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

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]

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!

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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 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).