Bug #237

bridging wired and wireless

Added by Michael Graff over 1 year ago. Updated about 1 year ago.

Status:New Start date:08/22/2011
Priority:Normal Due date:
Assignee:- % Done:

0%

Category:- Spent time: -
Target version:1st Public Cerowrt release

Description

I know this is a topic where I've been told "don't do that" but I believe it is very realistic to expect people to want wireless and wired devices to see one another directly. At home, I have bridged wireless and wired for many years without problem. Routing between these worlds causes broadcast domain issues, and it also prevents having more than one access point.

What I have used for many, many years is this:

AP1 <---> VLAN14 ethernet <---> router
AP2 <-----^

Without being able to bridge the 3700's vlan13 ethernet to sw00/sw10, I have to have completely different domains. This, well, sucks for me.

History

Updated by Dave Täht over 1 year ago

You CAN bridge them, but then other bad things happen, notably with multicast.

Bridging is enabled, in other words.

However, what we are trying to do is come up with the right tools to get away from bridging entirely

To answer one of your comments:

"it also prevents having more than one access point."

Um... most - all - wireless routers have an option to route subnets - it's a single option on the gui to route to another subnet - and in cerowrt's case you just route the /24 to the router and let it take care of the /27s itself.

Also, cerowrt to cerowrt 'just works' when babel is enabled.

as for this one?

"Without being able to bridge the 3700's vlan13 ethernet to sw00/sw10, I have to have completely different domains. This, well, sucks for me."

um, I don't understand the context behind this comment.

It is very important for us to stress that broadcast/multicast domains are one of the things really messing up wireless and to come up with good ways to route rather than bridge, wherever possible. So, if we can coherently answer your concerns here in this bug, we can continue to propigate the meme(s).

Updated by Michael Graff over 1 year ago

I know this is quite detailed, so may be out of scope for a bug report. :)

Basically, my house has (currently...) 3 APs. One is a Cisco which is running stock firmware. While this allows a guest and non-guest network, I am only using the private network, but using both 2Ghz and 5Ghz radios on it. I have a wndr3700v1 box also running stock firmware which is also only used for private 2/5Ghz radio. The new wndr3700v2 is currently installed as my home primary router.

Currently, I have a too-complicated network config to match this. :)

I have a VLAN-capable switch in my garage. My cable modem connects to an untagged vlan9 port, and the WAN port on the 3700v2 connects to this switch, also on an untagged vlan9 port. This part works perfectly.

The two stock APs connect directly to this as well, and (unfortunately) right now I am using the wired ports on each as a local switch. All of these are on vlan13, untagged.

I have the v2 configured for v12, v13, v14, and v15. v12 is my DMZ; it has addresses in the range 192.168.1/24. v13 is 10.42/16, v14 is 10.43.1/24, and v15 is 10.43.2/24. Originally I wanted to use vlan14 as my private wireless and v15 as my public wireless.

I plan on replacing the 3700v1 with a v2 in a month or so, and wanted to use a trunked port to the new v2 box so I can use the WAN port as a trunked uplink to the garage switch, put the wireless on vlan14 and 15, and the physical switch ports on vlan13.

I've done things like this using (older) APs for many moons. I know there are oddnesses with multicast, but I have had no problems with these oddities. This is a very understandable and straight-forward way to do this, to me anyway. :)

Updated by Dave Täht over 1 year ago

I am for starters tickled that you consider the rc5 candidate stable enough to use as your primary router, especially given your bug reporting volume! :)

It would cheer me up to know that aside from the bugs reported thus far, some of the good stuff in cerowrt was working out good for you.

As for your other comments... um, er, wow... a network diagram would help.

Updated by Dave Täht over 1 year ago

like, for example, does ipv6 work?

Updated by Michael Graff over 1 year ago

IPv6 works perfectly, but I am using an HE tunnel.

As for stability, well, most of the bug reports are for things that happen when I'm fiddling. If I am steady-state, things seem to be pretty darned solid.

The network performances as measured by speedtest web sites are on par with the NetBSD router I had running this. There were some oddities with that running under Xen, so overall this is actually an improvement. I cannot (yet) get my Cisco SIP phone to work, but well... I suspect that might be a feature :) It's also likely the phone is the culprit.

I cannot tell if the debloating stuff is taking effect. I suspect it wasn't with the config errors? After correcting those, the network seems overall the same as before, with the added benefit that my router now consumes 5.4 watts rather than 150 or so.

Lastly, as for running it in "production" -- what better way to motivate me to report and help correct issues?

Updated by Dave Täht about 1 year ago

  • Target version set to 1st Public Cerowrt release

Also available in: Atom PDF