[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Guy Boisvert <guy dot boisvert at ingtegration dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Internet does not reach the branch via wireless
 Date:  Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:06:07 -0500
Le 2010-12-01 02:58, David Burgess a écrit :
> Agreed. This is a problem with your UBNT setup. Best to avoid WDS
> whenever possible, and especially with Airmax products, which have had
> WDS bugs in the 5-series firmware.
>
> If Branch 2 has no hope of reaching the main office in a single
> wireless hop then you're much better off doing dedicated backhauls
> between each site, like so:
>
> Main office AP WDS
> |
> B1 STA WDS
> |
> switch
> |
> B1 AP WDS
> |
> B2 STA WDS
> |
> switch
>
> Note that even though you're not using WDS for repeating, you still
> need to put your UBNT gear in WDS mode or you won't get true bridging,
> and nothing at B2 will get dhcp service.
>
> If you must use WDS due to budget constraints or whatever, then update
> your firmwares to 5.3-beta4 to get past the show-stopping WDS bugs
> that exist in earlier firmwares.
>
> db

I don't know much about the Ubiquiti stuff (we use Radwin) but i'd try 
to use routing as much as possible in conjunction with a decent routing 
protocol (OSPF, etc) and ip helper-address (or local DHCP in every 
remote).  When using bridging, you're carrying broadcasts everywhere, 
not to mention potential loop / delay problems if you're not using 
spanning tree.  It's all a matter of getting the information about what 
you want to achieve and what are the needs:

- End to end QoS (if you're doing VoIP, etc)
- Redundancy (Links, routers, branch access, Internet access, etc)
- Manageability
- Performance and monitoring (SNMP/RMON, SLA, etc)
- Security
- Remote access
- etc!

With all these infos, we can come up with a design that will match the 
needs and choose the right stuff.

As for the comment about Cisco Vs mOnOwall (better performance), you 
compare oranges and apples.  Cisco has products that are able to route 
multi-gigabit so no problem with performance whatsoever...  I use and 
respect a lot mOnOwall for what it is but it is an entry level 
solution.  Cisco supports much more protocols and has enterprise 
features mOnOwall can't match.  That being said, mOnOwall may be able to 
do the job and be a great bargain for SOHO shops.  It all depends on 
your needs as stated above.


-- 
Guy Boisvert, ing.
IngTegration inc.
http://www.ingtegration.com

AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ : ce message peut contenir des
renseignements confidentiels appartenant exclusivement à
IngTegration Inc. ou à ses filiales. Si vous n'êtes pas
le destinataire indiqué ou prévu dans ce  message (ou
responsable de livrer ce message à la personne indiquée ou
prévue) ou si vous pensez que ce message vous a été adressé
par erreur, vous ne pouvez pas utiliser ou reproduire ce
message, ni le livrer à quelqu'un d'autre. Dans ce cas, vous
devez le détruire et vous êtes prié d'avertir l'expéditeur
en répondant au courriel.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : Proprietary/Confidential Information
belonging to IngTegration Inc. and its affiliates may be
contained in this message. If you are not a recipient
indicated or intended in this message (or responsible for
delivery of this message to such person), or you think for
any reason that this message may have been addressed to you
in error, you may not use or copy or deliver this message to
anyone else. In such case, you should destroy this message
and are asked to notify the sender by reply email.