Re: [WISPA] When to route?
We have 1000 customers, split on switched VLANs between three geographic regions. I'd say we have half of the customers on one of those VLANs. We do supply consumer routers with our service, but as was mentioned, they get plugged in backwards, people bypass them, install their own, etc. It's not the best setup. If you can start routing from the beginning, do it. It's much more difficult to convert when you have 1000 customers on the network (as I am doing). -Paul On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Steven McGehee wrote: > Quick question along the lines of this topic and that of Vlans, etc.: > does anyone here implement FlexLinks (from Cisco) to interconnect PoPs > with multiple links between them? I was just looking into that as > opposed to/in comparison with rapid spanning tree. Any experience/opinions? > > Thanks in advance. > > > > On 4/14/2010 01:46, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> When to route? From the very start!!! >> >> If you take the time to learn the basics of OSPF, implement NAT and/or >> use private IPs for the links between systems and use a logical design >> for your subnets it is relatively easy to route. Understanding the >> basics of OSPF is really key, because static routing gets too >> complicated after the first few nodes and OSPF will handle it all much >> easier. OSPF also makes it possible to build automatic failover into >> the network. I have several "rings" in my network that automatically >> re-route in different directions when there are outages and I can easily >> set preference for traffic to flow in different directions based on >> backhaul capacity, latency and other factors. >> >> Bridging is a disaster waiting to happen. Every day that you run a >> bridged network is a day closer to the eventual disaster. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> >> On 4/13/2010 11:37 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: >> >>> Yes if you route at the CPE then the backhauls can bridge and your >>> (mostly) good (this is how i do it) >>> What you need to worry about here is clients who plug in their routers >>> backwards and things like that. >>> It helps if you do not have client routers (routing/dhcp in the CPE, >>> switch inside) >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Mark Dueck wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Question: If you have all client computers behind a router, then you are >>>> mostly protected from broadcasting and the need for routing is not that >>>> high, right? >>>> >>>> I have a small network and I'm starting to do some routing between >>>> longer backhaul links, and between cities. So far, I don't know if I've >>>> seen a difference yet. >>>> >>>> On 04/13/2010 10:08 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to >>>>> start >>>>> routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. >>>>> marlon >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> From: "Greg Ihnen" >>>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM >>>>> Subject: [WISPA] When to route? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if >>>>>> the networks are small? >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting >>>>>> up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). >>>>>> >>>>>> What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box >>>>>> is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also >>>>>> wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One >>>>>> backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station >>>>>> and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of >>>>>> NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is >>>>>> a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is >>>>>> in >>>>>> the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the
Re: [WISPA] When to route?
Quick question along the lines of this topic and that of Vlans, etc.: does anyone here implement FlexLinks (from Cisco) to interconnect PoPs with multiple links between them? I was just looking into that as opposed to/in comparison with rapid spanning tree. Any experience/opinions? Thanks in advance. On 4/14/2010 01:46, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > When to route? From the very start!!! > > If you take the time to learn the basics of OSPF, implement NAT and/or > use private IPs for the links between systems and use a logical design > for your subnets it is relatively easy to route. Understanding the > basics of OSPF is really key, because static routing gets too > complicated after the first few nodes and OSPF will handle it all much > easier. OSPF also makes it possible to build automatic failover into > the network. I have several "rings" in my network that automatically > re-route in different directions when there are outages and I can easily > set preference for traffic to flow in different directions based on > backhaul capacity, latency and other factors. > > Bridging is a disaster waiting to happen. Every day that you run a > bridged network is a day closer to the eventual disaster. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > On 4/13/2010 11:37 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: > >> Yes if you route at the CPE then the backhauls can bridge and your >> (mostly) good (this is how i do it) >> What you need to worry about here is clients who plug in their routers >> backwards and things like that. >> It helps if you do not have client routers (routing/dhcp in the CPE, >> switch inside) >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Mark Dueck wrote: >> >> >>> Question: If you have all client computers behind a router, then you are >>> mostly protected from broadcasting and the need for routing is not that >>> high, right? >>> >>> I have a small network and I'm starting to do some routing between >>> longer backhaul links, and between cities. So far, I don't know if I've >>> seen a difference yet. >>> >>> On 04/13/2010 10:08 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> >>> >>>> We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to >>>> start >>>> routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Greg Ihnen" >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] When to route? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if >>>>> the networks are small? >>>>> >>>>> The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting >>>>> up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). >>>>> >>>>> What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box >>>>> is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also >>>>> wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One >>>>> backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station >>>>> and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of >>>>> NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is >>>>> a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in >>>>> the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some >>>>> clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from >>>>> the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between >>>>> the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---PS2~~~PS2 >>>>> with clients (192.168.0.x) >>>>> / >>>>> Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x >>>>> \ >>>>> >>>>> NS5M~NS5MBullet2M >>>>> with c
Re: [WISPA] When to route?
Depends on how you build it. The backhauls are bridged, but there is routing between key backhaul points (I make triangles) Every tool has its place and used right, works well. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > When to route? From the very start!!! > > If you take the time to learn the basics of OSPF, implement NAT and/or > use private IPs for the links between systems and use a logical design > for your subnets it is relatively easy to route. Understanding the > basics of OSPF is really key, because static routing gets too > complicated after the first few nodes and OSPF will handle it all much > easier. OSPF also makes it possible to build automatic failover into > the network. I have several "rings" in my network that automatically > re-route in different directions when there are outages and I can easily > set preference for traffic to flow in different directions based on > backhaul capacity, latency and other factors. > > Bridging is a disaster waiting to happen. Every day that you run a > bridged network is a day closer to the eventual disaster. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > On 4/13/2010 11:37 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: >> Yes if you route at the CPE then the backhauls can bridge and your >> (mostly) good (this is how i do it) >> What you need to worry about here is clients who plug in their routers >> backwards and things like that. >> It helps if you do not have client routers (routing/dhcp in the CPE, >> switch inside) >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Mark Dueck wrote: >> >>> Question: If you have all client computers behind a router, then you are >>> mostly protected from broadcasting and the need for routing is not that >>> high, right? >>> >>> I have a small network and I'm starting to do some routing between >>> longer backhaul links, and between cities. So far, I don't know if I've >>> seen a difference yet. >>> >>> On 04/13/2010 10:08 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> >>>> We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to >>>> start >>>> routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Greg Ihnen" >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] When to route? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if >>>>> the networks are small? >>>>> >>>>> The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting >>>>> up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). >>>>> >>>>> What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box >>>>> is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also >>>>> wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One >>>>> backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station >>>>> and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of >>>>> NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is >>>>> a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in >>>>> the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some >>>>> clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from >>>>> the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between >>>>> the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---PS2~~~PS2 >>>>> with clients (192.168.0.x) >>>>> / >>>>> Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x >>>>> \ >>>>> >>>>> NS5M~NS5MBullet2M >>>>> with clients 192.168.7.x >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the >>>>> network
Re: [WISPA] When to route?
When to route? From the very start!!! If you take the time to learn the basics of OSPF, implement NAT and/or use private IPs for the links between systems and use a logical design for your subnets it is relatively easy to route. Understanding the basics of OSPF is really key, because static routing gets too complicated after the first few nodes and OSPF will handle it all much easier. OSPF also makes it possible to build automatic failover into the network. I have several "rings" in my network that automatically re-route in different directions when there are outages and I can easily set preference for traffic to flow in different directions based on backhaul capacity, latency and other factors. Bridging is a disaster waiting to happen. Every day that you run a bridged network is a day closer to the eventual disaster. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/13/2010 11:37 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: > Yes if you route at the CPE then the backhauls can bridge and your > (mostly) good (this is how i do it) > What you need to worry about here is clients who plug in their routers > backwards and things like that. > It helps if you do not have client routers (routing/dhcp in the CPE, > switch inside) > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Mark Dueck wrote: > >> Question: If you have all client computers behind a router, then you are >> mostly protected from broadcasting and the need for routing is not that >> high, right? >> >> I have a small network and I'm starting to do some routing between >> longer backhaul links, and between cities. So far, I don't know if I've >> seen a difference yet. >> >> On 04/13/2010 10:08 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> >>> We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to start >>> routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Greg Ihnen" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] When to route? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if >>>> the networks are small? >>>> >>>> The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting >>>> up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). >>>> >>>> What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box >>>> is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also >>>> wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One >>>> backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station >>>> and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of >>>> NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is >>>> a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in >>>> the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some >>>> clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from >>>> the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between >>>> the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---PS2~~~PS2 >>>> with clients (192.168.0.x) >>>> / >>>> Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x >>>> \ >>>> >>>> NS5M~NS5MBullet2M >>>> with clients 192.168.7.x >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the >>>> network i.e. traffic for a client wirelessly connected to the Bullet2M is >>>> also transiting the segment of the network comprised of the PS2's. Is that >>>> right or does the gear (in this case the switch joining the different >>>> segments of the network learn who's where and route the traffic >>>> accordingly? I'm assuming not. So if I made it so the clients on each AP >>>> were in a different subnet and static routed then traffic would only >>>> travel the pertinent network segment? >>>> >
Re: [WISPA] When to route?
Yes if you route at the CPE then the backhauls can bridge and your (mostly) good (this is how i do it) What you need to worry about here is clients who plug in their routers backwards and things like that. It helps if you do not have client routers (routing/dhcp in the CPE, switch inside) On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Mark Dueck wrote: > Question: If you have all client computers behind a router, then you are > mostly protected from broadcasting and the need for routing is not that > high, right? > > I have a small network and I'm starting to do some routing between > longer backhaul links, and between cities. So far, I don't know if I've > seen a difference yet. > > On 04/13/2010 10:08 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to start >> routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Greg Ihnen" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] When to route? >> >> >> >>> OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if >>> the networks are small? >>> >>> The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting >>> up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). >>> >>> What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box >>> is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also >>> wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One >>> backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station >>> and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of >>> NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is >>> a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in >>> the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some >>> clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from >>> the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between >>> the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. >>> >>> >>> >>> ---PS2~~~PS2 >>> with clients (192.168.0.x) >>> / >>> Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x >>> \ >>> >>> NS5M~NS5MBullet2M >>> with clients 192.168.7.x >>> >>> >>> I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the >>> network i.e. traffic for a client wirelessly connected to the Bullet2M is >>> also transiting the segment of the network comprised of the PS2's. Is that >>> right or does the gear (in this case the switch joining the different >>> segments of the network learn who's where and route the traffic >>> accordingly? I'm assuming not. So if I made it so the clients on each AP >>> were in a different subnet and static routed then traffic would only >>> travel the pertinent network segment? >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] When to route?
Question: If you have all client computers behind a router, then you are mostly protected from broadcasting and the need for routing is not that high, right? I have a small network and I'm starting to do some routing between longer backhaul links, and between cities. So far, I don't know if I've seen a difference yet. On 04/13/2010 10:08 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to start > routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Greg Ihnen" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM > Subject: [WISPA] When to route? > > > >> OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if >> the networks are small? >> >> The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting >> up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). >> >> What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box >> is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also >> wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One >> backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station >> and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of >> NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is >> a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in >> the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some >> clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from >> the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between >> the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. >> >> >> >> ---PS2~~~PS2 >> with clients (192.168.0.x) >>/ >> Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x >>\ >> >> NS5M~NS5MBullet2M >> with clients 192.168.7.x >> >> >> I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the >> network i.e. traffic for a client wirelessly connected to the Bullet2M is >> also transiting the segment of the network comprised of the PS2's. Is that >> right or does the gear (in this case the switch joining the different >> segments of the network learn who's where and route the traffic >> accordingly? I'm assuming not. So if I made it so the clients on each AP >> were in a different subnet and static routed then traffic would only >> travel the pertinent network segment? >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] When to route?
We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to start routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. marlon - Original Message - From: "Greg Ihnen" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM Subject: [WISPA] When to route? > OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if > the networks are small? > > The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting > up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). > > What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box > is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also > wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One > backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station > and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of > NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is > a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in > the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some > clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from > the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between > the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. > > > ---PS2~~~PS2 > with clients (192.168.0.x) >/ > Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x >\ > > NS5M~NS5MBullet2M > with clients 192.168.7.x > > > I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the > network i.e. traffic for a client wirelessly connected to the Bullet2M is > also transiting the segment of the network comprised of the PS2's. Is that > right or does the gear (in this case the switch joining the different > segments of the network learn who's where and route the traffic > accordingly? I'm assuming not. So if I made it so the clients on each AP > were in a different subnet and static routed then traffic would only > travel the pertinent network segment? > > Greg > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] When to route?
OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if the networks are small? The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. ---PS2~~~PS2 with clients (192.168.0.x) / Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x \ NS5M~NS5MBullet2M with clients 192.168.7.x I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the network i.e. traffic for a client wirelessly connected to the Bullet2M is also transiting the segment of the network comprised of the PS2's. Is that right or does the gear (in this case the switch joining the different segments of the network learn who's where and route the traffic accordingly? I'm assuming not. So if I made it so the clients on each AP were in a different subnet and static routed then traffic would only travel the pertinent network segment? Greg WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
