802.11 RF Amp

MikeLRoy writes "Linksys has announced a signal amp, to be available soon, for their wireless ap's/routers. While many people have been using commercial rf amps hacked onto their ap's, linksys now has a commercial solution!" I wonder when ISPs are going to stop soft-pedaling the anti-NATing provisions in their terms of service.

Comments

One way.

[Trusty Penfold]

To improve the range of a wireless connection you would need an amplifier at both ends. With this large box attached to the access point, the AP can transmit packets further ... but this is useless if you laptop, say, hasn't got the power to transmit packets back. This thing just introduces a zone of one-way communication around the inner zone of 2-way communication.

Re:One way.

[balamw]

Actually, I would presume that this thing has LNA on the receive side, and maybe one for transmit. Many applications like this where the mobile transmitter is small, has low power consumption requirements and inefficient antenna design are reverse link limited, and adding amplification (gain) on the receive side alone can increase range of the overall system. Since the transmitter is stationary and plugged in power is usually not much of a consideration for the transmit side of an access point.

Balam

no way

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a good reason

it doesn't work so well if I plug the phone into the power socket on the wall either.

the routers can easily be set up to drop any dhcp responses from the dsl modems
just in case someone does that sort of thing.

it also won't let you arp yourself as the ip of the dns server either if they set up the system correctly

none of these are reasons to block nat setups

the only real reason would be to get more $$ for the extra clients

NAT is hard to detect

[Gothmolly]

Unless you start snooping into the data packets, looking for User-Agent strings, etc (if you're NATting 2 different OSes behind it). You can make educated guesses (why do all TCP connects come from port 61000+?) but you really can't KNOW if someone is NATting.

Re:NAT is hard to detect

[Anonymous Coward]

It is just an extended writeup of what the original poster already said. It is a method that is not guaranteed to work, and as soon as it is used you will see new router firmware that circumvents it.
(there really is no "port range reserved for NAT" and it isn't required either)

God forbid.

[mwillems]

The entire point of 802.11b is that it is low power, allowing a lot of use in a small area. If my neigbours all start to boost their signals (both ways of course), my 2.4 GHz RF environment is going to be be useless. X.10, cordless phones, bluetooth, 802.11b all share this frequency (and I have all four of those at home...)

In the UK, until recently 802.11b was illegal for commercial use because it was full, making it useless. My car the other day would not open in a high-RF environment (near Toronto's CN tower).

Can we please keep this frequency useable? Amplifying will kill it. An RF signal of this type can carry 30 miles very easily, making it useless if we all start amplifying.

Michael (radio amateur, VA3MVW)

Re:God forbid.

[frohike]

Yes, that's funny :), but a lot of cars these days come with a rudimentary alarm that will get irritated at you if you try to open the doors without having used the remote, and you locked it with the remote. It's a really simplistic defense against slim jims and the like.

Re:God forbid.

[shadowj]

Mercedes models don't come with the usual shiny, metal things. The "key" is actually a vaguely key-shaped RF and IR transmitter. A small traditional metal key is buried inside it, and can be used to unlock the door in case of a failure... you have to pry a plastic cap off the hidden keyhole on the door. The emergency key won't start the car.

Amps? Erk

[FrostedWheat]

I don't like the idea of amps for 802.11.

People seem to be getting excellent range out of very low power devices using fairly cheap antennas!

Pumping out more power will just increase interference with other 802.11 networks in the area. Not to mention it would almost certainly be illegal in the UK to use one of these things :)

Re:Amps? Erk

[chriton]

I have to agree. I have two high gain directional atennae; one at each end of my wireless link & I get 22Mbps all the time (it's a DLINK using PBCC). Before the antennae, the link was dodgey at best. Now, without increasing the power I'm putting out to the neighborhood, I have exactly what I need. (Well, I suppose some neighors in some particular directions are getting a little more, but some less as well.)

Amplifiers just make things more & more crowded. I have too much stuff running in the 2.4GHz range already and do occasionally have some interference problems, especially with the cheaper of my cordless phones.

I know it's legel, I just don't like it much.

Re:Anti-NAT

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition there's all these people who want to buy $40 a month access and then provide service for their whole neighborhood. Guess what - you can't do that because the ISP can't stay in business at that rate. If you want to share, go ahead, but be prepared to pay. $150-200 month sounds reasonable.