| 1 |
Matt Causey schrieb: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 12 Jun 2009, at 06:46, Graham Murray <graham@×××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Norman Rieß <norman@×××××××××.org> writes: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> What do you want to do with your accesspoint. You will need a bridge |
| 8 |
>>> to a wired network if you want your ap attached to that wired |
| 9 |
>>> network. This is quite usual though... |
| 10 |
>>> Without a bridge to a wired network, only the wlan systems are |
| 11 |
>>> connected and can not connect to your wired systems. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Would it not normally be better to route between the wireless and wired |
| 14 |
>> networks, with appropriate firewall rules in place, rather than bridging |
| 15 |
>> them? |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> That is the intent of a project I'm working on, and I think it will |
| 18 |
> work well. However most folks don't need the additional complexity of |
| 19 |
> multiple networks. In that case just bridging to the existing subnet |
| 20 |
> is sufficient. |
| 21 |
It really depends on the users needs. I said this was quite usual |
| 22 |
because with bridging produces the behaviour someone expects from an out |
| 23 |
of the box accesspoint. |
| 24 |
If someone wants to control the connections or create a dmz or whatever, |
| 25 |
routing would be the way, yes. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
In Grant's situation routing should be the better choice, as he seems to |
| 28 |
want to have a router with wlan, rather than a simple accesspoint. The |
| 29 |
wlan becomes the local network and the wired nic, the web. So this would |
| 30 |
again produce the behavious one expects from a out of the box router. If |
| 31 |
he later one create a wlan-router setup, i dare say he would bridge wlan |
| 32 |
and local wired and NAT/route that to the wired web nic. |
| 33 |
But that are my views... as i said, it depends on the users needs. |
Archives