Guest access can be easily configured to use different DNS servers in the DHCP service on Mac OS X Server. It's not necessary to support this on the AEBS.
Sorry, you missed the whole point.
Guests are on a separate network, and the AEBS may be configured to disallow packets to cross over to the internal network, or even to not see other guest computers - this is a very good security design from apple.
Under these safe conditions, the hosts on the guest network won't be able to access to the MacOS X server on the internal network... I don't want them: guests don't have anything to do on the internal network.
But guests need DHCP, and if DHCP is enabled, it is enabled on BOTH internal and external networks (another fatal design error).
This eliminates the possibility to use an internal DHCP as it will cause conflicts.
The AEBS should just be able to handle 2 different dns configurations depending on the network. The solution should be VERY simple for apple to implement.
--
Peter
Professor E-Business (Technology, Security, Design) & consultant
Except that both of these devices have been pretty buggy/prone to failure. The TCs apparently had a significant heat dissipation issue causing them to fail regularly after 18 months or so (google TC failure rate), and speaking personally, I've had a bloody tough time with my AEBS spitting the dummy and requiring semi-regular hard resets along with the attendant re-setting up of everything.
Fingers crossed through some minor design changes they've been able to address these issues.
Did you see the post above by "MacFinder"? His findings show there must be some significant new technology in the AEBS either hardware and software or both to get those increased numbers. When have you ever seen Apple release a revision product that effectively doubles its speed plus increases the range and not mentioning those facts. I bet the new features that tie it to iOS and iCloud are already there in the firmware waiting for iOS5 and Lion to turn them on. I see no other plausible explanation for such an event as this one.
TC is also an AEBS so both these products probably have been updated in ways we won't know until Lion launches. About your bug fixing analysis. You could be right. However, most people have not had that many problems (IMO not warranting this upgrade), but I'm sure Apple also fixed plenty of bugs with this update. Apple IMO is using this update for duel purposes, and I think they hope to keep it secret. Apple probably has several products ready that need to work together to release and not enough time or media events to do it. This could be their covert way of achieving it.
Previous AEBs can't be updated with a firmware update? I just got one a few months ago.
We were talking about the new versions of AEBS and TC that came out today, not the one they replaced. \
If these new ones also have no upgradable firmware path, it only further supports my theory that Apple has the code in there already so it can be used when the time comes.
Except that both of these devices have been pretty buggy/prone to failure. The TCs apparently had a significant heat dissipation issue causing them to fail regularly after 18 months or so (google TC failure rate), and speaking personally, I've had a bloody tough time with my AEBS spitting the dummy and requiring semi-regular hard resets along with the attendant re-setting up of everything.
Fingers crossed through some minor design changes they've been able to address these issues.
Interesting, my experience with the airport extreme has been very different. It has worked like a charm absolutely no problems. Can't say the same for the modem it was plugged into. I have been through three of them!
it really upsets me that all the apple news sites are going around and keep publishing the same story over and over again about "no known changes for the airport extreme"
the changes are known, i figured it out early this morning and posted it to the apple discussions board for the airport. it never occured to these apple journalists to actually go to the fcc website and actually read the report
the new airport extreme features 2.81 x the maximum power output then the previous model.
i tried emailing crunch gear john and tips @ venturebeat about the actual difference i found but i guess the emails got lost as they always do.
i have read a lot of posts with people and always accusing apple of releasing wireless routers with low power (like 100 mw) and it looks like this time apple finally listened to us
there was a link on the news reports about a fcc database so i decided to look at the report and search the database for a prevous airport model
i found an airport model a1354, i believe this is the mc340ll model. this is what it says on test results:
frequency range / mode / output power dbm / output power milliwatts
2412-2462 802.11b 24.57 286.42
2412-2462 802.11g 21.56 143.22
2412-2462 802.11n(ht20) 21.17 130.92
5745-5825 802.11a 23.07 202.77
5745-5805 802.11n(ht20) 22.17 164.82
5755-5795 802.11n(ht40) 21.44 139.32
you compare this to the report of the newer model and these numbers are provided:
2412-2462 802.11b 24.10 257.04
2412-2462 802.11g 24.88 307.61
2412-2462 802.11n(ht20) 24.11 257.63
5745-5825 802.11a 25.14 326.59
5745-5805 802.11n(ht20) 25.28 337.29
5755-5795 802.11n(ht40) 25.94 392.64
ht 40 means 40 mhz wide mode
so based on tbhese numbers there is a improvement of 2.81x in terms of power output of the new md031ll model versus the older mc340ll model.
For a device that supposedly has low power output it sure beats the pants off a lot of it's competition in range. Know someone who recently got a top of the line netgear, super fancy & not the budget model. They bought it because someone said it had incredible range, but when they took it home & set it up it was no different than their old Airport Extreme. They took it back, got the latest (until now) unit from Apple & are now enjoying almost twice the range they had with the netgear.
Power output is only part of the solution, antenna can make a huge difference. Whatever the specs 2.81x previous model is pretty stinking good & once they hit the refurb site I may be looking to get me a new time capsule.
No no...I'm asking a question about the previous AEBs. Can they function as a new AEBS with a firmware update or is it new internal hardware too?
OIC... sorry. Well, if iFixIt's eventual tear down confirms that the components are the same, then I would assume all the changes are in software, and I have to say, yes! I believe AEBS is firmware upgradeable, so, like upgrading an iPod with a new system, you should get the software benefit on the previous AEBS. Unless Apple doesn't offer a firmware upgrade for it.
I'm no expert on routers, but I don't know of any that can't be firmware flashed and I've seen Apple firmware updates in the past. So if the hardware is the same, then the improvements we've seen are in software, and you should be able to benefit too.
Comments
Guest access can be easily configured to use different DNS servers in the DHCP service on Mac OS X Server. It's not necessary to support this on the AEBS.
Sorry, you missed the whole point.
Guests are on a separate network, and the AEBS may be configured to disallow packets to cross over to the internal network, or even to not see other guest computers - this is a very good security design from apple.
Under these safe conditions, the hosts on the guest network won't be able to access to the MacOS X server on the internal network... I don't want them: guests don't have anything to do on the internal network.
But guests need DHCP, and if DHCP is enabled, it is enabled on BOTH internal and external networks (another fatal design error).
This eliminates the possibility to use an internal DHCP as it will cause conflicts.
The AEBS should just be able to handle 2 different dns configurations depending on the network. The solution should be VERY simple for apple to implement.
--
Peter
Professor E-Business (Technology, Security, Design) & consultant
Except that both of these devices have been pretty buggy/prone to failure. The TCs apparently had a significant heat dissipation issue causing them to fail regularly after 18 months or so (google TC failure rate), and speaking personally, I've had a bloody tough time with my AEBS spitting the dummy and requiring semi-regular hard resets along with the attendant re-setting up of everything.
Fingers crossed through some minor design changes they've been able to address these issues.
Did you see the post above by "MacFinder"? His findings show there must be some significant new technology in the AEBS either hardware and software or both to get those increased numbers. When have you ever seen Apple release a revision product that effectively doubles its speed plus increases the range and not mentioning those facts. I bet the new features that tie it to iOS and iCloud are already there in the firmware waiting for iOS5 and Lion to turn them on. I see no other plausible explanation for such an event as this one.
TC is also an AEBS so both these products probably have been updated in ways we won't know until Lion launches. About your bug fixing analysis. You could be right. However, most people have not had that many problems (IMO not warranting this upgrade), but I'm sure Apple also fixed plenty of bugs with this update. Apple IMO is using this update for duel purposes, and I think they hope to keep it secret. Apple probably has several products ready that need to work together to release and not enough time or media events to do it. This could be their covert way of achieving it.
Previous AEBs can't be updated with a firmware update? I just got one a few months ago.
We were talking about the new versions of AEBS and TC that came out today, not the one they replaced.
If these new ones also have no upgradable firmware path, it only further supports my theory that Apple has the code in there already so it can be used when the time comes.
Except that both of these devices have been pretty buggy/prone to failure. The TCs apparently had a significant heat dissipation issue causing them to fail regularly after 18 months or so (google TC failure rate), and speaking personally, I've had a bloody tough time with my AEBS spitting the dummy and requiring semi-regular hard resets along with the attendant re-setting up of everything.
Fingers crossed through some minor design changes they've been able to address these issues.
Interesting, my experience with the airport extreme has been very different. It has worked like a charm absolutely no problems. Can't say the same for the modem it was plugged into. I have been through three of them!
Previous AEBs can't be updated with a firmware update? I just got one a few months ago.
We were talking about the new versions of AEBS and TC that came out today, not the one they replaced.
No no...I'm asking a question about the previous AEBs. Can they function as a new AEBS with a firmware update or is it new internal hardware too?
it really upsets me that all the apple news sites are going around and keep publishing the same story over and over again about "no known changes for the airport extreme"
the changes are known, i figured it out early this morning and posted it to the apple discussions board for the airport. it never occured to these apple journalists to actually go to the fcc website and actually read the report
the new airport extreme features 2.81 x the maximum power output then the previous model.
i tried emailing crunch gear john and tips @ venturebeat about the actual difference i found but i guess the emails got lost as they always do.
i have read a lot of posts with people and always accusing apple of releasing wireless routers with low power (like 100 mw) and it looks like this time apple finally listened to us
link
https://discussions.apple.com/message/15457087#15457087
summary
there was a link on the news reports about a fcc database so i decided to look at the report and search the database for a prevous airport model
i found an airport model a1354, i believe this is the mc340ll model. this is what it says on test results:
frequency range / mode / output power dbm / output power milliwatts
2412-2462 802.11b 24.57 286.42
2412-2462 802.11g 21.56 143.22
2412-2462 802.11n(ht20) 21.17 130.92
5745-5825 802.11a 23.07 202.77
5745-5805 802.11n(ht20) 22.17 164.82
5755-5795 802.11n(ht40) 21.44 139.32
you compare this to the report of the newer model and these numbers are provided:
2412-2462 802.11b 24.10 257.04
2412-2462 802.11g 24.88 307.61
2412-2462 802.11n(ht20) 24.11 257.63
5745-5825 802.11a 25.14 326.59
5745-5805 802.11n(ht20) 25.28 337.29
5755-5795 802.11n(ht40) 25.94 392.64
ht 40 means 40 mhz wide mode
so based on tbhese numbers there is a improvement of 2.81x in terms of power output of the new md031ll model versus the older mc340ll model.
For a device that supposedly has low power output it sure beats the pants off a lot of it's competition in range. Know someone who recently got a top of the line netgear, super fancy & not the budget model. They bought it because someone said it had incredible range, but when they took it home & set it up it was no different than their old Airport Extreme. They took it back, got the latest (until now) unit from Apple & are now enjoying almost twice the range they had with the netgear.
Power output is only part of the solution, antenna can make a huge difference. Whatever the specs 2.81x previous model is pretty stinking good & once they hit the refurb site I may be looking to get me a new time capsule.
No no...I'm asking a question about the previous AEBs. Can they function as a new AEBS with a firmware update or is it new internal hardware too?
OIC... sorry. Well, if iFixIt's eventual tear down confirms that the components are the same, then I would assume all the changes are in software, and I have to say, yes! I believe AEBS is firmware upgradeable, so, like upgrading an iPod with a new system, you should get the software benefit on the previous AEBS. Unless Apple doesn't offer a firmware upgrade for it.
I'm no expert on routers, but I don't know of any that can't be firmware flashed and I've seen Apple firmware updates in the past. So if the hardware is the same, then the improvements we've seen are in software, and you should be able to benefit too.