From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424C921F1FC for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 06:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD5E72002D; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 78BBC63B89; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:32:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A8663AED; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:32:01 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FQ=3FToke=5FH=3DC3=3DB8iland-J=3DC3=3DB8rgen?= =?us-ascii?Q?sen=3F=3D?= In-Reply-To: <87zjnxxk3u.fsf@toke.dk> References: <52AF797E.6030600@imap.cc> <18972.1387302855@sandelman.ca> <1387319157.48330794@apps.rackspace.com> <20131217154345.0e91b65f@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <1387379970.401720581@apps.rackspace.com> <18235.1387385681@sandelman.ca> <874n66yqcs.fsf@toke.dk> <4400ed3b15245d06d0bf73d22f7a7692@lang.hm> <27518.1387397235@sandelman.ca> <87zjnxxk3u.fsf@toke.dk> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy? 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: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:32:17 -0000 Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >> I believe that Linux allows having both tagged and untagged packets = on >> the samy physical interface, so the APs could communicate on a VLAN >> and one could be the gateway to the rest of the network (similar type >> of overhead in this case to GRE tunnels in that all traffic would get >> routed through one system, but I think it would still be less) > What happens to the VLAN tags if the traffic goes through a > non-VLAN-aware switch? A switch which is totally ignorant of VLAN will simply pass all traffic to all ports (modulo mac learning). This is distinguished from a VLAN aware switch that has it turned off (common for netgear equipment), which might intolerant. For many homes, the 3800 may be the only physical switch... a homenet router discovery protocol would also notice if 3800s were directly attached... The layer-2 VLAN idea fails if we have a routed homenet and there are a variety of devices invoved. That's why, I think that GRE over IP would win for most homes, and yet keep the wired multicast and wireless multicast separate. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh network= s [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect= [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails = [