In reply to a post by BatBoy:

.... the naysayers who doubted you could achieve what you wanted simply and cheaply.

Not at all. We just suggested it could be done more securely at the same cost.

In reply to a post by Sandgrounder:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

.... the naysayers who doubted you could achieve what you wanted simply and cheaply.

Not at all. We just suggested it could be done more securely at the same cost.

He might disagree. I do.

BP1 - With ref to above Is this the 'AP isolation' you talk of. If fairly sure the current router does not have the 'AP isolation' feature.

In the wireless router advanced settings for configuring the wireless setup most routers have a setting called "'AP isolation" . My understanding of this is that when this feature is enabled this prevents the clients connected to the wireless AP on this router from having access to other client machines or network devices. You will of course have internet access.
Or in simple terms prevents one wireless client communicating with another wireless client I have seen this on most Linksys routers. Not to sure on the newer ones.

This setup worked perfectly for us as guest clients could not have access to any part of the network except for browsing the internet. Keep this in mind if you do find this feature because it will also prevent you from accessing the router settings wirelessly. If you do need to get into the guest router to alter settings then this can be done via a wired lan connection.

The one we originally used for this for guests was a Linksys WRT54G with the DDWRT firmware connected to the main internet router via a lan cable connected to the lan ports(Not WAN)

I did not say it couldn't be done, nor did I say it couldn't be done cheaply and easily.

I simply wanted to warn off the idea that the simple solution from the op would work flawlessly and be eminently secure as you were stating.

Your advice in this thread has been incorrect from a technical standpoint, irrelevant and distracting when trying to defend your view of networking, and as a consequence of these dangerous for the op.

Fortunately the OP appears to have picked up on the advice of the "naysayers" and is heading for a simple, cheap, and secure solution for his problem.

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

I did not say it couldn't be done, nor did I say it couldn't be done cheaply and easily.

I simply wanted to warn off the idea that the simple solution from the op would work flawlessly and be eminently secure as you were stating.

Your advice in this thread has been incorrect from a technical standpoint, irrelevant and distracting when trying to defend your view of networking, and as a consequence of these dangerous for the op.

I disagree. Please explain?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I disagree. Please explain?

Now there's a shock.

I have already explained, at length, why your statements regarding the relative safety of the solution proposed in the op are incorrect. Also MrSaffron, who I would credit with greater knowledge in this area than myself, has explained why your statements surrounding networking are technically incorrect. I would suggest he has done a far better job of explaining things than I.

Why should I flog a dead horse based on nothing more than "I disagree"

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I disagree. Please explain?

Now there's a shock.

I have already explained, at length, why your statements regarding the relative safety of the solution proposed in the op are incorrect. Also MrSaffron, who I would credit with greater knowledge in this area than myself, has explained why your statements surrounding networking are technically incorrect. I would suggest he has done a far better job of explaining things than I.

Why should I flog a dead horse based on nothing more than "I disagree"

I knew you couldn't back up your ridiculous statement. Put up or shut up.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Sandgrounder:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

.... the naysayers who doubted you could achieve what you wanted simply and cheaply.

Not at all. We just suggested it could be done more securely at the same cost.

He might disagree. I do.

We certainly didn't doubt he could achieve what he wanted simply and cheaply.

In reply to a post by Sandgrounder:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Sandgrounder:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Not at all. We just suggested it could be done more securely at the same cost.

He might disagree. I do.

We certainly didn't doubt he could achieve what he wanted simply and cheaply.

Who's this "we"? There's only you,

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

Why should I flog a dead horse based on nothing more than "I disagree"

I knew you couldn't back up your ridiculous statement. Put up or shut up.

So, just to be clear, your response to not making a counter argument for me to dispute and being pulled up on it is to complain that I haven't made a counter argument?

As I have already said, I have explained, in detail, elsewhere in this thread, why the points you have made are wrong. Someone else has made the same arguments as I have, although I admit they did a better job of explaining things than I did.

Give me some reason why you think I am wrong and I will make a counter point, oherwise all I will be able to do is repeat myself, and others, incessantly.

So "put up or shut up" indeed.