info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Daisy-chaining an Access Point Off of a Wireless Router
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Thri Cipio
Aug 22, 2016, 5:26:56 AM8/22/16
to
I read an article that indicated a secondary router can be daisy-chained off of a primary router. For example, as follows:
(a) a cable modem's internet port is connected to router-1's internet port.
(b) router-2's internet port is connected to one of router-1's ethernet ports.
I'm far from sophisticated in these matters, but this seems logically feasible to me. What I don't know is whether or not this same procedure would work with an access point being used in place of router-2.
Any guidance provided will be much appreciated.
Thanks,
—Thri
(a) a cable modem's internet port is connected to router-1's internet port.
(b) router-2's internet port is connected to one of router-1's ethernet ports.
I'm far from sophisticated in these matters, but this seems logically feasible to me. What I don't know is whether or not this same procedure would work with an access point being used in place of router-2.
Any guidance provided will be much appreciated.
Thanks,
—Thri
Pat
Aug 22, 2016, 6:42:01 AM8/22/16
to
Yes. It will work. (If router-1 also includes an access point, I
would recommend using a different SSID (network name) for the second
access point.)
Thri Cipio
Aug 22, 2016, 12:32:41 PM8/22/16
to
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:42:01 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
> Yes. It will work. (If router-1 also includes an access point, I
> would recommend using a different SSID (network name) for the second
> access point.)
Pat--
> Yes. It will work. (If router-1 also includes an access point, I
> would recommend using a different SSID (network name) for the second
> access point.)
Thanks for your reply. It is most helpful. I have a follow-up question that pertains to the context for my original question. If you're pressed for time, just skip to the end for that question. Otherwise, here's the . . .
CONTEXT: In my scenario, I'm not the one who has control over the Access Point (AP). The AP is one among a few dozen apartment building Access Points that are collectively managed by the building's ISP. Previously, I had simply replaced the ISP-provided AP with my own (non-AP) router, in order to have control over my own internet connection. Subsequently, I learned that the AP in *my* apartment is *not* necessarily the one servicing my apartment. That is, demand within the building is load-balanced among all the Access Points. So, disconnecting it and swapping in my own router turned out to be problematic from the ISP's point of view. Therefore, I have removed my router and swapped back in the AP. But, of course, that means I once again have no control over my connection to the internet. ¶ So, what I'm trying to do is regain that control without interfering with (and ideally, without being visible to) the AP that's associated with the cable modem in my apartment. Hence, my . . .
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: If I daisy-chain the AP off of my own router, will this be apparent to the ISP personnel monitoring the building's access points? In other words, will the AP be able to detect (and show) that its connection to the modem involves an intermediary connection through my router?
Once again, thanks for your original reply and thanks (to you and whoever else may want to chime in) for whatever further help you may be able to provide.
Gratefully,
--Thri
Pat
Aug 22, 2016, 2:38:35 PM8/22/16
to
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:32:39 -0700 (PDT), Thri Cipio
<thri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:42:01 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
>> Yes. It will work. (If router-1 also includes an access point, I
>> would recommend using a different SSID (network name) for the second
>> access point.)
>
>Pat--
>
>Thanks for your reply. It is most helpful. I have a follow-up question that pertains to the context for my original question. If you're pressed for time, just skip to the end for that question. Otherwise, here's the . . .
>
>CONTEXT: In my scenario, I'm not the one who has control over the Access Point (AP). The AP is one among a few dozen apartment building Access Points that are collectively managed by the building's ISP. Previously, I had simply replaced the ISP-provided AP with my own (non-AP) router, in order to have control over my own internet connection. Subsequently, I learned that the AP in *my* apartment is *not* necessarily the one servicing my apartment. That is, demand within the building is load-balanced among all the Access Points. So, disconnecting it and swapping in my own router turned out to be problematic from the ISP's point of view. Therefore, I have removed my router and swapped back in the AP. But, of course, that means I once again have no control over my connection to the internet. ś So, what I'm trying to do is regain that control without interfering with (and ideally, without being visible to) the AP that's associated with the cable modem in my apartment. Hence, my
<thri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:42:01 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
>> Yes. It will work. (If router-1 also includes an access point, I
>> would recommend using a different SSID (network name) for the second
>> access point.)
>
>Pat--
>
>Thanks for your reply. It is most helpful. I have a follow-up question that pertains to the context for my original question. If you're pressed for time, just skip to the end for that question. Otherwise, here's the . . .
>
.
>. .
>
>FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: If I daisy-chain the AP off of my own router, will this be apparent to the ISP personnel monitoring the building's access points? In other words, will the AP be able to detect (and show) that its connection to the modem involves an intermediary connection through my router?
>
>Once again, thanks for your original reply and thanks (to you and whoever else may want to chime in) for whatever further help you may be able to provide.
>
>Gratefully,
>--Thri
A very interesting situation... I believe the ISP could tell your
>. .
>
>FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: If I daisy-chain the AP off of my own router, will this be apparent to the ISP personnel monitoring the building's access points? In other words, will the AP be able to detect (and show) that its connection to the modem involves an intermediary connection through my router?
>
>Once again, thanks for your original reply and thanks (to you and whoever else may want to chime in) for whatever further help you may be able to provide.
>
>Gratefully,
>--Thri
router was in there if they wanted to. They could run a utility to
trace packets and see that another hop was in there. But, if your
router is running properly, why would they care to check. On the
other hand, anyone outside your apartment that happens to use their
original AP would be on your network with the resulting security
risks. Perhaps that is what the second router is used for in your
original post. The first router could maintain a network for
connecting the AP and router-2. Router-2 would be your private
internal network. If that is the case, maybe you should use a simple
"switch" device to share the incoming signal between the AP and your
router. (A 4 or 5 port switch can be purchased for much less than a
full blown router.) If you do end up with 2 routers, you need to pay
attention to which ports are open in router-1. Otherwise you might
end up blocking some ports that the ISP intends to have open. A
nearby neighbor might find that his or her security camera's remote
access feature works sometimes but not other times depending on if he
connects to "your" AP that is behind router-1 or another one nearby.
Pat
Thri Cipio
Aug 22, 2016, 4:31:03 PM8/22/16
to
Pat—
Thanks for your reply.
I've split your reply into ««·sections·»» and am responding per each section…
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:38:35 PM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
««««« #1 »»»»»
Well, this is encouraging. It sounds like they'd have to go out of their way to look for some trouble-shooting-related anomaly, etc.
««««« #2 »»»»»
Hmmm… this part confuses me . . . see #3 & #4 below.
««««« #3 »»»»»
Two clarification points here:
-----
(1) The first router ("router-1") is my own router. It would connect directly to the cable modem and would have its own pasword-protected SSID. It would be this SSID that I personally would wirelessly connect my devices to; e.g., computer, smartphone, roku, etc.
-----
(2) You refer to "connecting the AP and router-2" but note, in my scenario, the "AP" and "router-2" are one and the same device. In other words, we're talking about a total of three devices: [cable modem] <--- [router-1/(my router)] <--- [router-2/(bldg.AP)].
««««« #4 »»»»»
No, router-1 would service my private, wireless LAN and connect it to the internet. See (1) directly above.
««««« #5 »»»»»
Well, this is interesting. I had looked at switches online but came away with the impression that a "switch" is used to *switch* between ports; i.e., only one port could be active at a time and the switch is used to select which port would be active at any given time.
««««« #6 »»»»»
I understand what you're saying but have no idea how to determine which "ports that the ISP intends to have open." Is there a way for me to find this out?
Pat, I hope that wasn't overly long-winded and that it helps clarify my questions. Any further clarification you can provide will be very much appreciated.
Thanks again for your help.
Gratefully,
—Thri
Thanks for your reply.
I've split your reply into ««·sections·»» and am responding per each section…
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:38:35 PM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
««««« #1 »»»»»
> I believe the ISP could tell your router was
> in there if they wanted to. They could run a utility to
> trace packets and see that another hop was in there. But, if your
> router is running properly, why would they care to check.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> in there if they wanted to. They could run a utility to
> trace packets and see that another hop was in there. But, if your
> router is running properly, why would they care to check.
Well, this is encouraging. It sounds like they'd have to go out of their way to look for some trouble-shooting-related anomaly, etc.
««««« #2 »»»»»
> On the other hand, anyone outside your apartment
> that happens to [be using the AP inside your apartment] would be on
> your network with the resulting security risks.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Hmmm… this part confuses me . . . see #3 & #4 below.
««««« #3 »»»»»
> Perhaps that is what the second
> router is used for in your original
> post. The first router could maintain a network for
> connecting the AP and router-2.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> router is used for in your original
> post. The first router could maintain a network for
> connecting the AP and router-2.
Two clarification points here:
-----
(1) The first router ("router-1") is my own router. It would connect directly to the cable modem and would have its own pasword-protected SSID. It would be this SSID that I personally would wirelessly connect my devices to; e.g., computer, smartphone, roku, etc.
-----
(2) You refer to "connecting the AP and router-2" but note, in my scenario, the "AP" and "router-2" are one and the same device. In other words, we're talking about a total of three devices: [cable modem] <--- [router-1/(my router)] <--- [router-2/(bldg.AP)].
««««« #4 »»»»»
> Router-2 would be your private internal network.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
No, router-1 would service my private, wireless LAN and connect it to the internet. See (1) directly above.
««««« #5 »»»»»
> If that is the case, maybe you should use a simple
> "switch" device to share the incoming signal between the AP and your
> router. (A 4 or 5 port switch can be purchased for much less than a
> full blown router.)
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> "switch" device to share the incoming signal between the AP and your
> router. (A 4 or 5 port switch can be purchased for much less than a
> full blown router.)
Well, this is interesting. I had looked at switches online but came away with the impression that a "switch" is used to *switch* between ports; i.e., only one port could be active at a time and the switch is used to select which port would be active at any given time.
««««« #6 »»»»»
> If you do end up with 2 routers, you need to pay
> attention to which ports are open in router-1. Otherwise you might
> end up blocking some ports that the ISP intends to have open.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> attention to which ports are open in router-1. Otherwise you might
> end up blocking some ports that the ISP intends to have open.
I understand what you're saying but have no idea how to determine which "ports that the ISP intends to have open." Is there a way for me to find this out?
Pat, I hope that wasn't overly long-winded and that it helps clarify my questions. Any further clarification you can provide will be very much appreciated.
Thanks again for your help.
Gratefully,
—Thri
Pat
Aug 23, 2016, 8:55:14 AM8/23/16
to
Thri,
I will try to answer below just like you did...
I understand now, but I don't think you want to do it that way.
using the building AP is connected to your private network.
wireless part of router-1 is protected by WAP2 or whatever you use,
but the building AP is connected to one of router-1's Ethernet ports
and therefore, your private network.
what you want. The upside of the switch is connected to the incomming
line. One of the output lines goes to the ISP's AP thereby providing
its original function for others in the building. The second output
from the switch supplies Internet to your router which provides your
private (wired and wireless) network.
I noticed you said cable modem. If that means your incoming service
is via coax rather than Ethernet, then everything I have said changes.
You can't just add a switch like I previously suggested. I had
thought the ISP provided AP was a standalone AP feed with an Ethernet
cable. If, however, the ISP supplied AP is really what you called
router-2 and is fed with cable (coax), then my recommendation changes.
Does the ISP provided device have Ethernet connectors that can feed
wired devices? if so, connect your (previously called router-1)
router to one of those connectors. That way you don't need to know
anything about how the ISP handles ports and you have a private
network using your own router.
>
>
>««««« #6 »»»»»
>> If you do end up with 2 routers, you need to pay
>> attention to which ports are open in router-1. Otherwise you might
>> end up blocking some ports that the ISP intends to have open.
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>I understand what you're saying but have no idea how to determine which "ports that the ISP intends to have open." Is there a way for me to find this out?
>
>
>Pat, I hope that wasn't overly long-winded and that it helps clarify my questions. Any further clarification you can provide will be very much appreciated.
>
>Thanks again for your help.
>
>Gratefully,
>—Thri
I hope I haven't totally confused you. To go further, I need to
understand exactly what you have. Is the cable modem a separate
device from the ISP supplied router/AP or are all three functions in
one box? Either way, what connectors are used for the existing
connections. (Note that the word "port" can get confusing here. It
can refer to a physical connection - for example, the ethernet ports
on the back of a switch. Or, it can be the part of the Internet
Protocol Address controlled by software to separate messages - for
example, web requests are usually made by your browser using port 80).
Pat
I will try to answer below just like you did...
>-----
>(2) You refer to "connecting the AP and router-2" but note, in my scenario, the "AP" and "router-2" are one and the same device. In other words, we're talking about a total of three devices:
> [cable modem] <--- [router-1/(my router)] <--- [router-2/(bldg.AP)].
Since the building AP (and router 2) is connected to router-1, anyone
>(2) You refer to "connecting the AP and router-2" but note, in my scenario, the "AP" and "router-2" are one and the same device. In other words, we're talking about a total of three devices:
> [cable modem] <--- [router-1/(my router)] <--- [router-2/(bldg.AP)].
using the building AP is connected to your private network.
>
>
>««««« #4 »»»»»
>> Router-2 would be your private internal network.
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>No, router-1 would service my private, wireless LAN and connect it to the internet. See (1) directly above.
But, it isn't private since the building AP is connected to it. The
>
>««««« #4 »»»»»
>> Router-2 would be your private internal network.
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>No, router-1 would service my private, wireless LAN and connect it to the internet. See (1) directly above.
wireless part of router-1 is protected by WAP2 or whatever you use,
but the building AP is connected to one of router-1's Ethernet ports
and therefore, your private network.
>
>
>««««« #5 »»»»»
>> If that is the case, maybe you should use a simple
>> "switch" device to share the incoming signal between the AP and your
>> router. (A 4 or 5 port switch can be purchased for much less than a
>> full blown router.)
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>Well, this is interesting. I had looked at switches online but came away with the impression that a "switch" is used to *switch* between ports; i.e., only one port could be active at a time and the switch is used to select which port would be active at any given time.
That is, essentially, what switches do. In this case, I think it is
>
>««««« #5 »»»»»
>> If that is the case, maybe you should use a simple
>> "switch" device to share the incoming signal between the AP and your
>> router. (A 4 or 5 port switch can be purchased for much less than a
>> full blown router.)
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>Well, this is interesting. I had looked at switches online but came away with the impression that a "switch" is used to *switch* between ports; i.e., only one port could be active at a time and the switch is used to select which port would be active at any given time.
what you want. The upside of the switch is connected to the incomming
line. One of the output lines goes to the ISP's AP thereby providing
its original function for others in the building. The second output
from the switch supplies Internet to your router which provides your
private (wired and wireless) network.
I noticed you said cable modem. If that means your incoming service
is via coax rather than Ethernet, then everything I have said changes.
You can't just add a switch like I previously suggested. I had
thought the ISP provided AP was a standalone AP feed with an Ethernet
cable. If, however, the ISP supplied AP is really what you called
router-2 and is fed with cable (coax), then my recommendation changes.
Does the ISP provided device have Ethernet connectors that can feed
wired devices? if so, connect your (previously called router-1)
router to one of those connectors. That way you don't need to know
anything about how the ISP handles ports and you have a private
network using your own router.
>
>
>««««« #6 »»»»»
>> If you do end up with 2 routers, you need to pay
>> attention to which ports are open in router-1. Otherwise you might
>> end up blocking some ports that the ISP intends to have open.
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>I understand what you're saying but have no idea how to determine which "ports that the ISP intends to have open." Is there a way for me to find this out?
>
>
>Pat, I hope that wasn't overly long-winded and that it helps clarify my questions. Any further clarification you can provide will be very much appreciated.
>
>Thanks again for your help.
>
>Gratefully,
>—Thri
understand exactly what you have. Is the cable modem a separate
device from the ISP supplied router/AP or are all three functions in
one box? Either way, what connectors are used for the existing
connections. (Note that the word "port" can get confusing here. It
can refer to a physical connection - for example, the ethernet ports
on the back of a switch. Or, it can be the part of the Internet
Protocol Address controlled by software to separate messages - for
example, web requests are usually made by your browser using port 80).
Pat
Bert
Aug 23, 2016, 9:53:43 AM8/23/16
to
In news:eillrb1keklv7ga8d...@4ax.com Pat <p...@nospam.us>
wrote:
> (If router-1 also includes an access point, I would recommend using a
> different SSID (network name) for the second access point.)
Why?
I have two APs in the house, both using the same SSID (on diffferent
channels) without problems.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
wrote:
> (If router-1 also includes an access point, I would recommend using a
> different SSID (network name) for the second access point.)
I have two APs in the house, both using the same SSID (on diffferent
channels) without problems.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Pat
Aug 23, 2016, 12:00:26 PM8/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:53:42 -0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
wrote:
>In news:eillrb1keklv7ga8d...@4ax.com Pat <p...@nospam.us>
>wrote:
>
>> (If router-1 also includes an access point, I would recommend using a
>> different SSID (network name) for the second access point.)
>
>Why?
>
>I have two APs in the house, both using the same SSID (on diffferent
>channels) without problems.
Various reasons... some just personal preference. In your case, can
you tell which one your are connected to? I found myself using the
weak signal from the farthest router when the closer one was right
nearby. I guess it depends on your situation and why you have 2
routers in the first place. In the case of the original poster, the
one was a more public system that was intended to be used by other
apartments in addition to his. The 2nd router was intended to be just
his. That story is still evolving so we will see where it ends up.
wrote:
>In news:eillrb1keklv7ga8d...@4ax.com Pat <p...@nospam.us>
>wrote:
>
>> (If router-1 also includes an access point, I would recommend using a
>> different SSID (network name) for the second access point.)
>
>Why?
>
>I have two APs in the house, both using the same SSID (on diffferent
>channels) without problems.
you tell which one your are connected to? I found myself using the
weak signal from the farthest router when the closer one was right
nearby. I guess it depends on your situation and why you have 2
routers in the first place. In the case of the original poster, the
one was a more public system that was intended to be used by other
apartments in addition to his. The 2nd router was intended to be just
his. That story is still evolving so we will see where it ends up.
Bert
Aug 23, 2016, 2:54:59 PM8/23/16
to
In news:lfsorb58vhvdsnm2o...@4ax.com Pat <p...@nospam.us>
wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:53:42 -0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In news:eillrb1keklv7ga8d...@4ax.com Pat <p...@nospam.us>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> (If router-1 also includes an access point, I would recommend using
>>> a different SSID (network name) for the second access point.)
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>I have two APs in the house, both using the same SSID (on diffferent
>>channels) without problems.
>
> Various reasons... some just personal preference. In your case, can
> you tell which one your are connected to?
On my phone running Android OS, I have an app which will show me. On my
iPad, not directly.
However, the iPad's a lot more eager to switch to the strongest signal
on its own than is the phone. I have to turn WiFi off and back on again
to get the phone to switch. When the phone's connected to the "wrong"
AP, the signal strength display makes it pretty obvious.
> I found myself using the weak signal from the farthest router when the
> closer one was right nearby. I guess it depends on your situation and
> why you have 2 routers in the first place.
APs, not routers.
I have two because the layout of the house requires it.
wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:53:42 -0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In news:eillrb1keklv7ga8d...@4ax.com Pat <p...@nospam.us>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> (If router-1 also includes an access point, I would recommend using
>>> a different SSID (network name) for the second access point.)
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>I have two APs in the house, both using the same SSID (on diffferent
>>channels) without problems.
>
> Various reasons... some just personal preference. In your case, can
> you tell which one your are connected to?
iPad, not directly.
However, the iPad's a lot more eager to switch to the strongest signal
on its own than is the phone. I have to turn WiFi off and back on again
to get the phone to switch. When the phone's connected to the "wrong"
AP, the signal strength display makes it pretty obvious.
> I found myself using the weak signal from the farthest router when the
> closer one was right nearby. I guess it depends on your situation and
> why you have 2 routers in the first place.
I have two because the layout of the house requires it.
Pat
Aug 23, 2016, 4:16:39 PM8/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 18:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
wrote:
>In news:lfsorb58vhvdsnm2o...@4ax.com Pat <p...@nospam.us>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:53:42 -0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:eillrb1keklv7ga8d...@4ax.com Pat <p...@nospam.us>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> (If router-1 also includes an access point, I would recommend using
>>>> a different SSID (network name) for the second access point.)
>>>
>>>Why?
>>>
>>>I have two APs in the house, both using the same SSID (on diffferent
>>>channels) without problems.
>>
>> Various reasons... some just personal preference. In your case, can
>> you tell which one your are connected to?
>
>On my phone running Android OS, I have an app which will show me. On my
>iPad, not directly.
>
>However, the iPad's a lot more eager to switch to the strongest signal
>on its own than is the phone. I have to turn WiFi off and back on again
>to get the phone to switch. When the phone's connected to the "wrong"
>AP, the signal strength display makes it pretty obvious.
>
>> I found myself using the weak signal from the farthest router when the
>> closer one was right nearby. I guess it depends on your situation and
>> why you have 2 routers in the first place.
>
>APs, not routers.
True, but to most people I know, it's a router. The AP is built in.
>In news:lfsorb58vhvdsnm2o...@4ax.com Pat <p...@nospam.us>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:53:42 -0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:eillrb1keklv7ga8d...@4ax.com Pat <p...@nospam.us>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> (If router-1 also includes an access point, I would recommend using
>>>> a different SSID (network name) for the second access point.)
>>>
>>>Why?
>>>
>>>I have two APs in the house, both using the same SSID (on diffferent
>>>channels) without problems.
>>
>> Various reasons... some just personal preference. In your case, can
>> you tell which one your are connected to?
>
>On my phone running Android OS, I have an app which will show me. On my
>iPad, not directly.
>
>However, the iPad's a lot more eager to switch to the strongest signal
>on its own than is the phone. I have to turn WiFi off and back on again
>to get the phone to switch. When the phone's connected to the "wrong"
>AP, the signal strength display makes it pretty obvious.
>
>> I found myself using the weak signal from the farthest router when the
>> closer one was right nearby. I guess it depends on your situation and
>> why you have 2 routers in the first place.
>
>APs, not routers.
Thri Cipio
Aug 24, 2016, 4:19:13 AM8/24/16
to
Pat—
Thanks for your latest reply, which clarified a lot. And sorry about the bit of a delay with the arrival of this response.
Anyway, to proceed . . .
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:55:14 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
««« #1 »»»
So, does this mean that if all my connections to router-1 (my own router) from my various devices, are wireless connections, then my privacy will be secure (via WAP2, etc.)?
««« #2 »»»
Pat, you've cracked the code! Sorry I failed to be sufficiently clear in my previous posts. To further clarify . . .
Yes, the ISP has provided two pieces of equipment: (1) a cable modem, and (2) a wireless router with AP capability (or put conversely, an AP with wireless routing capability).
««« #3 »»»
Assuming you're referring to (2) above, the ISP-provided AP/router has no RJ45 receptors (female jacks). It has only a single cat5 cable protruding from the device and terminating into a male RJ45 jack which is plugged into the one and only female RJ45 jack integrated into the back of the cable modem. This is why I cannot daisy-chain my own router off of the ISP-provided AP/router.
««« #4 »»»
Well, possibly some good news hear. Since my last post, I've spoken with a member of the team that provides telephone tech support and they gave me the ports that their AP/router keeps open: two for http and https, and one each for NTP and DNS. They said they shut down all (or almost all) the other ports.
««« #5 »»»
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
See #3 above.
««« #6 »»»
> …what connectors are used for the existing
> connections.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Ditto: see #3.
Well, I guess that's as much as I can describe for now. I hope this clarifies things, but if not, feel free to ask for more explanation.
Thanks again for your continued interest and ongoing assistance. It really is very much appreciated.
Gratefully,
—Thri
Thanks for your latest reply, which clarified a lot. And sorry about the bit of a delay with the arrival of this response.
Anyway, to proceed . . .
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:55:14 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
««« #1 »»»
> Since the building AP (and router 2) is connected to router-1, anyone
> using the building AP is connected to your private network.
> using the building AP is connected to your private network.
> The wireless part of router-1 is protected by WAP2 or whatever you use,
> but the building AP is connected to one of router-1's Ethernet ports
> and therefore, your private network.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> but the building AP is connected to one of router-1's Ethernet ports
> and therefore, your private network.
So, does this mean that if all my connections to router-1 (my own router) from my various devices, are wireless connections, then my privacy will be secure (via WAP2, etc.)?
««« #2 »»»
> I noticed you said cable modem. If that means your incoming service
> is via coax rather than Ethernet, then everything I have said changes.
> You can't just add a switch like I previously suggested. … If…the ISP
> is via coax rather than Ethernet, then everything I have said changes.
> supplied AP is really what you called
> router-2 and is fed with cable (coax), then my recommendation changes.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> router-2 and is fed with cable (coax), then my recommendation changes.
Pat, you've cracked the code! Sorry I failed to be sufficiently clear in my previous posts. To further clarify . . .
Yes, the ISP has provided two pieces of equipment: (1) a cable modem, and (2) a wireless router with AP capability (or put conversely, an AP with wireless routing capability).
««« #3 »»»
> Does the ISP provided device have Ethernet connectors that can feed
> wired devices?
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> wired devices?
Assuming you're referring to (2) above, the ISP-provided AP/router has no RJ45 receptors (female jacks). It has only a single cat5 cable protruding from the device and terminating into a male RJ45 jack which is plugged into the one and only female RJ45 jack integrated into the back of the cable modem. This is why I cannot daisy-chain my own router off of the ISP-provided AP/router.
««« #4 »»»
> That way you don't need to know
> anything about how the ISP handles ports and you have a private
> network using your own router.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> anything about how the ISP handles ports and you have a private
> network using your own router.
Well, possibly some good news hear. Since my last post, I've spoken with a member of the team that provides telephone tech support and they gave me the ports that their AP/router keeps open: two for http and https, and one each for NTP and DNS. They said they shut down all (or almost all) the other ports.
««« #5 »»»
> To go further, I need to
> understand exactly what you have. Is the cable modem a separate
> device from the ISP supplied router/AP…?
> understand exactly what you have. Is the cable modem a separate
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
See #3 above.
««« #6 »»»
> …what connectors are used for the existing
> connections.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Ditto: see #3.
Well, I guess that's as much as I can describe for now. I hope this clarifies things, but if not, feel free to ask for more explanation.
Thanks again for your continued interest and ongoing assistance. It really is very much appreciated.
Gratefully,
—Thri
Pat
Aug 24, 2016, 7:35:54 AM8/24/16
to
Good Morning Thri,
Your responses have clarified a lot for me, too. If I understand
correctly, The ISP supplied router/AP has only one RJ45 connector -
and that is the one used to connect to the cable modem. So, it can
only "route" to wifi attached devices. I see two possibilities for
you:
1. Add a simple switch between the cable modem and the ISP's
router/AP. Then connect your router to a second port on the switch.
The problem with this approach is the cable modem may not allow this
type of connection. The only way to know is to try it. The cable
modem may be programmed to allow only one connected device on its low
side - their supplied router/AP.
2. Leave the ISP provided equipment exactly as it was but buy a
bridge device to connect to the ISP's AP wirelessly and provide a
single RJ45 to connect your router. I have used IOGear's model GWU627
bridge in the past. That is just one of many devices available to
perform the bridge function.
modem<-->router/AP <-wifi-> Bridge<-->YourRouter/AP-- your devices*
* your devices connect only to your router and can be wired or wifi
I hope that helps,
Pat
Your responses have clarified a lot for me, too. If I understand
correctly, The ISP supplied router/AP has only one RJ45 connector -
and that is the one used to connect to the cable modem. So, it can
only "route" to wifi attached devices. I see two possibilities for
you:
1. Add a simple switch between the cable modem and the ISP's
router/AP. Then connect your router to a second port on the switch.
The problem with this approach is the cable modem may not allow this
type of connection. The only way to know is to try it. The cable
modem may be programmed to allow only one connected device on its low
side - their supplied router/AP.
2. Leave the ISP provided equipment exactly as it was but buy a
bridge device to connect to the ISP's AP wirelessly and provide a
single RJ45 to connect your router. I have used IOGear's model GWU627
bridge in the past. That is just one of many devices available to
perform the bridge function.
modem<-->router/AP <-wifi-> Bridge<-->YourRouter/AP-- your devices*
* your devices connect only to your router and can be wired or wifi
I hope that helps,
Pat
Thri Cipio
Aug 24, 2016, 3:56:25 PM8/24/16
to
On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:35:54 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
Pat—
Thanks for your quick reply and the further clarification and suggestions it provides.
Pat—
I do have some further, related comments and questions as follows . . .
««« #1 »»»
> If I understand
> correctly, The ISP-supplied router/AP has only one RJ45 connector -
> and that is the one used to connect to the cable modem. So, it can
> only "route" to wifi attached devices.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> only "route" to wifi attached devices.
Absolutely correct.
««« #2 »»»
> [You could] add a simple switch between the cable modem and the ISP's
> router/AP. Then connect your router to a second port on the switch.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I thought you indicated in your previous post to me that a switch will not work if the feed to the ISP-supplied router/AP is coming from a cable modem. So, I'm a bit confused.
««« #3 »»»
> The problem with this approach is [that their] cable modem may …
> be programmed to allow only one connected device on its low side
> - their supplied router/AP.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> - their supplied router/AP.
Perhaps this is the clarification to my confusion mentioned directly above. In any case, it may be worth recalling that we already know the modem will accept a router other than "their supplied router/AP" because my initial approach was to simply substitute my own (non-AP) router for their router/AP unit; i.e., I had unplugged their router/AP and plugged in my own (non-AP) router in its place.
««« #4 »»»
> [Or you could] Leave the ISP provided equipment exactly as it was but buy a
> bridge device to connect to the ISP's AP wirelessly and provide a
> single RJ45 to connect your router. …
> --------------
> modem ‹—› router/AP ‹—› WiFi·Bridge ‹—› Your·Router ‹—› your devices*
> --------------
> * your devices connect only to your router and can be wired or wifi
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
So, in this scenario, the wireless bridge would have an integrated female RJ45 socket, into which I would plug my own (non-AP) router... right? And from their, my own devices would connect to my router via cat5 or wifi... right?
---------------
So a couple (or few) related questions . . .
(a) Would the ISP-supplied router/AP be able to "see" my downstream devices; i.e., my bridge and/or my router? An would these be noticeable to the ISP administrators even without them going out of their way to look for anything unusual?
(b) Since my router (and it's connected devices) would be downstream from their router/AP, would they retain their ability to filter out certain types of traffic resulting from software running on one of my connected devices; for example, peer-to-peer file-sharing software?
(c) What are the privacy/security implications of this arrangement? Would the wireless connections between my router and my devices be secure vis-à-vis WPA-type protection?
And LAST BUT NOT LEAST . . .
---------------
Why are we no longer considering the originally proposed (and asked about) scenario in which my (non-AP) router would cat5-connect to the ISP-supplied modem and then the ISP-supplied router/AP would cat5-connect to my router as follows:
······················
ISP-supplied modem ‹—› my (non-AP) router ‹—› ISP-supplied router/AP
······················
Is this because their modem "may be programmed to allow only one connected device on its low side?" And if the word, "may" is still operative, then maybe (as with a wifi-bridge) it's still worth a try; i.e., maybe the modem is *not* programmed to allow only one downstream device. What say thee?
Well, Pat, I guess that's it for now on my end. As always, your continued interest and help are very much appreciated.
—Thri
Pat
Aug 25, 2016, 8:45:57 AM8/25/16
to
Responses embedded below...
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:56:23 -0700 (PDT), Thri Cipio
<thri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:35:54 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
>
>Pat—
>
>Thanks for your quick reply and the further clarification and suggestions it provides.
>
>I do have some further, related comments and questions as follows . . .
>
>««« #1 »»»
>> If I understand
>> correctly, The ISP-supplied router/AP has only one RJ45 connector -
>> and that is the one used to connect to the cable modem. So, it can
>> only "route" to wifi attached devices.
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>Absolutely correct.
>
>
>««« #2 »»»
>> [You could] add a simple switch between the cable modem and the ISP's
>> router/AP. Then connect your router to a second port on the switch.
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>I thought you indicated in your previous post to me that a switch will not work if the feed to the ISP-supplied router/AP is coming from a cable modem. So, I'm a bit confused.
At first, I thought you had cat5 coming in to your apartment so I
suggested the possibility of a switch. Then I learned you have coax
cable coming in so a switch would not work. Then I learned your cable
modem had one cat5 output that feeds a separate AP/router. So, a
switch is, once again, possible.
>
>
>««« #3 »»»
>> The problem with this approach is [that their] cable modem may …
>> be programmed to allow only one connected device on its low side
>> - their supplied router/AP.
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>Perhaps this is the clarification to my confusion mentioned directly above. In any case, it may be worth recalling that we already know the modem will accept a router other than "their supplied router/AP" because my initial approach was to simply substitute my own (non-AP) router for their router/AP unit; i.e., I had unplugged their router/AP and plugged in my own (non-AP) router in its place.
Good point. You are correct. However, they may not permit two device
connected to the cable modem simultaniously.
>
>
>««« #4 »»»
>> [Or you could] Leave the ISP provided equipment exactly as it was but buy a
>> bridge device to connect to the ISP's AP wirelessly and provide a
>> single RJ45 to connect your router. …
>> --------------
>> modem ‹—› router/AP ‹—› WiFi·Bridge ‹—› Your·Router ‹—› your devices*
>> --------------
>> * your devices connect only to your router and can be wired or wifi
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>So, in this scenario, the wireless bridge would have an integrated female RJ45 socket, into which I would plug my own (non-AP) router... right?
Yes.
> And from their, my own devices would connect to my router via cat5 or wifi... right?
Yes.
>---------------
>So a couple (or few) related questions . . .
>(a) Would the ISP-supplied router/AP be able to "see" my downstream devices; i.e., my bridge and/or my router? An would these be noticeable to the ISP administrators even without them going out of their way to look for anything unusual?
I don't think they would see your devices without going out of their
way to look. Your bridge and router would just look like any other
device connected to their wifi.
network. However, I iknow very little about peer-to-peer file sharing
so I can't help you there.
you set up your router.
supplied AP) in to your private network. That causes lot of security
problems. The network below your router is supposed to be your
private network. The only way to use it should be via wifi (which is
wpa protected) or wired (which you can physically see). If you
connect the ISP's AP there, you are opening your private network to
anyone who knows the ISP's password. That outside person could trace
and see all your messages.
>······················
>Is this because their modem "may be programmed to allow only one connected device on its low side?"
No.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:56:23 -0700 (PDT), Thri Cipio
<thri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:35:54 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
>
>Pat—
>
>Thanks for your quick reply and the further clarification and suggestions it provides.
>
>I do have some further, related comments and questions as follows . . .
>
>««« #1 »»»
>> If I understand
>> correctly, The ISP-supplied router/AP has only one RJ45 connector -
>> and that is the one used to connect to the cable modem. So, it can
>> only "route" to wifi attached devices.
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>Absolutely correct.
>
>
>««« #2 »»»
>> [You could] add a simple switch between the cable modem and the ISP's
>> router/AP. Then connect your router to a second port on the switch.
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>I thought you indicated in your previous post to me that a switch will not work if the feed to the ISP-supplied router/AP is coming from a cable modem. So, I'm a bit confused.
suggested the possibility of a switch. Then I learned you have coax
cable coming in so a switch would not work. Then I learned your cable
modem had one cat5 output that feeds a separate AP/router. So, a
switch is, once again, possible.
>
>
>««« #3 »»»
>> The problem with this approach is [that their] cable modem may …
>> be programmed to allow only one connected device on its low side
>> - their supplied router/AP.
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>Perhaps this is the clarification to my confusion mentioned directly above. In any case, it may be worth recalling that we already know the modem will accept a router other than "their supplied router/AP" because my initial approach was to simply substitute my own (non-AP) router for their router/AP unit; i.e., I had unplugged their router/AP and plugged in my own (non-AP) router in its place.
connected to the cable modem simultaniously.
>
>
>««« #4 »»»
>> [Or you could] Leave the ISP provided equipment exactly as it was but buy a
>> bridge device to connect to the ISP's AP wirelessly and provide a
>> single RJ45 to connect your router. …
>> --------------
>> modem ‹—› router/AP ‹—› WiFi·Bridge ‹—› Your·Router ‹—› your devices*
>> --------------
>> * your devices connect only to your router and can be wired or wifi
>–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>So, in this scenario, the wireless bridge would have an integrated female RJ45 socket, into which I would plug my own (non-AP) router... right?
> And from their, my own devices would connect to my router via cat5 or wifi... right?
>---------------
>So a couple (or few) related questions . . .
>(a) Would the ISP-supplied router/AP be able to "see" my downstream devices; i.e., my bridge and/or my router? An would these be noticeable to the ISP administrators even without them going out of their way to look for anything unusual?
way to look. Your bridge and router would just look like any other
device connected to their wifi.
>(b) Since my router (and it's connected devices) would be downstream from their router/AP, would they retain their ability to filter out certain types of traffic resulting from software running on one of my connected devices; for example, peer-to-peer file-sharing software?
Your router would retain all of its abilities to protect your private
network. However, I iknow very little about peer-to-peer file sharing
so I can't help you there.
>(c) What are the privacy/security implications of this arrangement? Would the wireless connections between my router and my devices be secure vis-à-vis WPA-type protection?
Yes. Your wireless connections would be secured by wpa if that is how
you set up your router.
>
>
>And LAST BUT NOT LEAST . . .
>---------------
>Why are we no longer considering the originally proposed (and asked about) scenario in which my (non-AP) router would cat5-connect to the ISP-supplied modem and then the ISP-supplied router/AP would cat5-connect to my router as follows:
>······················
>ISP-supplied modem ‹—› my (non-AP) router ‹—› ISP-supplied router/AP
Because doing so puts anyone outside your apartment (using the ISP
>
>And LAST BUT NOT LEAST . . .
>---------------
>Why are we no longer considering the originally proposed (and asked about) scenario in which my (non-AP) router would cat5-connect to the ISP-supplied modem and then the ISP-supplied router/AP would cat5-connect to my router as follows:
>······················
>ISP-supplied modem ‹—› my (non-AP) router ‹—› ISP-supplied router/AP
supplied AP) in to your private network. That causes lot of security
problems. The network below your router is supposed to be your
private network. The only way to use it should be via wifi (which is
wpa protected) or wired (which you can physically see). If you
connect the ISP's AP there, you are opening your private network to
anyone who knows the ISP's password. That outside person could trace
and see all your messages.
>······················
>Is this because their modem "may be programmed to allow only one connected device on its low side?"
> And if the word, "may" is still operative, then maybe (as with a wifi-bridge) it's still worth a try; i.e., maybe the modem is *not* programmed to allow only one downstream device. What say thee?
Don't let unknown people on to your private network!
Thri Cipio
Aug 28, 2016, 12:34:47 AM8/28/16
to
Another extended delay in my response . . . sorry 'bout that. Pat, I hope you're still checking out this thread. I think it will probably be my last substantive post on this topic, although maybe I'll chime in with some epilogue content, once I've tried out one of your suggestions.
Inline response follows . . .
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
I think I finally understand what you've been trying to tell me — I can be a little dense sometimes. What was throwing me off was thinking that if all my devices were communicating through my router using WPA-protected Wifi, then I'd be secure as long an no one had access to my password-protected SSID. Now I see that this would protect me against only those trying to get to my router wirelessly. It would offer me no protection against anyone getting to my router through a wired connection, which is exactly what the case would be with the ISP-supplied router/AP cat5-connected to my router.
So, as you suggested, I think I'll try getting a simple 4- or 5-port switch through Amazon. If it doesn't work, I can always return it. I appeciated your earlier mention of a decent wireless bridge; likewise, do you have any thoughts on a make/model for a decent switch?
In any case, thanks again so much for all your help . . . and patience! It's been practically very useful and more generally, a real plus in terms of my general conception of what's going on (in a basic sort of way) with local area networking.
Again, very much appreciated.
Gratefully,
—Thri
Inline response follows . . .
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:56:23 -0700 (PDT), Thri Cipio wrote:
>>
>> Why are we no longer considering the originally proposed (and asked about)
>> scenario in which my (non-AP) router would cat5-connect to the ISP-supplied
>> modem and then the ISP-supplied router/AP would cat5-connect to my router as >> follows:
>> ······················
>> ISP-supplied modem ‹—› my (non-AP) router ‹—› ISP-supplied router/AP
>> ······················
> Because doing so puts anyone outside your apartment (using the ISP
> supplied AP) into your private network. That causes lot of security
>>
>> Why are we no longer considering the originally proposed (and asked about)
>> scenario in which my (non-AP) router would cat5-connect to the ISP-supplied
>> modem and then the ISP-supplied router/AP would cat5-connect to my router as >> follows:
>> ······················
>> ISP-supplied modem ‹—› my (non-AP) router ‹—› ISP-supplied router/AP
>> ······················
> Because doing so puts anyone outside your apartment (using the ISP
> problems. The network below your router is supposed to be your
> private network. The only way to use it should be via wifi (which is
> wpa protected) or wired (which you can physically see). If you
> connect the ISP's AP there, you are opening your private network to
> anyone who knows the ISP's password. That outside person could trace
> and see all your messages.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> private network. The only way to use it should be via wifi (which is
> wpa protected) or wired (which you can physically see). If you
> connect the ISP's AP there, you are opening your private network to
> anyone who knows the ISP's password. That outside person could trace
> and see all your messages.
I think I finally understand what you've been trying to tell me — I can be a little dense sometimes. What was throwing me off was thinking that if all my devices were communicating through my router using WPA-protected Wifi, then I'd be secure as long an no one had access to my password-protected SSID. Now I see that this would protect me against only those trying to get to my router wirelessly. It would offer me no protection against anyone getting to my router through a wired connection, which is exactly what the case would be with the ISP-supplied router/AP cat5-connected to my router.
So, as you suggested, I think I'll try getting a simple 4- or 5-port switch through Amazon. If it doesn't work, I can always return it. I appeciated your earlier mention of a decent wireless bridge; likewise, do you have any thoughts on a make/model for a decent switch?
In any case, thanks again so much for all your help . . . and patience! It's been practically very useful and more generally, a real plus in terms of my general conception of what's going on (in a basic sort of way) with local area networking.
Again, very much appreciated.
Gratefully,
—Thri
Pat
Aug 31, 2016, 9:27:36 AM8/31/16
to
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Thri Cipio
<thri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Thri,
I am just now seeing this message. It looks like you sent it days
ago, but I missed it then.
>I think I finally understand what you've been trying to tell me — I can be a little dense sometimes. What was throwing me off was thinking that if all my devices were communicating through my router using WPA-protected Wifi, then I'd be secure as long an no one had access to my password-protected SSID. Now I see that this would protect me against only those trying to get to my router wirelessly. It would offer me no protection against anyone getting to my router through a wired connection, which is exactly what the case would be with the ISP-supplied router/AP cat5-connected to my router.
>
>So, as you suggested, I think I'll try getting a simple 4- or 5-port switch through Amazon. If it doesn't work, I can always return it. I appeciated your earlier mention of a decent wireless bridge; likewise, do you have any thoughts on a make/model for a decent switch?
store for $20 - $25. Places like BestBuy and even Walmart have them.
(I am assuming you are in the US).
>
>In any case, thanks again so much for all your help . . . and patience! It's been practically very useful and more generally, a real plus in terms of my general conception of what's going on (in a basic sort of way) with local area networking.
don't mind passing it on. I am sure you will do the same for someone
else.
>
>Again, very much appreciated.
Good luck,
Pat
Thri Cipio
Aug 31, 2016, 1:59:16 PM8/31/16
to
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 9:27:36 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
> Hi Thri,
> I am just now seeing this message. It looks like you sent it days
> ago, but I missed it then.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> Hi Thri,
> I am just now seeing this message. It looks like you sent it days
> ago, but I missed it then.
No problemo, Pat. I appreciate that you saw it at all and took the time to reply.
> Switches are very inexpensive. You can probably find one at a local
> store for $20 - $25. Places like BestBuy and even Walmart have them.
> (I am assuming you are in the US).
I located one on Amazon for ~$25: http://bit.ly/TL-SG105 — made by TP-LINK. I'll go that route since I get free shipping with my "Prime" membership.
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Thri Cipio
>> In any case, thanks again so much for all your help . . .
>
>
> You are welcome. I get lots of help from others on these groups so I
> don't mind passing it on. I am sure you will do the same for someone
> else.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> don't mind passing it on. I am sure you will do the same for someone
> else.
I certainly will. And I like to think our exchange here will — thanks to your knowledge and experience — help others also. Toward that end (as well as to satisfy any lingering curiosity you may have as to how this turns out for me), I'll post the results of hooking up the switch in my particular environment. It would be great if it works!
________________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Once again, Pat, thanks so much for all your help.
—Thri
0 new messages