze.
It's a matter of taste. I like the Windows (VMS) threading/process
model better, and there is no way I would want to manage a 500 file
project using Emacs/GNU/Make. Visual Studio makes it effortless.
> >Incidentally, the model that I decided to buy is the Zyxel AG-225H:
> >http://computers.pricegrabber.com/wireless-networking/m/11754328/sear...
>
> No experience with that model. =A0I'm kinda suprised that you would
> chose a USB devices for a Soft AP. =A0Soft AP is commonly used on
> laptops to do man-in-the-middle type attacks at hot spots by creating
> a fake AP. =A0Also, for various wireless DoS attacks. =A0I would think
> that you would have selected a PCI or MiniPCI card instead.
The software is completely oblivious to whether a USB dongle is being
use or a PCI card is being used. So it makes sense to have soemthing
that is easily portable from machine to machine for demonstration
purposes.
> Anyway, good luck and please let me know when you can fix my truck.
:)
-Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
Posted by Jeff Liebermann on June 28, 2008, 5:27 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>I have spare PC's, but I intend to use the same test PC I use for
>everything else.
The bigger they are, the harder they crash. Compile and build on your
main PC, but do your testing on something that you don't mind having
crash. I don't do any development work, but I've watched it being
done. One of my friends keeps an image of his hard disk handy, with
which he can overscribble the working drive when his latest
experiments go awry.
>Yes, but I wanted an actual AP so that I could create worst-case-
>scenario according to 802.11 spec, meaning testing all the functions
>of AP. Will minimize any suprises when I port software to something
>like WRT54G.
You won't have any trouble finding things wrong with 802.11. In my
never humble opinion, it's a good compromise between the various
applications for Wi-Fi, many of which were never even considered
possible back in 1997. See WiMax (based on 802.16) for how to do the
access point model correctly. Incidentally, I consider the
elimination of the hyphen in Wi-Fi a major improvement in WiMax.
Please note the an access point does not know anything about TCP/IP.
It runs on layer 2 (MAC) and only uses IP for configuration. Rewriting
TCP/IP has no effect on the function of the access point. If you're
planning on improving the AP function, you'll need to re-write MAC
layer, not the IP layer.
>It's a matter of taste.
Various ladyfriends have informed me that I have no taste. Therefore,
taste does not matter to me, assuming you're not talking about eating
the computer.
>I like the Windows (VMS) threading/process
>model better, and there is no way I would want to manage a 500 file
>project using Emacs/GNU/Make. Visual Studio makes it effortless.
Open Source Linux wireless and routers have created a large code pool
from which you can borrow, steal, plagerize, and license. It's
particularly good at the hardware level for things like routers.
There's nothing comparable for Windoze.
>The software is completely oblivious to whether a USB dongle is being
>use or a PCI card is being used.
True if you're re-writing TCP/IP. Not necessarily true if you're
rewriting 802.11. While todays wirless chipsets bury most of the
physical layer in hardware, there's still plenty of code in the driver
to deal with timing, events, error recovery, and performance counters.
Some older chipsets did TKIP in hardware, but AES in the driver. Go
unto the FCC web site and see what's inside your chosen target. Grab
the chipset numbers. Look on the vendors web pile for what's done
inside the chip. You get to do everything else in the driver (or
wireless manager).
>So it makes sense to have soemthing
>that is easily portable from machine to machine for demonstration
>purposes.
This strikes me as a minor issue and somewhat like the tail wagging
the dog. If you're planning to reinvent the wheel, it's best to
concentrate on tires, rims, spokes and axles, not on impressing your
friends with how well it fits on different vehicles.
>> Anyway, good luck and please let me know when you can fix my truck.
>:)
No rush. Whenever you're done rewriting TCP/IP.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
|
|
Posted by Le Chaud Lapin on June 29, 2008, 4:21 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options > Please note the an access point does not know anything about TCP/IP.
> It runs on layer 2 (MAC) and only uses IP for configuration. Rewriting
> TCP/IP has no effect on the function of the access point. If you're
> planning on improving the AP function, you'll need to re-write MAC
> layer, not the IP layer.
But one cannot ignore the model prescribed by the access point while
thinking about solving major problems with TCP/IP, mobility in
particular. I plan to run some test to determine the hand-off time
under 802.11 model.
> >So it makes sense to have soemthing
> >that is easily portable from machine to machine for demonstration
> >purposes.
>
> This strikes me as a minor issue and somewhat like the tail wagging
> the dog. =A0If you're planning to reinvent the wheel, it's best to
> concentrate on tires, rims, spokes and axles, not on impressing your
> friends with how well it fits on different vehicles.
Not sure what you mean by this. I am a minimalist in my engineering,
which means I will not create/use something unless I think it is
necessary (or rational). For example, if I had started writing my
stack on Linux, I would have had to deal with the NDIS wrapper mess.
With Windows, I get the real deal.
As far as the access point, it is definitely necessary. Certainly not
a minor thing, the mobility problem. And in a room with people who
matter, a working demo is far more impressive than hand-waving, and
that is what the dongle gives me. The alternative is a hack of WRT54G
or something similar.
I am just happy that at least one dongle vendor had the courage to
stick to their original plan - make AP out of PC. Makes my job a lot
easier.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
Posted by Le Chaud Lapin on June 29, 2008, 4:26 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:22:37 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>
> >I have spare PC's, but I intend to use the same test PC I use for
> >everything else.
>
> The bigger they are, the harder they crash. =A0Compile and build on your
> main PC, but do your testing on something that you don't mind having
> crash. =A0I don't do any development work, but I've watched it being
> done. =A0One of my friends keeps an image of his hard disk handy, with
> which he can overscribble the working drive when his latest
> experiments go awry.
I here people say this, but I have been using my development machine
for two decades at least with only one major problem, which is
destruction of a registry path do to a bad string function. Every
other error cause by my software has always been recoverable. I might
use VPC every now and then, but not as a rule. The only exception is
device driver development.
Aside from the registry error, there is never a time when software I
write can hurt my machine. There are only so many catostrophic paths
of execution, and I have no trouble avoiding them.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | MAC addresses in router vs Access Point | May 1, 2008, 5:19 am |
| Difference between bridge and wireless access point?? | October 9, 2007, 6:57 pm |
| May I use a Linksys WRT54G router as secondary wireless access point? | January 25, 2006, 10:28 pm |
| ethernet point to point wiring | October 28, 2005, 1:30 pm |
| Superseded drafts of IEEE 802.1x | February 24, 2006, 6:46 pm |
| IEEE 1588 enabled Ethernet controller? | November 23, 2005, 4:31 pm |
| Maximum number of stations on IEEE 802.3 networks | December 7, 2006, 5:25 am |
| Require clarification on IEEE 802.1D -2004 spec on Conformance | December 28, 2005, 3:09 am |
| How to test network in windows? | September 19, 2008, 2:15 am |
| Ethereal on Windows with Multihomed Adapter | October 15, 2005, 10:32 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map