On 2013/03/18 15:25, Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
> Yes, bridge between em2 and em3.
>
> Assign the IP (used as gateway by the clients) to bridge0.
This isn't possible on OpenBSD, you either need to put the IP on one
real interface (then it may go down if the port is down), or bridge a
vether with it
Yes, bridge between em2 and em3.
Assign the IP (used as gateway by the clients) to bridge0.
You'll have to duplicate the MAC filter rules per interface.
The pf rules need to match both interfaces with 'on { em2 em3 }',
and floating state-policy (default) will simply work. No increase in
complexi
Come to think of it you wouldn't need to frob
the arp tables since I presume the gateway is
all on the soekris. And with proper dhcp
configuration you could just frob the gateway
address supplied to each access point.
On 03/18/2013 08:03:39 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 03/17/2013 07:47:43 PM, Kar
On 03/17/2013 07:47:43 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> Um, given these requirements, a physical switch would seem to be
> optimal. (Of course this is the lazy way out, but
> this way there's absolutely no danger of burning out
> any precious brain cells from design-fatigue. ;-)
Note that the above r
On 03/16/2013 10:45:57 PM, Bonnie Packet wrote:
> The question is how best to create a "virtual switch" out of em2 and
> em3,
> I'd love some advice on what the "best" way to accomplish this is.
> ("Best" =
> in my particular case means first, lowest total firewall cpu cost to
> route/=
> filter;
