You gurus out there:
What are the advantages/disadvantages of bridging vs. routing with wireless
interfaces?
Is there more cpu overhead with bridging two wireless channels than with
simply routing them? Intuitively, it would appear that bridging has a
higher overhead since it has to maintain two interfaces and then join those
together into a new br0 interface and maintain all of that in software
before any packet routing takes place.
I am using a two-channel Soekris board (486-133mhz, 64mb ram, 16mb CF) with
two 200mW Teletronics (Senao) pcmcia radios with both running in A.P./Master
Mode. Attaching 120-degree sector antennas (North and West) to the two
cards, which would be the more efficient:
1. Assign each interface/antenna to its own subnet, i.e.,
netcs0=192.168.2.0/24 and netcs1=192.168.3.0/24, with separate ESSID for
each sector (WISP_N, WISP_W) and use dhcpd to hand out addresses on each
interface? (This is my current setup)
2. Bridge the two into one interface, br0; setup dhcpd to lease
addresses on only one subnet? (I haven't had any luck getting the two to
bridge using Wisp-Dist, but I assume that it IS possible.)
3. Another option I have not considered?
With the limited amount of cpu power in the 4521 it makes sense to find the
most cpu-efficient way of handling high packet loads. The additional
complexity of maintaining two subnets would be justified if doing so lowers
the overhead on the cpu. CPU loading becomes especially critical when WEP
encryption and iptables firewall filtering loads are added.
Dan
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
_______________________________________________
leaf-wisp-dist mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-wisp-dist
