[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "James W. McKeand" <james at mckeand dot biz>
 To:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Cc:  "'Ganbold'" <ganbold at micom dot mng dot net>, "'Manuel Kasper'" <mk at neon1 dot net>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Re: FreeBSD 5.x and Atheros
 Date:  Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:59:34 -0400
I do not intend to speak for Manuel, but to attempt to clarify his response.
Then to get on a soap box.

What Manuel is saying is to hang an AP off an ethernet interface on the
m0n0wall, not to use AP instead of m0n0wall. 

IMHO, the only compelling (Manuel said "important") reason for putting
wireless directly on the m0n0 is if you will be using the wireless interface
for WAN link (m0n0 becomes CPE for WISP). 

Using a separate AP allows flexibility in three ways. One is placement of
the AP. Maybe the m0n0wall is in the phone closet with the other network
infrastructure (router and switches/hubs) and the AP needs to be in a
conference room down the hall. The next flexibility is in the flavor of
wireless - the AP can be what ever you need (i.e. 802.11a/b/g). The third is
upgradeability. If you want to upgrade from 802.11b to 802.11g you can by
replacing the AP - only minor config changes (if any) to m0n0wall will be

I don't think that m0n0wall was intended to be a roll your own AP - although
this is how it was presented on the TechTV show The Screensavers a few
months back (that is what drew me to m0n0wall). I believe the AP
functionality was added to compete with devices like the TZW series from
SonicWall and similar devices from WatchGuard (not necessarily the plethora
of wireless broadband routers  from Netgear, Linksys, etc).

The m0n0wall web page had a description stating what the project intentions
were. I could not find it when I just looked. Maybe a description of what
the project is and is *not* would be appropriate. 

James W. McKeand

-----Original Message-----
From: Ganbold [mailto:ganbold at micom dot mng dot net] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 6:06 AM
To: Manuel Kasper
Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Re: FreeBSD 5.x and Atheros


At 06:37 PM 14.09.2004, you wrote:
>On 14.09.2004 18:26 +0900, Ganbold wrote:
> > The reason why asked is Atheros wireless driver, which is not 
> > supported in  FreeBSD 4.10.
>I know, everybody wants ath(4). ;) But believe me, at least FreeBSD
>5.2.1 would most likely be a disappointment for all those who currently 
>run a reliable m0n0wall. I really hope 5.3 is better. I realize that we 
>can't stay with 4.x forever, but since they still call 4.10 their 
>"production release", I'd like to wait just a little longer.

OK, I understand. I actually have more than 20 FreeBSD-5-CURRENT servers and
those are working well in production environment.

> > Since Atheros is not supported in 4.x, is there any good wireless 
> > cards  that I can use ?
> > Which one is best suited for m0n0wall ? Wireless card should have 
> > high  power and 14 channels.
>The best cards I've ever come across (both in terms of transmit power 
>and receive sensitivity) are the Senao 11b cards. At least PRISM and 
>Lucent Hermes based cards can be reprogrammed (PDA) to allow all 
>channels. If you need 11a/g, there's unfortunately no option with 
>m0n0wall at the moment. Again, unless you have important reasons why 
>you'd like to keep everything on one box, IMHO a brand-name AP is 
>pretty much guaranteed to make you happier - even if m0n0wall was based 
>on FreeBSD 5.3.

The reason I want wireless AP on m0n0wall is - almost every feature is in
m0n0wall, I mean captive portal, radius support firewall, dummynet etc. I
hardly see any commercial APs which has all this
Also another main reason is development possibilities of m0n0wall since it
is FreeBSD based and BSD licensed.


>- Manuel

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