From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [IPv6:2a01:4f8:200:3141::101]) (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 ED5D121F13F for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 01:30:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com Sender: toke@toke.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1387445439; bh=LPElFD/7V6RHQC//HsVJZoipYTDzGTgKUwd+PHWZQ9w=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Y21+8shFuh31bhrRiWVOVc0YLEVtKzV7B0dw47d2vdBut/d3yzaZl5xsUWQ5YuVi3 SZa6Xy2v7p4gqOVv9Y81GTzbnhZDXNOXne9KgoXMTusr9m8wWFz7RwQYmzgg9XMyIm ztz0I2SETg3ugrthl+K0FMeHZH+0JXCcMfP85HH8= Received: by alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B2E4111C28; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:31:35 +0000 (GMT) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: David Lang 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> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:31:33 +0000 In-Reply-To: (David Lang's message of "Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:14:43 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: <87zjnxxk3u.fsf@toke.dk> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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 09:30:48 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain David Lang writes: > 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? Also, presumably you would need one VLAN/tunnel for each wireless network (so four in the default cerowrt setup)? -Toke --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSsrz1AAoJEENeEGz1+utPvnMIAKi89QmJ2l9REhf1tj1L9jD9 bpxP/rrr1YA2/iT1cYskUEnYn7g/qKtbEzvEno7oApuuFwUj4OY88rq2C7drb7e7 YNsJW5rkpQGYyEe09kEa9YMWanWSQjw2ZeqQITgcTxStaTX7301wIkJg9aLHhj62 sUshzRdMiNhTLEXBVLGYUUDjI1+5OXVhSp6CmSxDKsmuJ89FEOyRiWCdiLExXdCQ 3cw+cE7iPyuOccsvu8D2Gll1r62tjPfCHFmrpfVAI4I3wStfLpzTYcAlSBV62zjj ebgnjb0ZwCWlV7Ponrw6bOLaY8aRSj18oOpx9G0d8+no+nUz3p6RZM/tTBOqYFk= =JCFm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--