Asus Wireless AP WL-330gE

[Wayne A Smith]

I have ArcaOS 5.0.2 installed on a Thinkpad T540p. Unfortunately there is yet no driver for the Wireless NIC.

Trying to economize I decided to try the subject which I have had sitting here for a long time but never used. Unfortunately, I can't seem to get access to its internal browser in order to configure it.

My <setup.cmd> and <hosts> file are as follows:

route -fh
arp -f
ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
ifconfig lan0 192.168.254.45 netmask 255.255.255.0 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan1 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan2 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan3 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan4 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan5 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan6 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan7 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig sl0
REM dhcpstrt -i lan0 -d 0
ifconfig lan0 192.168.1.220 netmask 255.255.255.0 alias
route add default 192.168.254.254 -hopcount 1
ipgate off


127.0.0.1 localhost localhost
192.168.254.254 router router
192.168.1.220 asus-ap asus-ap


Following Dani's configuration on the predecessor to the subject, and another article, I assumed this ought to work. Obviously, it doesn't.

Is there some other configuration I should use? Or should I just break down and buy either the Asus RP-N12 or TP-Link Nano Router, either of which I am advised ought to work w/ the OS?

For further information, though I have the InJoy Firewall installed, I White Listed the IP address for the subject, 192.168.1.220, but it didn't help. Also, even trying to access this address from Windows 7 yielded an error message. (I was though, on another box w/ XP installed, able to access the internal browser, _after_ running the configuration setup from the CD, so I _don't think_ the subject is just broken.)

[Barbara]

====

I've had terrible luck with the ASUS models you mentioned. I own a IBM/Lenovo
X220 laptop with non-working eCS wifi. AND I have two older IBM ThinkCentre
tower floor type computers without wifi.

What I've found to be the easiest and best is the ethernet "T-Link RE450 AC1750"
wifi extender. USB or AC powered. It's fairly large for a travel wifi adapter,
but configuration screen pops up every time using any browser.

For home use it has the WPS (WIFI Protected Setup) button which takes no
configuration whatsoever so long as your router also has one. Punch WPS button
on one device, run to the other and punch it's WPS button and you're connected.
It will also boost the router signal to other parts of your house.

--
Barbara

[Wayne A Smith]

Barbara,

Thanks. I'll check it out on T-Link's site.

Its size isn't that much of a handicap as I don't do much traveling, and really only want it as a workaround until Arcanoae's "wizards" are able to port an OS/2 version of the Windoze driver. Even if I only use it as a workaround, I've spent enough wasted time experimenting on the subject that it's worth the cost.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:06:30 -0700 (PDT), Wayne A Smith
<waynea...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ifconfig lan0 192.168.254.45 netmask 255.255.255.0 metric 1 mtu 1500

> ifconfig lan0 192.168.1.220 netmask 255.255.255.0 alias

Why is the second of these lines here if that is the device's address?
Why is it not in the same subnet as the PC i.e. a 192.168.254.xxx address?
Or why is your PC not a 192.168.1.xxx address (where xxx is not 220)?

This is the reason you can't get things to work.

[Grant Taylor]

On 06/14/2018 05:26 PM, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> Why is the second of these lines here if that is the device's address?
> Why is it not in the same subnet as the PC i.e. a 192.168.254.xxx address?
> Or why is your PC not a 192.168.1.xxx address (where xxx is not 220)?
>
> This is the reason you can't get things to work.

What‽

Are you implying that OS/2 can't be multi-homed?

I guess that's not outside of the realm of possibility, but I would
still be mildly surprised by that.

Or is it that the multiple IPs must be in the same subnet? (Which sort
of defeats multi-homing or otherwise connecting to different networks.)

I assume that I'm missing something here.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[Allan]

To make a long story short:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:06:30 -0700 (PDT)

Wayne A Smith <waynea...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ifconfig lan0 192.168.254.45 netmask 255.255.255.0 metric 1 mtu 1500

Won't work in that setup. Try change it to:

> ifconfig lan0 192.168.254.45 netmask 255.255.0.0 metric 1 mtu 1500

Allan.

[Grant Taylor]

On 06/14/2018 07:54 PM, Allan wrote:
> To make a long story short:

Will you please make the short story a little bit longer?

> Won't work in that setup. Try change it to:

Why won't that work?

What do I know know about OS/2's networking that (significantly) differs
from most of the other IP stacks that I've worked with?

> ifconfig lan0 192.168.254.45 netmask 255.255.0.0 metric 1 mtu 1500

IMHO changing the netmask from /24 to /16 significantly changes the
semantic meaning of the configuration, including pulling in about 64k
additional IPs into the local subnet.

[Wayne A Smith]

Paul,

Thanks. Your comment caused me to realize that perhaps I should try to see if I could reconfigure the IP address of the subject.

The Asus default IP for logging into it is <192.168.1.220>. My router address is <192.168.254.254>. This was the reason for the discrepancy.

I went to my T60 box where I installed the setup files for it under XP, and fiddled w/ it and changed the IP to <192.168.254.40>.

I went back to the T540p, hooked up the subject to it, and booted into ArcaOS. Opening Seamonkey and entering the new IP, Lo-and-Behold, it opened into the Asus configuration screen! This was a first!

I then fiddled w/ changing the settings, and changing <setup.cmd> and <hosts> to

ifconfig lan0 192.168.254.40 netmask 255.255.255.0 metric 1 mtu 1500

REM ifconfig lan1 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan2 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan3 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan4 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan5 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan6 metric 1 mtu 1500

REM ifconfig lan7 metric 1 mtu 1500
ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1

route add default 192.168.254.254 -hopcount 1

route add -net 54 192.168.254.254 -hopcount 1

ipgate off


127.0.0.1 localhost localhost
192.168.254.254 router router

192.168.254.40 asus-ap asus-ap

Unfortunately, when I still couldn't get connection w/ the router, I went back to the Asus configuration but Seamonkey wouldn't access it ... :=(((

I guess I somehow marfed up the subject, and will have to go back to the T60 and CD to see if I can restore it somehow. (Given other work, and that using the T60 now is a pain since I have to hook-up an external monitor to it - due to a bad system board or inverter board - I'm going to wait until the weekend to fiddle some more.

But at least there has been some progress ...

[Wayne A Smith]

One correction to the below.

The line

route add -net 54 192.168.254.254 -hopcount 1

was added just as an experiment. It has since been deleted.
But either with it, or without it, I still had the same problem.

[Barbara]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 17:19:53 UTC, Wayne A Smith <waynea...@gmail.com> wrote:

> One correction to the below.
>
> The line
> route add -net 54 192.168.254.254 -hopcount 1
> was added just as an experiment. It has since been deleted.
> But either with it, or without it, I still had the same problem.
>

Sigh...

I know very little about networking, but recognise your ASUS problems. "The
little blue light is on... then it's off... then it's flickering... it works ...
then it doesn't work..." It could have nothing to do with what you're changing.

All my computers pretty much (aside from peer networking setup) have default, as
installed networking. Unless you like to tinker, and I understand that, get a
different adapter.

In addition to the TP-Link I mentioned earlier, I also tried a couple of on
again off again NetGear adapters models WNCE3001 and WNCE 2001. They sorta
worked with the little one 2001 better than the bigger 3001 as far as connecting
and staying there. Then there was the IOGEAR model (cheap) that I never got
working.

As you can see I really wanted a wifi adapter. I'm suspicious of any device
that wants you to go into your TCPIP settings to turn "Auto Detect" off in order
to configure it. Then you can (maybe) turn it back on until the device fails,
then go through the whole thing again. I've wasted hours doing this.
rebootrebootreboot....

Good luck

[Grant Taylor]

On 06/15/2018 12:24 PM, Barbara wrote:
> As you can see I really wanted a wifi adapter.

Do you want a WiFi adapter (NIC) -or- do you want WiFi connectivity? As
in would an external gaming adapter that plugs in hardwired to the
computer's copper NIC provide the connectivity that you want?

> I'm suspicious of any device that wants you to go into your TCPIP
> settings to turn "Auto Detect" off in order to configure it.

Why are you suspicious of this?

A lot of the SOHO grade equipment that I've worked with over the last
~20 years does not itself provide DHCP configuration for clients and
needs to be managed at a static IP. As such, (re)configuring a client /
management device to be able to talk to the static IP on the device is,
IMHO, standard operating procedure.

About the only thing that does provide DHCP configuration for clients
are routers. Most print servers, wireless access points (not combo
units), IP cameras, IoT, etc. devices have a default static IP.

> Then you can (maybe) turn it back on until the device fails, then
> go through the whole thing again. I've wasted hours doing this.
> rebootrebootreboot....

I'll give you that such can be really annoying. Especially if the
device has a tendency to loose settings for one reason or another.

[Wayne A Smith]

I did investigate the model you suggested. However it seemed to function primarily as an Extender (Repeater), and it wasn't clear to me from the specifications that it offered Ethernet Adapter mode. However, you seemed happy w/ the brand; and Neil Waldhauer indicated at his site that the TP-Link Nano Router worked w/ Arca OS.

Accordingly, I went ahead last night and ordered the TP-Link N300 Portable Wireless Nano Router through Amazon. Since it will take about a week to get here, and as I received the various kind responses here, I decided to tinker w/ the present guy to see if I could get it to work.

So we will see how it goes...

Looking at Grant Taylor's reply, I would agree that a certain amount of tinkering is necessary. I tried DHCP at one point with the access point, but no route could be found. (Besides, it didn't make sense to me DHCP would work since I would have to have a connection first w/ the router, and of course that was what I was trying to accomplish.) So a static IP seemed necessary. (Now if one is able to install and use XWLAN, I believe you can use DHCP. But, w/out a NIC driver, it's unavailable as an option.)

Also, one has to provide basic configuration information, such as the SSID, the encryption mode and encryption keys in the software. So, Grant is correct in that regard.


On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 2:24:33 PM UTC-4, Barbara wrote:
> <Snip>. ..

>
> In addition to the TP-Link I mentioned earlier, I also tried a couple of on
> again off again NetGear adapters models WNCE3001 and WNCE 2001. They sorta
> worked with the little one 2001 better than the bigger 3001 as far as connecting
> and staying there. Then there was the IOGEAR model (cheap) that I never got
> working.
>

> <Snip>....
>
> Good luck

[Barbara]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 19:40:40 UTC, Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net>
wrote:

> On 06/15/2018 12:24 PM, Barbara wrote:
> > As you can see I really wanted a wifi adapter.
>
> Do you want a WiFi adapter (NIC) -or- do you want WiFi connectivity? As
> in would an external gaming adapter that plugs in hardwired to the
> computer's copper NIC provide the connectivity that you want?

These computers have no NIC or a good place to put one. Or if it has one
there's no driver to allow them to work with any of the OS/2 products. So "NO"
to your first question. Simply wanted a wifi adapter that works exactly like a
NIC but operates externally through a computer ethernet port. They also work on
game machines, TVs and anything else that has an ethernet port.

I have one that works perfectly. I've tried many that didn't.

> > I'm suspicious of any device that wants you to go into your TCPIP
> > settings to turn "Auto Detect" off in order to configure it.
>
> Why are you suspicious of this?

It's a good place for newbies to mess up. And it's not necessary for the good
adapters.

> A lot of the SOHO grade equipment that I've worked with over the last
> ~20 years does not itself provide DHCP configuration for clients and
> needs to be managed at a static IP. As such, (re)configuring a client /
> management device to be able to talk to the static IP on the device is,
> IMHO, standard operating procedure.
>
> About the only thing that does provide DHCP configuration for clients
> are routers. Most print servers, wireless access points (not combo
> units), IP cameras, IoT, etc. devices have a default static IP.

The good wifi adapters act more or less like a bridge, wirelessly picking up
properly configured router output and pushing it to a device without wifi
capability through an ethernet port. As I said I don't know networking and am
most likely using all the wrong words.

> > Then you can (maybe) turn it back on until the device fails, then
> > go through the whole thing again. I've wasted hours doing this.
> > rebootrebootreboot....
>
> I'll give you that such can be really annoying. Especially if the
> device has a tendency to loose settings for one reason or another.


--

Barbara

[Grant Taylor]

On 06/15/2018 04:30 PM, Barbara wrote:
> These computers have no NIC or a good place to put one. Or if it has one
> there's no driver to allow them to work with any of the OS/2 products.
> So "NO" to your first question.

ACK

> Simply wanted a wifi adapter that works exactly like a NIC but operates
> externally through a computer ethernet port. They also work on game
> machines, TVs and anything else that has an ethernet port.

*nod*

> I have one that works perfectly. I've tried many that didn't.

Fair.

I've never needed to mess with (what I generically call) gaming adapters
myself. I just know of them and have friends / colleagues that have
worked with them.

> It's a good place for newbies to mess up.

True.

> And it's not necessary for the good adapters.
>

> The good wifi adapters act more or less like a bridge, wirelessly
> picking up properly configured router output and pushing it to a device
> without wifi capability through an ethernet port.

Do they function like a (reverse?) wireless router in that it is itself
the wireless client for the WAN port and then provide DHCP services for
the internal wired port(s)?

> As I said I don't know networking and am most likely using all the
> wrong words.

We all have things that we aren't really strong in. I personally just
dabble in OS/2 and find it interesting. I'm hoping to learn things in
this newsgroup.

Your terms were good enough to get the point across. :-)

[Barbara]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 22:44:39 UTC, Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net>
wrote:

>

> Do they function like a (reverse?) wireless router in that it is itself
> the wireless client for the WAN port and then provide DHCP services for
> the internal wired port(s)?
>

Heck, I don't know. :)

But it sounds likely. I expect someone who knows what they're doing could set
up a second router to do exactly the same thing that the wifi adapters do.
Instead of transmitting it would be wirelessly receiving then could be wired
(ethernet) to the wifi deprived unit.

I never had extra routers lying around even if I wanted to try that.

--
Barbara

[Grant Taylor]

On 06/15/2018 06:25 PM, Barbara wrote:
> But it sounds likely. I expect someone who knows what they're doing
> could set up a second router to do exactly the same thing that the wifi
> adapters do. Instead of transmitting it would be wirelessly receiving
> then could be wired (ethernet) to the wifi deprived unit.

Yep. I've done that very thing.

SOHO wireless routers were coming in somewhere around $100 at the time
and gaming adapters were closer to $60.

Granted the SOHO wireless routers had more functionality, including a
four (or more) port switch. So you did get more for your money. But
most of the people needing gaming adapters didn't want to pay for more
that they weren't using.

[Barbara]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 01:32:27 UTC, Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net>
wrote:

I'm using a little 5 port NetGear fast ethernet switch box to do that. TP-Link
adapter is connected to that along with two wifi-less computers. Room for two
more. Cost for the adapter and the switch box might be close to that of an
inexpensive router, but it does what I want it to do.

--
Barbara

[Grant Taylor]

On 06/15/2018 10:23 PM, Barbara wrote:
> I'm using a little 5 port NetGear fast ethernet switch box to do that.
> TP-Link adapter is connected to that along with two wifi-less computers.
> Room for two more.

*nod*

That works too.

> Cost for the adapter and the switch box might be close to that of an
> inexpensive router,

I'm sort of surprised that the two pieces of equipment are not more
expensive than one more complicated. But that may just be the markets
that I've been haunting. (My loss.)

> but it does what I want it to do.

Sounds like a perfectly viable solution to me. :-)

[T.]

Wayne A Smith schrieb:

> Trying to economize I decided to try the subject which I have had sitting here for a long time but never used. Unfortunately, I can't seem to get access to its internal browser in order to configure it.

I have the 330N3G and, at least, after configuring it "somewhere else"
(long time ago, probably with Linux or MacOS), I was able to use it as
ethernet-2-wifi-bridge with eCS on my ThinkPad.

So yours might work too.

I would try to reset the router, set OS/2 to DHCP, then you might get an
ip-address to configure it as wifi-bridge.

But don't ask me "how", it was easy and just worked ...
--

Gruesse,

Thorolf

[Paul Ratcliffe]

I don't quite understand what you are trying to do (and I'm fairly sure
you don't either).
Put both the PC and the Asus in the same subnet and connect them both to a switch.

[Wayne A Smith]

Paul, As to the second assumption, you are most definitely correct ... ;=))) I of course have had some experience w/ TCP/IP configuration but still have to be considered a novice.

I decided to go w/ the TP-Link Nano Router. (It seems to me that it was doubtful the Asus AP could be configured to use any address other than 192.168.1.xxx.)

I was able to access and configure the internal browser through Windows 7, and assigned it a static IP of 192.168.254.45; I had no problem w/ it changing from the default of 192.168.1.xxx. After saving the configuration and logging out I can now log in using that IP; so it seems this part I did right.

Under Arca I now have <setup.cmd> and <hosts> configured as follows:

route -fh
arp -f
ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1

ifconfig lan0 192.168.254.45 netmask 255.255.255.0 metric 1 mtu 1500

REM ifconfig lan1 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan2 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan3 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan4 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan5 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan6 metric 1 mtu 1500
REM ifconfig lan7 metric 1 mtu 1500

REM ifconfig sl0
REM dhcpstrt -i lan0 -d 0

REM ifconfig lan0 192.168.1.220 netmask 255.255.255.0 alias

route add default 192.168.254.254 -hopcount 1

ipgate off

127.0.0.1 localhost localhost
192.168.254.254 router

192.168.254.45 tp-link nano

But something is wrong and I don't know what. On boot I do not receive any error message that a route can't be found (or defined). However both Firefox and Seamonkey refuse to connect to 192.168.254.45, Ping refuses a connection, and <netstat -r> shows no route.

I'm sure I'm making it more difficult than I have to, but I'm lost on this now.

[Wayne A Smith]

OK, I think I have identified part of the problem. It was in <protocol.ini> (I also modified <RESOLV2> to include both "domain netgear.com
nameserver 192.168.254.254", but this didn't help.

I removed the TCP/IP and NetBios over TCPIP protocols and added the NDIS Filter protocol instead. I now receive routes using <netstat -r> of

destination router netmask metric flags intrf

111.1.2.0 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 0 UH dod
111.1.2 111.1.2 255.255.255.0 0 UP dod
127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 0 UH lo
192.168.254 192.168.254.45 255.255.255.0 0 UC lan0

and can ping 192.168.254.45. I still can't open the internal browser for the AP, but that's probably a problem w/ my Firewall configuration; I'll have to play w/ it.

[Dave Yeo]

Wayne A Smith wrote:
> I decided to go w/ the TP-Link Nano Router. (It seems to me that it was doubtful the Asus AP could be configured to use any address other than 192.168.1.xxx.)
>
> I was able to access and configure the internal browser through Windows 7, and assigned it a static IP of 192.168.254.45; I had no problem w/ it changing from the default of 192.168.1.xxx. After saving the configuration and logging out I can now log in using that IP; so it seems this part I did right.
>
> Under Arca I now have <setup.cmd> and <hosts> configured as follows:
>
> route -fh
> arp -f
> ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
> ifconfig lan0 192.168.254.45 netmask 255.255.255.0 metric 1 mtu 1500

I'm not an expert but if I understand correctly, you've given the router
or the Nano an address of 192.168.254.45 and then given the same address
to your computer's first Ethernet port (lan0).
If you're going with static addresses, then your ifconfig lan0 line
needs something like 192.168.254.40 (last number whatever besides 255 or 0).
Dave

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 11:54:56 -0700 (PDT), Wayne A Smith
<waynea...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was able to access and configure the internal browser through Windows 7,
> and assigned it a static IP of 192.168.254.45;

> Under Arca I now have <setup.cmd> and <hosts> configured as follows:
>

> ifconfig lan0 192.168.254.45 netmask 255.255.255.0 metric 1 mtu 1500

As Dave has already said, you need to give the PC a different address
to whatever this device is you're trying to configure.
One needs to be 192.168.254.xxx and the other 192.168.254.yyy
where xxx is NOT EQUAL to yyy.

You would be well advised to read up on networking fundamentals
before going any further.

[Robert Wolfe]

-> I have ArcaOS 5.0.2 installed on a Thinkpad T540p. Unfortunately the
-> yet no driver for the Wireless NIC.

Have you tried contacting ArcaNoae about this? Or even tried the GenMac
packages from ECS 2.x?

-> For further information, though I have the InJoy Firewall installed,
-> I Whit= e Listed the IP address for the subject, 192.168.1.220, but
-> it didn't help.= Also, even trying to access this address from
-> Windows 7 yielded an error = message. (I was though, on another box
-> w/ XP installed, able to access the= internal browser, _after_
-> running the configuration setup from the CD, so = I _don't think_
-> the subject is just broken.)

What happens when you disable the InJoy firewall?

[Wayne A Smith]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 5:53:04 PM UTC-4, Robert Wolfe wrote:
> -> I have ArcaOS 5.0.2 installed on a Thinkpad T540p. Unfortunately the
> -> yet no driver for the Wireless NIC.
>
> Have you tried contacting ArcaNoae about this? Or even tried the GenMac
> packages from ECS 2.x?
>

I had opened a ticket on Mantis, and Arcanoae is aware of the issue; they are in the process of trying to port the Windows or Linux driver but have no timetable for completion. The GenMac updates then wouldn't do any good since there is no comparable driver for the NIC. I played around after installation w/ some possible substitutes but w/ no success; it allowed me then to add the XWLAN Widget, but there was no driver I could select.

> -> For further information, though I have the InJoy Firewall installed,
> -> I Whit= e Listed the IP address for the subject, 192.168.1.220, but
> -> it didn't help.= Also, even trying to access this address from
> -> Windows 7 yielded an error = message. (I was though, on another box
> -> w/ XP installed, able to access the= internal browser, _after_
> -> running the configuration setup from the CD, so = I _don't think_
> -> the subject is just broken.)
>
> What happens when you disable the InJoy firewall?

Yeah, that is one of the other tasks on my agenda. (I have been tied up w/ a number of projects during the last three weeks - which overlapped the kind responses of Dave and Paul - and just haven't had time to reflect to sort out the problem.)

IIRC changing the protocols can not infrequently corrupt <protocol.ini> and I guess that is why I have been slow to investigate this. Of course I can always save the current file under a new name so this shouldn't really be an obstacle.

After the DUH epiphany due to the messages from Dave and Paul I have different IP addresses for the NIC and AP and can now successfully open the browser in the AP and make necessary changes. It can see the DSL router and its MAC address so that seems I have made some of the necessary changes. But the light on the AP keeps blinking, indicating it's not connected. (The same WPA2 key was inserted in the AP router, so I'm quite sure that is not the problem.)

So my guess is that there is either some configuration modification I have to make in either the DSL router or in InJoy. I just haven't had time to sit back and figure out the cause and which avenue is likely to be more profitable to solve it.