Can you deploy a wireless AP without using DHCP?

[Paul Adams]

Never deployed any wireless LANs as yet, and I see they all appear to be sold as a solution where you just set it up for DHCP - is it possible to disable the DHCP server and just use static IP addresses?
What about using another DHCP server already on a network?

I prefer the concept of a modular network - broadband router that connects to DSL or cablemodem on the WAN side, and a switch on the LAN side - the idea being any wireless APs are connected to the switch.

In a setup where the router is performing NAT, I can use static IP addresses (I prefer to do this where possible), but currently there is a network where a cablemodem connects a simple hub directly to the dirty network and up to 4 IP public addresses are assigned by the ISP DHCP server.

There are more than 4 clients in this environment, so I can't statically assign the public IPs, so I want to be sure we can use DHCP on all wired and wireless clients and have any 4 working on the Internet at the same time.
(Lease time issues notwithstanding.)


So, are wireless APs capable of forwarding DHCP broadcast requests on a wired network?

[Moby-Dick]

most of the time you can diable the DHCP functino of the AP.

None of the wifi networks I've ever set up have used the built in AP. I also tend to use MAC address not only to get access to the AP , but for reserved DHCP assignment too.

I'd be tempted to buy a cheapish hardwire firewall ( low end sonicwall or other router ) and get some NAT running.

do the clients REALLY need a public IP ?

[Paul Adams]

most of the time you can diable the DHCP functino of the AP.

None of the wifi networks I've ever set up have used the built in AP. I also tend to use MAC address not only to get access to the AP , but for reserved DHCP assignment too.

I'd be tempted to buy a cheapish hardwire firewall ( low end sonicwall or other router ) and get some NAT running.

do the clients REALLY need a public IP ?

This is my girlfriend's setup, and she hates NAT - that was my first suggestion to have a private LAN and hide behind one IP, but her 2 main uses for the Internet are VPNs and Messenger (with voice chat enabled) - 2 of the things most likely to get buggered by hide mode NAT.

She has 4 public IPs allocated via DHCP through her cable provider on a 4Mbps (or 6Mps, I forget) line, the cablemodem is connected straight to her hub along with her wired clients.
I am assuming the DHCP server is at the ISP end of the WAN link.

I've tried using Messenger voice/webcam features on my own DSL line here and even when I put a machine into the DMZ it doesn't connect.
There is a free utility, eNAT, which allows Messenger to get through NAT systems (by routing through a 3rd party service on the Internet), but she says it disrupts the quality of the calls too much (and adds a little latency).

She has 3 PCs and a laptop in her bedroom, and wants to ressurect an old P3 system to put into her living room for using Messenger, but have it wireless to avoid having (more) stacks of cables all over the place.

I'm trying to convince her to get a router to at least be able to use SPI or port filtering, if not NAT, but she's not convinced, heh.
So I'm trying to work out if I can plonk a wireless AP on the network and have the wireless client(s) pick up a public IP through the cablemodem.

She was offered an 8Mbps service, but she would have to drop to 1 IP address and (obviously) use NAT, which is what put her off it.
This is in Sweden, btw, I'm not sure many home ISPs provide that level of service in Blighty

(I get the impression when we move in together, I'd have to have my own LAN firewalled from hers )

[Twigman]

wow...sounds like a sweet setup...

sorry this post is completely unuseful but its true!

[Moby-Dick]

Sounds like a setup issue to me - I connect to multiple VPN's & use voice/video for MSN all behind NAT.

the MSN issue is easier if you use uPnP.