Linksys WET610N Wireless-N Ethernet Bridge with Dual-Band Reviewed

[Unregistered]

The review said it is not a "multi-client bridge", but I just try my WET610N connect to a 5 ports 10/100 switch and attached 2 laptops to the switch (verified the wirelss on the laptop were off) and both laptops seems to have no issue surfing the internal and pinging some well know host like www.yahoo.com and both laptops were able to get an ip address from my router through the WET610N

What the "not multi-client bridge" means in the articles ?

 

[thiggins]

Cisco has also questioned our test results. I'll be retesting today and updating the article if needed.

 

[wpns]

AEBS Comparison?

A bit of Apples (henh) to Oranges, but how about comparing this to (or reviewing) the Apple Airport Extreme (Dual Band N) Base Station? I was blown away by the coverage and seamless roaming I got with these devices, after all the trouble I had with my Linksys WAP54GP devices. If they had built-in PoE they'd be perfect!

 

[Unregistered]

The WET610n as HD video device

In my humble opinion it is impossible to judge the WET's video capabilities before you have an access point which is optimized for video. In the video test you can't tell which side is the blame for the staggering - is it the WRT400N or the WET? I think the author jumped to conclusions about the WET capabilities.

 

[thiggins]

There is no mention of requiring an "optimized for video" wireless partner in any of the WET610N's documentation. Can you provide some examples of suitable partner devices? What is your experience with the WET610N's video streaming capability?

 

[Unregistered]

Don't know of a pair to WET

Well,
I guess that's the problem. The WET still does not have an optimized for video AP pair.

One example is FEC, if the pair does not support it - it won't work.

 

[Unregistered]

Pair for WET

I guess you have to find an AP based on same chipset (with FEC and other Video optimizations) to get unbiased results...

 

[Unregistered]

Additional source

802.11n chipset test, which includes metalink (WET610n), atheros, broadcom, marvel and ralink chipset

http://www.mtlk.com/dwlfls/octoScope_250208.pdf

 

[Unregistered]

Closed/Hidden SSID Unsupported...

I was unable to connect the WET to my WRT's N-only 5ghz net when specifying the hidden name. I had to change the WRT over to broadcast the SSID before I was even able to move forward. Oh, HTTPS (SSL) is unsupported by the WET also. All in all, the WRT-610N and the WET610N are a huge disappointment and they're headed back.

 

[Unregistered]

Hidden SSID - not real security

I was unable to connect the WET to my WRT's N-only 5ghz net when specifying the hidden name. I had to change the WRT over to broadcast the SSID before I was even able to move forward. Oh, HTTPS (SSL) is unsupported by the WET also. All in all, the WRT-610N and the WET610N are a huge disappointment and they're headed back.

I would'nt declare a device a dissapointmet because it has an issue with hidden SSID,simply because one can monitor association requests and probe request via sniffer, that in addition to the fact that even with hidden SSID, beacons are still sent.

Hidden SSID is easily hacked and is not really needed when you use RSN methods(WPA/WPAII).

 

[Unregistered]

I was unable to connect the WET to my WRT's N-only 5ghz net when specifying the hidden name. I had to change the WRT over to broadcast the SSID before I was even able to move forward. Oh, HTTPS (SSL) is unsupported by the WET also. All in all, the WRT-610N and the WET610N are a huge disappointment and they're headed back.

I also had the same problem with the hidden name at first, but after I restored the WET610N and the WRT610N to the factory defaults and trying again I was able to connect.

What do you mean by HTTPS is unsupported? because I was able to see HTTPS sites using the WET.

All in all, I am very satisfied with the WRT and WET combination.

 

[Unregistered]

unreproducable

I was unable to connect the WET to my WRT's N-only 5ghz net when specifying the hidden name. I had to change the WRT over to broadcast the SSID before I was even able to move forward. Oh, HTTPS (SSL) is unsupported by the WET also. All in all, the WRT-610N and the WET610N are a huge disappointment and they're headed back.

After purchasing both products, I tried to reproduce the issues you encountered.

After upgrading both devices to the latest driver in the Linksys Website, both of your tests passed with flying colors!
I don't see any reason to return them to the shop. They both connected easily in the 5Giga band, and I can finally use my Xbox from the bed room

 

[Unregistered]

WGA600n

How about comparing this to the WGA600n? I was looking for an N bridge several months ago but the only thing close was the WGA600n. I bought it and have since used it in several non gaming applications (connecting wandering desktop workstations and small LAN segments to the main network) and its performed with flying colors. This seems like its just the WGA600n in a different case and different name. Are there any real differences?

 

[XMSFel6]

How about comparing this to the WGA600n? I was looking for an N bridge several months ago but the only thing close was the WGA600n. I bought it and have since used it in several non gaming applications (connecting wandering desktop workstations and small LAN segments to the main network) and its performed with flying colors. This seems like its just the WGA600n in a different case and different name. Are there any real differences?

Yea I was looking at this too. How much different is it from the WGA600N? They basically do the same thing and are priced similarly. I've got no PCI slots (only PCIe) so a bridge is my only option to connect with my Linksys WRT160n v2 router. I'd like to know which of these to get.

 

[thiggins]

I asked Cisco about the difference between the two a few months ago. The response:
* Video-optimized radio
* Improved antennas
* Different packaging.

More info here.

I'll look into getting a WGA600N for review.

 

[XMSFel6]

Thanks, I did look at that one article comparing the hardware between the two.

So it seems the WET610N is supposedly "better", well at least according to Cisco. I'll still need more proof to make a decision, but nice review on this bridge

 

[thiggins]

So it seems the WET610N is supposedly "better", well at least according to Cisco.

As shown in the review, I could not validate Cisco's claims of improved video handling. So maybe "different", not "better".

 

[Unregistered]

There is no mention of requiring an "optimized for video" wireless partner in any of the WET610N's documentation. Can you provide some examples of suitable partner devices? What is your experience with the WET610N's video streaming capability?

http://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/products/WAP610N

The Wireless-N Access Point with Dual-Band is perfect partner to the Wireless-N Ethernet Bridge (WET610N), it's optimized to reduce video glitches.

Please, review the pair WAP610N & WET610N for streaming hdvideo over WI-FI.

Thanks in advance.

I think you will agree with remark "optimized for video" for both WAP610N and WET610N products.

 

[thiggins]

The Wireless-N Access Point with Dual-Band is perfect partner to the Wireless-N Ethernet Bridge (WET610N), it's optimized to reduce video glitches.

The FCC docs shows that the board is very similar (if not identical) to the WET610N, using the Metalink chipset (which provides the video "optimization"). I suspect that it is the same board, with just different firmware.

I don't know why Cisco didn't just make one product that can function as an AP or bridge, like the D-Link DAP-1522.

I'll see if I can get one in for review. Don't get your hopes up. I have yet to see a wireless product that provides glitch-free HD video, especially through a few walls.

 

[Unregistered]

WET610N + Switch

I was wondering how I could add a switch to the WET610N? I believe I need to give the linksys a static ip then attach the linksys to the switch. is there any configuration that needs to happen to the switch?