From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp73.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp73.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8C9421F228 for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:59:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp18.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9193E280169; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:59:37 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: from app44.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp18.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 66B1C2800ED; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:59:37 -0500 (EST) X-Sender-Id: dpreed@reed.com Received: from app44.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.4.2); Sat, 24 Jan 2015 14:59:37 GMT Received: from reed.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by app44.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B7418004A; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:59:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: dpreed@reed.com, from: dpreed@reed.com) with HTTP; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:59:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:59:37 -0500 (EST) From: dpreed@reed.com To: "Richard Smith" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_20150124095937000000_59650" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html In-Reply-To: <54C13F47.1010203@gmail.com> References: <54B5D28A.3010906@gmail.com> <7B1EA8F0-FCB6-4A37-950F-2558FC751DE8@gmail.com> <54C038D0.1000305@gmail.com> <54C0BD22.3000608@gmail.com> <54C13F47.1010203@gmail.com> X-Auth-ID: dpreed@reed.com Message-ID: <1422111577.328132080@apps.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: webmail/11.3.10-RC Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] =?utf-8?q?Recording_RF_management_info_=5Fand=5F_?= =?utf-8?q?associated_traffic=3F?= X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 15:00:09 -0000 ------=_20150124095937000000_59650 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0AOn Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:19pm, "Richard Smith" said:=0A =0A=0A> On 01/22/2015 04:18 AM, David Lang wrote:=0A> =0A> >> = Recently, we picked up the 11th floor as well and moved many people up=0A> = >> there. I got a 3rd AP (another TP-Link AC1750) and set that one up on=0A= > >> a free channel with a different ESSID.=0A> >=0A> > I like to put all t= he APs on the same ESSID so that people can roam=0A> > between them. This r= equires that the APs act as bridges to a dedicated=0A> > common network, no= t as routers.=0A> =0A> That's the ultimate plan but for convenience of bein= g able to easily=0A> select what AP I'm talking to or to be able to tell fo= lks to move from=0A> one to another I've got them on different ESSIDs. It a= lso helps me keep=0A> track of what RF channel things are on.=0A=0A=0AA sid= e comment, meant to discourage continuing to bridge rather than route.=0ATh= ere's no reason that the AP's cannot have different IP addresses, but a com= mon ESSID. Roaming between them would be like roaming among mesh subnets. = Assuming you are securing your APs' air interfaces using encryption over th= e air, you are already re-authenticating as you move from AP to AP. So usi= ng routing rather than bridging is a good idea for all the reasons that rou= ting rather than bridging is better for mesh.=0A ------=_20150124095937000000_59650 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, January 22,= 2015 1:19pm, "Richard Smith" <smithbone@gmail.com> said:

=0A

 

=0A
=0A

> On 01/22/2015 04:18 AM, David Lang wrote:
>
> &g= t;> Recently, we picked up the 11th floor as well and moved many people = up
> >> there. I got a 3rd AP (another TP-Link AC1750) and se= t that one up on
> >> a free channel with a different ESSID.<= br />> >
> > I like to put all the APs on the same ESSID s= o that people can roam
> > between them. This requires that the = APs act as bridges to a dedicated
> > common network, not as rou= ters.
>
> That's the ultimate plan but for convenience of = being able to easily
> select what AP I'm talking to or to be able = to tell folks to move from
> one to another I've got them on differ= ent ESSIDs. It also helps me keep
> track of what RF channel things= are on.

=0A

A side comment, meant to disco= urage continuing to bridge rather than route.

=0A

There= 's no reason that the AP's cannot have different IP addresses, but a common= ESSID.  Roaming between them would be like roaming among mesh subnets= . Assuming you are securing your APs' air interfaces using encryption over = the air, you are already re-authenticating as you move from AP to AP.  = ;So using routing rather than bridging is a good idea for all the reasons t= hat routing rather than bridging is better for mesh.

=0A