> That's a good point - I could just replace the WAP at a far cheaper price > -
> but this does also have Wireless-N (whatever that is)
802.11n. It's the next generation of Wireless protocol. Bear in mind that
the protocol is not actually final yet, and you don't have any kit that
will be able to use the new modulation. You might find it somewhat
cheaper to wait until you have 11n on your laptop before you start laying
in infrastructure for it...
> Besides which - routers without WAPs seem to be becoming
> more rare. I'm not saying they're not still available - just harder to
> find.
Do you mean APs without routers? You don't need one. Just get a cheapie
wireless router (my ISP gave me one when I signed up) & don't plug it into
the phone line...
>> Mine has a 21" CRT display that happens to hold all my other
>> applications as well...
>>
> I presume you mean you have a PC working as a router
No - I mean my routers all have web interfaces, so I can control them from
any PC I can connect to my green LAN.
> So presumably in that release of information, that's where it gets the
> hostname of each client.
The hostname *can* be configured by DHCP, but usually isn't. But the DHCP
information that is passed to the client is often *also* passed to the DNS
server so that you can talk to those dynamically-assigned hosts by name;
this would appear to be the problem that review was talking about. If the
router isn't the DHCP server, it doesn't update its rDNS. I don't know how
it would respond to being a forwarding DHCP server, rather than just being
switched off.
