From: "Ray Davison" <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Received: from [192.168.100.201] (HELO mail.2rosenthals.com)
  by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16)
  with ESMTP id 2996688 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:12:53 -0400
Received: from secmgr-va.2rosenthals.com ([162.83.95.194] helo=mail2.2rosenthals.com)
	by secmgr-ny.randr with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.43)
	id 1MtOGv-0004u4-B4
	for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:12:52 -0400
Received: from mta11.charter.net ([216.33.127.80]:57144)
	by mail2.2rosenthals.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <raydav@charter.net>)
	id 1MtOGn-00031G-08
	for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:12:41 -0400
Received: from imp09 ([10.20.200.9]) by mta11.charter.net
          (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP
          id <20091001161234.UBKE15884.mta11.charter.net@imp09>
          for <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>;
          Thu, 1 Oct 2009 12:12:34 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([71.9.78.218])
	by imp09 with smtp.charter.net
	id nUCa1c00G4icEEX05UCa1G; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:12:34 -0400
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.4AC4D4F8.0089,ss=2,fgs=0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=HsN1iwfeFsYA:10 a=h4ow_eilC1YeK-c1aGIA:9
 a=xStijppeNBwpyK--PSZ7Vw3y_AYA:4 a=uOcMq7-rSWT2QO68:21 a=DpFauZeXxUb0RdyM:21
Message-ID: <4AC4D4F1.7080508@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:12:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090827 SeaMonkey/1.1.18 (PmW)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless] Re: Wireless extension to LAN
References: <list-2995852@2rosenthals.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-2995852@2rosenthals.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: 	_SUMMARY_

Lewis G Rosenthal wrote:
>>
>> It appears to all be working with WPA.  It seems that all it took is a 
>> fixed IP for G.
>>
> According to the screen shots, you have an address conflict between your 
> two routers which is going to cause you untold grief. Assuming you have 
> no statically-assigned device with an address of 192.168.1.2, change the 
> G to that address.

OK, I guess my message that you replied to was a little brief and 
cryptic.  I should have said disregard previous message.

I did assign a fixed IP to G.  Then everything seemed to fall into 
place.  Both the GS and G nodes seem to be happy.  And currently using 
WPA.  What security setting is preferable?
> 
> Also, you'd might as well set the timezone in the G to keep the 
> timestamps straight in the logs. ;-)

Even that confuses me.  "Use local time" is checked.  I selected -8 for 
US Pacific.  Last Sun Mar - Last Sun Oct is the closest to correct that 
is offered.

Ray