Travis, are you getting bored at your current job? Lol!!

Great to see you active in the list!



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com  
@aeronetpr






On 10/15/14, 4:14 PM, "Travis Johnson via Af" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The other issue is p2p traffic between two people on the same AP.... and
>if you are doing bandwidth shaping in your router, even at the tower,
>you will never see these packets. Or in the case the original poster
>asked about, that customer could keep a high-def window open of all
>their video cameras at the other location, using 3-4Mbps of constant
>traffic, and you would never see it.
>
>Travis
>
>On 10/15/2014 1:48 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote:
>> When you forward SM-to-SM traffic upstream, there's nothing the router
>> can do about it. Put the two locations on different IP subnets so that
>> traffic between the two has to be routed. Or turn off SM isolation.
>>
>> I leave SM isolation off because I'm not that paranoid. The biggest
>> risk is broadcast/multicast crap flying around. So use the SM uplink
>> broadcast/multicast rate limiting. This is one of the best features of
>> Canopy, IMO.
>>
>> On 10/15/2014 2:23 PM, Christopher Tyler via Af wrote:
>>> We have a customer that has two SM's on the same AP at separate
>>> physical locations (home and office). The have a DVR at each location
>>> that they want to view. Everything is configured properly on their
>>> end to view the DVR's on port 80 through their routers.   Problem is
>>> that we have SM isolation turned on with option 2 to forward packets
>>> upstream and they want to see the home when at the office and the
>>> office when at home.
>>>
>>> So I set up a mangle rule in my Mikortik to mark the packets with a
>>> routing mark based on the SRC and DST addresses, and then used a
>>> static route for anything what that mark and send it back to the AP
>>> port. It doesn't work, what am I doing wrong, any suggestions short
>>> of disabling SM isolation?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to