You believe 1000 ms network latency is acceptable? In my world, that is sheer madness. Our Citrix guys would keelhaul me if I told them 1000ms is ok. Even something as simple as telnet/ssh is extremely annoying at that level.

What industry do you work in? I need to know this because the barrier to entry clearly is low.

We've been hearing for over a decade that wireless will make infrastructure specialists the new Cobol programmer. BS! Why hasn't this happened? Because going wireless implies a whole host of security and interoperability issues that are inherent to wireless. A corporation would be mad to place their critical data infrastructure in a shared media like 802.11A/B/G,. 4G and WiMax are still lightyears away from being as reliable and fast as current copper and fiber technologies.

No matter how fast and error resistant the state-of-the-art wireless technology is, there are limits dictated by the laws of physics that govern how much data you can squeeze through a given wireless spectrum in a given physical space. With physical mediums like copper and fiber, I'm only limited by how many runs I can cram into a given space, plus, I have physical control over data. And how my neighbor is using their copper/fiber is completely irrelevant, which is quite unlike current wireless technologies.

Beyond this. proper wireless infrastructure design is an order of magnitude more difficult to get right than physical infrastructure (ignoring slack-jawed installers who make stupid decisions). Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant beyond comparison or a damned liar.

I hate to break it to you, but you misunderstand the difference between layer 2 vs. 3, bridging vs. routing and how ARP works.

In your scenario where LAN clients only see the MAC of the Access Point, the AP is acting a a Router (Layer 3). A bridge works at layer 2, all MACs are passed unchanged. A bridge is nothing more than a two port switch (or hub, depending on how/if it manages unicast/broadcast/multicast). This has nothing to do with the nature of wireless.

Even if the AP is acting as a router as most home APs do, having identical MAC addresses on the wirless side will still mess with ARP and cause all kinds of weird connectivity issues. Even in the best case where you've spoofed your target's MAC address *and* IP address, there will be no way to differentiate which packets from each machine go where. In an unswitched network, you'll get massive collision errors and TCP will be quite upset with incomplete conversations flying around and in a switched environment, the switch's MAC table will be FUBARed.

Perhaps his intended target was technically competent people who want rich context and full details. If this isn't you, feel free to skip the article. Your "right" to not have to "read fifteen paragraphs just to get a basic birds-eye view" is far less valid than the author's to state his case with as much detail as he pleases.

It didn't help that we were dropped into an ongoing blog, but it's not hard to figure that out and read earlier articles to gain context. If you're annoyed by one post to the point of labeling people (nerds), I'm pretty confident the odds you'll make it through the other blog posts are pretty low.

Might I interest you in a "Twilight" novel?