[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Ulrik Lunddahl <ul at proconsult dot dk>
 To:  "m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  SV: [m0n0wall] Increase number of available ip-addresses
 Date:  Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:31:34 +0000
Hi Daniel!

Cool, can you give me the make/model of some of those _wireless_ gigabit switches.

;-)


/ Ulrik Lunddahl




-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Daniel Jokinen [mailto:daniel dot jokinen at linford dot se] 
Sendt: 13. september 2013 13:11
Til: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Emne: SV: [m0n0wall] Increase number of available ip-addresses

> Also, when you get a few hundred wireless users on one flat network, live will suck for most of
them.

I'd say having a few hundred users on the same network / subnet doesn't necessarily mean trouble. I
have a few of these installations where I have up to about 500 users simultaneously on the same
subnet and as long as you've got gigabit switches with high enough throughput it seems to work fine.
At least it has for me. We even run airprint (that uses multicast) in these networks and it all
works fast and fine.

I would, however, draw the line somewhere just over 500. Broadcast traffic would probably seriously
flood the network by then.


/Daniel Jokinen




-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----

Skickat: den 13 september 2013 12:57
Till: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch


Thanks.
quoting: Also, when you get a few hundred wireless users on one flat network, live will suck for
most of them.

I can imagine that, nevertheless, it is wanted to have the possibility of having a few hundred
wireless users....

quoting: You could run multiple firewalls... (Or multiple interfaces, but captive portal can only
run on one of them.)

no chance for that...

best regards...
ralf.

Am 12.09.13 21:06, schrieb Lee Sharp:
> On 09/12/2013 04:39 AM, Ralf Petry wrote:
>> Hy, (note in advance: my English might be a bit, well, rusty...) I'm 
>> using m0n0wall mainly with the Voucher function. I understand, that 
>> the number of available ip-addresses given by the DHCP-Server is 
>> limited. Nevertheless, I have been asked, if there was the 
>> possibility to include more than 250 ip-requests. (Don't ask me about 
>> the sense...) The only way I could imagine, is, with allowing my 
>> WLAN-Access Points to set up their own subnets and route to the 
>> m0n0wall instead of passing through the adress-requests from the clients..
>>
>> Would there be another possibility (e.g. with more subnets dealt by 
>> the DHCP-service of m0n0wall itself)?
>
> Ditch class C.  172.16.0.0 is class b, and commonly 255.255.0.0 and
> 10.0.0.0 is class a, commonly 255.0.0.0.
>
> While you can make you class c larger with 192.168.0.0/23 you may have 
> issues with some applications that do not like classless routing that 
> gets larger.
>
> Also, when you get a few hundred wireless users on one flat network, 
> live will suck for most of them.  You could run multiple firewalls...
> (Or multiple interfaces, but captive portal can only run on one of
> them.)
>
>             Lee
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch