Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:59:00 +0200
From:      Mel Flynn <fbsd.mobile@rachie.is-a-geek.net>
To:        freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org
Cc:        Sam Leffler <sam@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Switching from wired to wireless getting "network down"
Message-ID:  <200903311859.00642.fbsd.mobile@rachie.is-a-geek.net>
In-Reply-To: <49D243A8.5050601@freebsd.org>
References:  <1238217783.00093348.1238205603@10.7.7.3> <200903311054.35181.mel.flynn@mailing.thruhere.net> <49D243A8.5050601@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 31 March 2009 18:24:08 Sam Leffler wrote:
> Mel Flynn wrote:

> > Great! Does this also work for hostap mode now? I'd like to unify my
> > internal network, currently using rum as hostap.
> > If the answer is no, I pledge to file a PR. ;)
>
> I don't understand what you're looking for but it's unlikely this will
> do what you want.  lagg's failover protocol acts like a single-position
> switch funneling packets to one of several devices (all of which are
> assigned the same mac address).

What I'd like is my wireless and wired network to be on the same /24 and my 
hostap/gateway to nat between lagg0 and tun0. As you've now described lagg, 
this doesn't seem viable and I'll have to look for a different solution.

The reason I want it, is that it greatly simplifies my rdr rules and I can 
seemlessly plug in/out my laptop without having to change default route or 
getting arp errors if I use lagg on it.

Wireless routers (at least my retired Linksys) seem to be able to handle a 
unified wired/wireless network just fine, is there anything comparable in 
FreeBSD?

-- 
Mel



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200903311859.00642.fbsd.mobile>