Stuart Henderson [s...@spacehopper.org] wrote:
>
> Do you have evidence to back this up? People were saying the same about
> PCEngines not being reliable compared to Soekris too. It all seems nonsense.
> Old rpi 1 and 2 machines are still running fine doing the job they were
> intended to do. I'm
On 2020-11-17, Mihai Popescu wrote:
>> The combination of the computer and switch together can be considered a
> router.
>
> I have Mikrotik hAP ac2 in test for a few days. That is exactly something
> like this, 4 cores ARM for routing, switch attached for vlan'ed interfaces,
> plus wifi. And it
> The combination of the computer and switch together can be considered a
router.
I have Mikrotik hAP ac2 in test for a few days. That is exactly something
like this, 4 cores ARM for routing, switch attached for vlan'ed interfaces,
plus wifi. And it is a real charm as performance and price. But
On 2020-11-16, Noth wrote:
> Buy a switch, and buy the APU4. Two ports don't get used, so what?
For starters, that means you at least might as well use APU2 instead
(which is often easier to buy - not all vendors have the APU4 - PCEngines
don't sell direct in some countries other than to
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 06:37:50PM -0700, John McGuigan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 6:05 PM Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> >
> > bridge (and theoretically switch but I never got it to do anything
> > useful) make a group of ports act like a network switch (maybe with
> > filtering between the
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 6:05 PM Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> bridge (and theoretically switch but I never got it to do anything
> useful) make a group of ports act like a network switch (maybe with
> filtering between the ports).
>
I've been having issues with switch (4) as well... The reason I
On 2020-11-16, Mihai Popescu wrote:
>> bridge(4), and add a vether ...
>
> Reading thru man pages I see there are other options: switch, aggr, trunk,
> etc.
aggr and trunk are for combining two or more ports into a single uplink
(aggr only for LACP, trunk for various methods). Rither used to get
Buy a switch, and buy the APU4. Two ports don't get used, so what? It'll
be more reliable long term than a RPi4. A router with only one physical
port isn't a router, it's a host, no matter how many vlans you throw at it.
Cheers,
Noth
On 16/11/2020 18:06, Mihai Popescu wrote:
bridge(4), and
> bridge(4), and add a vether ...
Reading thru man pages I see there are other options: switch, aggr, trunk,
etc.
I barely understand these, since IP is an ugly business.
My intention is to replace ISP router with something based on OpenBSD I can
configure myself. I see now that APU4 is too much,
On 2020-11-15, Mihai Popescu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In the scenario of building a router with APU4, one interface is for wan,
> the rest of three are free to use.
> What is the most sane and performance wise ( CPU load, interface load,
> etc.) way to tie together the remaining three interfaces as a
On 11/15/20 12:25 PM, Mihai Popescu wrote:
Hello,
In the scenario of building a router with APU4, one interface is for wan,
the rest of three are free to use.
What is the most sane and performance wise ( CPU load, interface load,
etc.) way to tie together the remaining three interfaces as a
Hello,
In the scenario of building a router with APU4, one interface is for wan,
the rest of three are free to use.
What is the most sane and performance wise ( CPU load, interface load,
etc.) way to tie together the remaining three interfaces as a switch, and
avoid using one IP class per
12 matches
Mail list logo
