Windows 2003 Network Bridge

[2canSAM]

Right now I am using an HP WAP to handle connecting to my wired clients using the wireless in my laptop. I would like to sell this off and setup the network bridge in windows 2003 server. I already have a 802.11g PCI card for the server. Now I know adhoc connection are limited to 11mbps but would this still be the same if it was setup in bridge mode? I wanted to see if someone had a quick answer before trying to reconfigure the wireless part of the network.

 

[JackMDS]

A network device with an IP is a network device; I do not think that Ad-Hoc matter for this purpose.

Win2003 std. and Ent. can Bridge, Win2003 SBS cannot.

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsSe...b-49db-4d8a-844f-1fe31c4b2ded1033.mspx

Take it from me, you will sell your AP, and after a while, you would not be able to stand the Ad-Hoc and you would buy AP again.

:sun:

 

[DaiShan]

I don't think I completely understand your question, but this may help. Bridging in Windows is not the same as bonding. This means that if you bridge two 10mbit connections they do not form one 20mbit connection, they are 2 10mbit connections that act as one (I believe in a round robin style)

 

[2canSAM]

Originally posted by: DaiShan
I don't think I completely understand your question, but this may help. Bridging in Windows is not the same as bonding. This means that if you bridge two 10mbit connections they do not form one 20mbit connection, they are 2 10mbit connections that act as one (I believe in a round robin style)

Exactly the way I understand it as well. What I wanting to do is bridge the 2 connections, wired and wireless on my 2003 server. This should create ONE connection to the lan from this client (ie the way the access point operates now, right?). This way I could access my wired clients via wireless by connecting to the wireless card in the desktop, which would be connected to the wired card in the desktop, and this would allow me to then connect to all the wired clients on my lan.

 

[nweaver]

why why why? Really, a WAP is a better solution....far far far better.

 

[2canSAM]

Originally posted by: nweaver
why why why? Really, a WAP is a better solution....far far far better.

Mostly just an "I wonder" thought. Based on recommendations here, though, I will keeping that silly wappit