<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br></div><div>On Jan 24, 2015, at 9:59 AM, <a href="mailto:dpreed@reed.com">dpreed@reed.com</a> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><font face="tahoma" size="2"><p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: tahoma; font-size: 10pt; word-wrap: break-word;">On Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:19pm, "Richard Smith" <<a href="mailto:smithbone@gmail.com">smithbone@gmail.com</a>> said:</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: tahoma; font-size: 10pt; word-wrap: break-word;"> </p>
<div id="SafeStyles1422110978">
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: tahoma; font-size: 10pt; word-wrap: break-word;">> On 01/22/2015 04:18 AM, David Lang wrote:<br>> <br>> >> Recently, we picked up the 11th floor as well and moved many people up<br>> >> there. I got a 3rd AP (another TP-Link AC1750) and set that one up on<br>> >> a free channel with a different ESSID.<br>> ><br>> > I like to put all the APs on the same ESSID so that people can roam<br>> > between them. This requires that the APs act as bridges to a dedicated<br>> > common network, not as routers.<br>> <br>> That's the ultimate plan but for convenience of being able to easily<br>> select what AP I'm talking to or to be able to tell folks to move from<br>> one to another I've got them on different ESSIDs. It also helps me keep<br>> track of what RF channel things are on.<br><br></p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: tahoma; font-size: 10pt; word-wrap: break-word;">A side comment, meant to discourage continuing to bridge rather than route.</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: tahoma; font-size: 10pt; word-wrap: break-word;">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 that routing rather than bridging is better for mesh.</p>
<p style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family: tahoma; font-size: 10pt; word-wrap: break-word;"><br></p></div></font></blockquote><br><div>Have the MDNS problems been addressed? The last time I had a go with CeroWRT (about 6 months ago) the problems were too severe for me to keep using it. I had to fall back to a bridged setup for my primarily Mac environment. </div><div><br></div><div>I'm a long-time Linux user-space developer but am a complete newbie when it comes to developing for CeroWRT. If someone can point me at the right spot to start working on the MDNS issues then I'll see if I can do anything to help. </div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div> Kelvin</div><div><br></div></body></html>