Slashdot Mirror
Linksys Shows Off New Products To SOCALWUG
John Hering writes "Last night at the Southern California Wireless Users Group (SOCALWUG) meeting, a representative from Linksys, a division of Cisco Systems, presented several new never-before-seen Linksys products which including a wireless-G range extender, a wireless switch, wireless network attached storage and even a new Boingo co-branded wireless-G router which will serve as an off-the-shelf hotspot solution. It's interesting to note how the new Linksys products continue to look more and more like Cisco products."
... is the one that won't allow unencrypted 802.11 links to happen. Whenever I go wardriving, half of the hits I get from kismet have SSID="LINSYS", WEP="NO".
but of couse none of us ever associate with the network, we just passivly look at them... right?
404
Cisco's stuff may be nearly bulletproof, but the damn things take forever to power on. A 350 AP or BR can easily take over 3 minutes to boot. I really hope that they can find a way around boot speed issues. The public at large will not be as willing to wait as a network admin.
I thought that Linksys was a subsidiary of Cisco... So why should it be surprising that Linksys products are beginning to look like Cisco's. I for one would welcome Cisco products at Linksys prices.
Cringely has an interesting article on how Linksys has embraced Linux in products like the Linksys WRT54G and how the teaming of this technology may well be the next disruptive technology.
Personally, I think the design style that linksys has gone with has built a little mini-brand and I can't see why they're messing with that. By changing that I think Cisco goes a long way to telling customers 'the name might be Linksys, but you're not really buying Linksys products anymore'. They might think it's a good thing, but others might not. The products seem to D-Link-y now.
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
For LinkSYS to support WPA in AP-AP (Wireless Bridge) mode on their WAP54G.
"Note:WPA does not work in Wireless Bridge mode in this release"
Dammit people, WHEN will you get it right?
We don't need no stinkin NEW Products, we need completed features in our firmware for existing products.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
... the G-spot :)
Here it comes the 802.11n and the 802.16. I'm pretty sure I'll start making move toward wireless adjustments then.
I'm not about to compromise wired ip network with inferior products and standards using 802.11a/b/g
FYI, Cisco is already on board with 802.16 move toward WISP and WifiMax inititive. It will hit the market as soon as early next year.
--
Cisco, the maker of internet device and Crisco, the maker of cooking oil and grease product merged today to create world's first internet greasing device which will revolutionize the way we grease the dotcom industry. They are expect to hit the market as early as second quarter of 2005.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Sounds like an interesting concept, but I wonder how it will scale...
Assuming single-channel G/B operation, the best it could do is divide G/B users into three distinct segments (three non-overlapping frequency ranges at best). With this lack of flexibility a switched architecture seems not to yield much benefit... In fact, the alternitive use of overlapping channels to increase the overall 'bus' of the netork (the dual channel 108 mbps devices') seems more beneficial. If the net is only segmented into 3 segments, best case, and any given two hosts on the network communicate, there is a 33% chance they are on the same segment anyway, and the switched benefit isn't had. With dual channel, single segment, sure there is a 100% chance for contention in that case, but far more bandwidth available, and much better performance in wireless to lan communication (which is 98% of usage anyway).
Of course, it could be different from what I'm picturing, maybe it is more akin to a managed hub, where packets are only retransmitted to each host on 'switch-like' rules, but it remains the standard single-media solution. Perhaps kept very switchlike by different encryption keys per host, but ultimately the media is still shared in a hub fashion, so the typical network performance benefits of switched ethernet networks are not there to be had.. Of course, more intelligently handling mixed B/G devices could be the case, which would be a good thing..
Anyone know any more details about what they are meaning by a 'switched wireless network'? It certainly could be an interesting concept if the standard had more non-overlapping channels...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'm glad to see they seem to have dumped that horrible design they had.
But more importantly, it looks like this will make what I wanted possible:
Wireless switching with the Linksys WET54GS5 Wireless Ethernet Switch:
- Managed Ethernet switch
- Wireless supports virtual LANs (VLAN)
- Supports up to 69 VLAN users
- Each wireles suser gets a separate Subnetted IP address
- Targeted release June 2004
This should enable you to share your wireless Internet access, without opening up your own network to strangers.
This, for anyone who knows dick about radios, is the height of stupidity. There are, very rarely, time where it makes sense to amplify a low gain antenna, but monkeys are not qualified to make this decision.
Tell me, do you really pay Slashdot to pass for a raving lunatic, or did someone offer you a subscription for Christmas?
I have new for you: if you knew "dick" about radio yourself, you'd know that stock AP "antennas" aren't really antenna at all and rarely reach 2.2dBi anyway. As for the "morons" who buy RF amps, they may not be "specialists" like yourself.
In fact, most 802.11 users don't know anything about it, except that it's convenient and they just have to connect to the router's internal web server to configure it. And when they want more range, they buy whatever solution the shop sells them. Just like most people who drive cars don't know anything about how cars work, and let AutoZone sell them gasoline additives to "clean their injectors": well, if you don't know anything about cars, how will they know it's snake oil?
So, why don't you get off your high horse and stop talking out of your arse?
True, but then you have companies that insist on having "open" conference rooms, lounges, lobbies, and so on. Out of the box, IMHO, the router shouldn't start serving up wireless, UNTIL the EU properly configures WEP; or acknowledges having an open network will allow "anyone" in.
If you don't want encryption, why should you be forced to use it? WEP has its flaws anyway, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Personally, I think MAC filtering is a much more hassle-free method of securing a network, especially for small home networks.
No, an access point that doesn't allow encryption is simply the wrong solution. It is the responsibility of the user to secure the network, and it's not like it's such a great deal of work.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
Why in the WORLD would you want that?!
;)
First off...
We want to ENCOURAGE open wireless networks! If you live in a dense city like San Francisco (where I live) if we had enough open networks we would have a decentralized Internet infrastructure across the city.
I'm sitting in a coffee shop right now in the Haight district of San Francisco (Waller and Cole actually) and there are 5 wireless networks on the corner.
The downsize is that 2 of them are WEP and I can't really get decent signal on the others due to lack of decent antenna and LoS.
Criaglist founder Criag Newmark is nice enough to have an Open AP right up the street but it's too far for me to reach it.
Second... WEP is NOT secure. What we REALLY need is a decent AP that has ipsec already setup and still allows open connections.
Of course I've been leading the way here. I've had an Open AP in my last 3 appts. Never had any problem.
Also.. when the RIAA comes calling I have probable deniability. I can just tell the Judge that it was some random wireless user and I have a Linksys AP and I'm not smart enough to secure it
Kevin
The SAN device looks cool - it appears to be a device that makes any USB mass storage device appear as a network drive. I wonder if it shows up as a windows file server, nfs server, or a network attached block device? Can two computers use it simultaneously? Does anyone else make something similar?
-jim
Anybody else notice that the network attached storage specifically says it's *NOT* wireless?
So when are Linksys going to support IPv6? That's what I'm waiting for.
From the linked article:
Network attached storage with the Linksys NSLU Network Storage Link for USB 2.0 Disk Drives:
- Creates an Ethernet network connection for USB devices
- Supports external USB hard drives and Memory Sticks
- Connects to wired LAN (not wireless)
Too bad, because wireless NAS options are few right now.
Want to see the video of the meeting? I'll get the meeting video archive online asap. Check SOCALWUG within 24 hours or so and you'll see the new Linksys products presented at the meeting.
http://wireless.pasadena.net
Perhaps Cisco will change this... But we've had nothing but trouble with them at work. Those 8 port switches? Forget using them on any network that requires uptime. If you get a little power flicker they are gone, they hold onto the last piece of traffic they had (usually an arp) and just keep repeating it until the network floods and goes down. I've experienced this with no less then 6 DIFFERENT linksys 8-port switches (the 4 ports are fine and do not do this).
The Broadband routers do the same thing occassionally, they will packet storm on the network and cause traffic problems.
So far all i've seen says YUCK junk. Our company used to purchase linksys exclusively to use internally (when we didn't need something as powerful as a 24 port DELL switch) and also on our broadband network when customer's needed equipment. We've since switch to D-Link and have had not an issue.
Also.. when the RIAA comes calling I have probable deniability. I can just tell the Judge that it was some random wireless user and I have a Linksys AP and I'm not smart enough to secure it ;)
;-)
That will only work so many times. After a couple of people use that defense, you can bet somebody is going to push some law mandating the securing of wireless networks, either by requiring manufacturers to make it easier or passing a law that says that the network owner is responsible for *anything* illegal that goes thru his/hers network.
Rest assured, they'll try to convince people it's in the interest on national security *and* to prevent child pornography ("won't somebody please think of the children").
No sig
Umm, why is this a troll? Cisco's support policies and hardware reliability are not that great, given the extreme expense for same.
Ferinstance, just try downloading a flash image for say, a CSS 11150 box. You pay $10k for the thing, and then you can't download a ROM image without paying about $1500 a year for support.
Riiiight.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The idea was you installed a driver on your PC. Then you plugged your USB stuff into this device, which plugged into ethernet. Then any computer on your ethernet network could use that USB device (assuming it had all the drivers/etc).
It only worked with some things (HDs, printers, etc) and not others (can't think of any off the top of my head, but I doubt that an ethernet adapter or wifi adapter would work). OH! Hubs wouldn't work either.
The product had it's problems (such as only one computer could "use" each device at a time) but it was still a neat product. It would let you do the same thing, but only one person could use it at a time.
As for the Linksys thing, my guess is that it appears as a Samba server on the network and multiple people can use it at once (like any Samba server). I think it's just a NAS device without the hard drive already attached.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Ever since Cisco purchased Linksys the frequent firmware updates for my router has dropped to zero!
An email to tech support about the subject yields troubling information about the company. Not one person can tell me if development on the router firmware has stopped or if the router is being discontinued or when/if a new one will be released.
My next router will not be a linksys. I am going into IT work soon and that equipment will not be linksys either!
And you think that's bad, I have a WRT54AB. It doesnt speak dhcp properly so a great many devices need to be set with statics, a pain for VoIP like packet8 that demands dhcp.
In addition it doesn't renew its lease properly.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
When i hit the switch on the powerstrip, by the time my cable modem connects, the wireless router has booted, and is followed shortly after by my computer. Although you shouldn't have to be constantly booting network hardware.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
There's actually a "Southern California Wireless Users Group"? Wow. And they thought us Linux guys were nerds.
As what you've said is sort of like saying "I'm giving up on door locks for my house, I think filtering guests as they enter is secure and hassle free."
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Linksys has been really good at innovating for a while now, and they have always been good at getting the price down.
My big concern is quality. Looking back, almost half the access points we've gotten from them have been DOA or died shortly afterward. Two out of three GigE switches had bad fans in them, one of the replacements did as well. One BEFSR41 power brick melted.
On NICs, I can't fault them; they're 100% reliable and install with zero issues. I'd reccommend them as easily as Intel or 3Com. But their external hardware has been really spotty. Compared against the rock-solid reliability I expect from even low-end Cisco gear (1600-series routers or even ATA's) I think they're taking a big gamble putting the Cisco label on it.
That said, I want one of those usb-to-ethernet storage gizmos.
You can actually assign a static IP to the Packet8 box. I used to have to do that when I had a 1/2 brain dead DHCP server.
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
I realize that. However it doesn't ship with a default static that it falls back on if it can't find a usable dhcp server.
I set up dhcpd on my Linux desktop, assigned it an ip and then configured it with a static ip for use with my braindead linksys router.
Not too hard for myself, but a long way from just plug into any router that does dhcp, which is what they claim on their web site.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
I see, you used the browser to set it up. There is a way to do it from the phone. Ahyhow, you are right, it's less than plug and play.
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
Just a while ago Tom's Hardware reviewed a product that was a USB->Ethernet converter. The idea was you installed a driver on your PC. Then you plugged your USB stuff into this device, which plugged into ethernet. Then any computer on your ethernet network could use that USB device (assuming it had all the drivers/etc).
Do you have a link to this review, a search at Toms Hardware did not provide any thing similar. Just usb devices.
1311393600 - Back to Black
Did they by any chance say what they were going to use to replace their now-pulled WSB-24 signal booster?
Polymorphism -- It's what you make of it.