We don’t have that exact scenario, but you could monitor or throttle through a router (Mikrotik) or use the SM QOS to help mitigate that (somewhat)
-----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson via Af Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:14 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SM Isolation question The other issue is p2p traffic between two people on the same AP.... and if you are doing bandwidth shaping in your router, even at the tower, you will never see these packets. Or in the case the original poster asked about, that customer could keep a high-def window open of all their video cameras at the other location, using 3-4Mbps of constant traffic, and you would never see it. Travis On 10/15/2014 1:48 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: > When you forward SM-to-SM traffic upstream, there's nothing the router > can do about it. Put the two locations on different IP subnets so that > traffic between the two has to be routed. Or turn off SM isolation. > > I leave SM isolation off because I'm not that paranoid. The biggest > risk is broadcast/multicast crap flying around. So use the SM uplink > broadcast/multicast rate limiting. This is one of the best features of > Canopy, IMO. > > On 10/15/2014 2:23 PM, Christopher Tyler via Af wrote: >> We have a customer that has two SM's on the same AP at separate >> physical locations (home and office). The have a DVR at each location >> that they want to view. Everything is configured properly on their >> end to view the DVR's on port 80 through their routers. Problem is >> that we have SM isolation turned on with option 2 to forward packets >> upstream and they want to see the home when at the office and the >> office when at home. >> >> So I set up a mangle rule in my Mikortik to mark the packets with a >> routing mark based on the SRC and DST addresses, and then used a >> static route for anything what that mark and send it back to the AP >> port. It doesn't work, what am I doing wrong, any suggestions short >> of disabling SM isolation? >> >> > >
