Hooking 2 Bullets to each other

[Wifi442]

Has anyone tried to hook to bullets (or nanos, ps etc) directly together?

I hooked 2 bullet5's to each other (no hub/switch) for the purpose of making a repeater. I spliced the ethernet wire open to power pins 4,5 and 7,8. Anytime I pinged or tried to send data across the 2 ethernet ports I got lots of packet loss and was basically unable to pass data. I tried this with 2 different ethernet cables and had the same problem both times. Once I put a switch in between radios the problem went away.

I am really hoping to set this up without the use of a switch. It will be a very remote setup and a switch or hub would just be one more thing to consume power and possibly fail.

I did not try the configuration with a crossover cable but plan to tonight. Any thoughts?

[UBNT-Mike.Ford]

Hello Wifi442,

Did you have each unit set up on a different IP address?

Thanks,

MIke

[Wifi442]

Hello Wifi442,

Did you have each unit set up on a different IP address?

Thanks,

MIke

Mike,

Yes. One was 192.168.3.20 and the other 192.168.3.21

[UBNT-Mike.Ford]

Hello Wifi442,

I would recommend trying with crossover cable.

Thanks,

Mike

[WHT]

hub = no port isolation
switch = port isolation
(hub/switch) implies you can use a hub or a switch, where you don't care about or need the switch's port isolation.

You cannot connect an AP to a client with a hub. You get a feedback loop. Update - this is a NS problem only
You can connect an AP to a client with a switch.

The PS, NS, Loco, and Bullet have auto-recognition of the polarity of the cable, meaning if I connect my laptop to UBNT (most laptop's network cards can't auto-recognize), I can use a str8 or cross-over cable.

You can connect an AP back to back with another AP with a str8 cable, but you gets lots of packet repeats as one or both units try to renegotiation the polarity. So....use a cross-over cable. IT works, I've been up that road.

Now..is there a reason not to use an intermediary switch for your back to back units? It can be done, like this:

LAN -> client radio ~> Bullet AP - cross-over -> Bullet AP ~> client

OR

LAN -> AP ~> Bullet client -> [switch] -> Bullet AP ~> client

Edited- Hold on!....I just noticed something unusual. More to follow. The Nanostation is the culprit!

[Wifi442]

hub = no port isolation
switch = port isolation
(hub/switch) implies you can use a hub or a switch, where you don't care about or need the switch's port isolation.

You cannot connect an AP to a client with a hub. You get a feedback loop
You can connect an AP to a client with a switch.

The PS, NS, Loco, and Bullet have auto-recognition of the polarity of the cable, meaning if I connect my laptop to UBNT (most laptop's network cards can't auto-recognize), I can use a str8 or cross-over cable.

You can connect an AP back to back with another AP with a str8 cable, but you gets lots of packet repeats as one or both units try to renegotiation the polarity. So....use a cross-over cable. IT works, I've been up that road.

Now..is there a reason not to use an intermediary switch for your back to back units? It can be done, like this:

LAN -> client radio ~> Bullet AP - cross-over -> Bullet AP ~> client

OR

LAN -> AP ~> Bullet client -> [switch] -> Bullet AP ~> client


I'm still having trouble with this. I hooked up a crossover cable per your request. It seemed like it helped a little, but its still not working.

Here is a speed test from one unit to the other one across the cable. Strange. It seems to go really slow in only one direction.

http://www.auction-junkie.com/myspace/wifibullets/stest.jpg

And here is one from the radio going the other direction

http://www.auction-junkie.com/myspace/wifibullets/stest2.jpg

Does anyone have a few bullets, or NS even handy that can try this?

Radio<poe><cable><poe>radio||||wireless|||laptop (or 3rd bullet etc)

Make sure one of the radios can talk to a third (or a pc) and try to ping or speed test across the 2 connected radios. I am curious if its just something I am doing wrong.

[rconaway]

We have this scheduled for testing but it's been delayed a week. I will test this out as soon as we can.

[Wifi442]

We have this scheduled for testing but it's been delayed a week. I will test this out as soon as we can.

Here is a little more information. The bullet connected directly to the one NS2 I have works fine, even with a standard non-crossover cable. So it seems to be a bullet only issue. Hmmmm

[jcremin]

Go to the main info page and see what your TX and RX rates are. I've had many problems with UBNT devices either getting stuck at 1mbps in one direction or both and it has usually been solved for me by going to the link settings and changing the rate to be higher, but leaving "auto" checked.

[Frotihngdog.ca]

If I have to hook to Bullets together I usually just use a couple cable ties..or a hose clamp :)

[WHT]

Why? Did you run out of Velcro?

I believe in safe sex, I use Velcro instead of handcuffs.

[WHT]

I'm going to start a new thread, rather than highjack this topic.

There is indeed an issue with the Nanostation and creating a phantom IP address.

I'll post it in the Nanostation forum.

[WHT]

Nope...its a problem with both the Nanostation, Nano Loco and the Bullet. It took about 20 minutes before the Loco problem appeared.

[rconaway]

WHT, are you talking about the devices carrying the default IP no matter what you set it to?

[Wifi442]

Nope...its a problem with both the Nanostation, Nano Loco and the Bullet. It took about 20 minutes before the Loco problem appeared.

WHT Your post is a little vague. Are you saying you tested and can't get them to work when hooked directly together or are you talking about your other issue a couple posts back?

[WHT]

Hey guys...I'm still working on this. Seems it not only a Nano issue, but also with the Nano Loco and Bullet.

[WHT]

I'm gonna run this by Mike in a PM first and see what he thinks.

[bgoss]

We are an isp we have 5.8 backbone and just want to put up a 5.8 to 2.4 repeater 5.8 SU 2.4 AP "using bullets back to back lan.
So we set it up in the shop and the su pings but AP would not ping well at all,loosing packets. Finally I put the lan link through a switch and 100% ping no loss but we cant do that out in the field, their must be a way around this I tried a crossover no luck with that. Help
Thanks

[Wifi442]

We are an isp we have 5.8 backbone and just want to put up a 5.8 to 2.4 repeater 5.8 SU 2.4 AP "using bullets back to back lan.
So we set it up in the shop and the su pings but AP would not ping well at all,loosing packets. Finally I put the lan link through a switch and 100% ping no loss but we cant do that out in the field, their must be a way around this I tried a crossover no luck with that. Help
Thanks

I never got to the bottom of this. I ended up putting a small switch in between for my repeater. It was a bummer too because the switch ate up another 2 watts. I was going to place a wifi IP webcam up there but there wasn't enough solar/batt power left over.

[rconaway]

We haven't had time to test this either. We have NS5's feeding into Linksys switches and then and NS5. We also have multiple NS2's feeding into those same switches and then an NS5. We aren't seeing any problems yet. Set the bullet to 100M Full-Duplex on the ethernet port instead of auto-negotiate and see what happens.

[bgoss]

"Set the bullet to 100M Full-Duplex on the ethernet port"
Where is that setting? I must have overlooked it.

[rconaway]

Sorry, my bad. Got this one mixed up with another radio. Working on too many at once.

[davedee]

Hi WHT, did you confirm that a switch was required between an NS Sta and and NS AP?

Must admit the posts have left me undecided about the switch. Posts seem to lean towards a switc.

(This applies to NS, and bullets?)

[upowaushyi]

Yes! you are right man!

[rconaway]

It would be better if it didn't need the switch. I will test this next week.

[davedee]

Ok, I decided to put a switch in a NS back to back location to replace the crossover connection i had for the last few months.

I cant say whether its fixed the intermittent internet connection a user had reported for over two months. We checked everything from their NS down to computers, Operating system settings.. the works. No luck. I did report that i had a lot of NWID errors showing up on the STA constantly. It was suggested on here that the cause was interference from other APs etc.

Anyway all i can report since fitting the switch is that the NWID errors have falen to ZERO.

So something is going on. I will know more tomorrow from the customer. My view on switch or no switch is SWITCH to remove any doubt. I realise that power may be an issue for some locations though.

[WHT]

I finally got my testing done. There are problems using a hub, direct straight thru cable and cross-over cable. A switch resolves the problems.

What do you see unusual here?

C:\ping 192.168.2.255 -t

Pinging 192.168.2.255 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 192.168.2.24: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.24: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.25: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.25: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64

[davedee]

Interesting. Pity I did not try this from my STA before the switch. I can't remember any previous results.

[UBNT-keba]

WHT

Sorry I just do not understand the issue. What is wrong if the device is answering to broadcast pings? Is it not legal?
Ping is to broadcast IP address. So everyone in that network will answer to that ping. Of cause most Windows machines will not answer because of firewall/security and other stuff.
Can you check the arp table (arp -a under Windows) as well after you do broadcast ping.

Try the same broadcast ping under Linux machine you will see the duplicates like
$ ping -b 192.168.1.255
WARNING: pinging broadcast address
PING 192.168.1.255 (192.168.1.255) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.24: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=58.6 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.25: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=140 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.1.24: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=19.0 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.25: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=40 ms (DUP!)

[rconaway]

I need to make this work without a switch. WHT, did you put Wireshark on the hub to see what might be happening?

[WHT]

Ron...no, but I'll do that in a few minute.

Situation critical here...need to run into town for some coffee.

[DrNutbush]

http://www.senseo.us/Pages/Home.aspx

With a device such as this WHT you would not have run to town for your critical situations and could simply continue saving us without interruption :)

If you send me your address I will personally have 1 of these delivered to your door, along with a few months supply of pads, in an attempt to show my gratitude for all your efforts.

[WHT]

Modern Technology ain't what it used to be

[rconaway]

WHT, I'm thinking it's a packet collisions problem. I'm thinking the auto-negotiate on the port might be having trouble. I would also run the test with cross-over and straight through. If you don't finish this by Tuesday, I will tackle it Wednesday.

[WHT]

I have no idea. I thought that also, but I can't duplicate it now. Works fine connecting two Bullets back to back with a hub, straight or crossover cable.

Router -> UBNT AP static ~> UBNT Sta static -> (*) -> UBNT AP static ~> UBNT Sta static -> laptop static

where (*) is a hub, or straight thru, or cross over cable.

[rconaway]

You know, I just remembered that we were running that same setup from Bullet5 to Vivato without the switch for a month with no issues. We now have a switch in there but didn't see any problems for that time period.