I think WDS just means ADDR4 is present (the missing 4th mac address that allows for true transparent bridging). There shouldn't be any performance difference whether WDS is on or off. That 4th mac added is an insignificant addition. In some cases it might even perform higher depending if the L2 NAT is hardware accelerated or not.
Repeating with a single, half-duplex radio using any method (with or without WDS) is going to cut the bandwidth in half because it needs to spend half the time receiving and half the time sending. Most of those plug-in off the shelf wireless repeaters for consumers are doing repeating without WDS and are halving the bandwidth for example. -Hal On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I have no idea why UBNT decided to label Layer2 mode as WDS mode. > It definitely creates a bit of confusion for people. There is actually no > WDS repeating taking place in this scenario. > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Jerry Richardson <je...@richardson.bz> > wrote: > >> WDS repeater mode cuts the throughput. >> >> >> >> In this case WDS is allowing the MAC address of the device behind it to >> pass through. >> >> >> >> >> https://community.ubnt.com/t5/Installation-Troubleshooting/What-do-WDS-Transparent-Bridge-Mode-on-both-end-AP-and-Station/td-p/618853 >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman >> *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 8:26 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] UBNT Station to Station performance >> >> >> >> Definitely not. >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Mar 9, 2015 11:23 AM, "Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> WDS definitely does not halve the bandwidth of the clients. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Vince West <vi...@shelbybb.com> wrote: >> >> Doing the separate links would be the best option. You have a little more >> control over the quality of each link as opposed to one link possibly >> bringing down the whole AP. >> >> >> >> I am not really sure WDS is going to help you much. WDS mostly provides >> L2 access, if you CPE is a bridged CPE. I am not sure you will see much >> benefit from WDS. I thought, and I could be wrong, that WDSing all the >> clients on one AP halves the bandwidth of the clients. I could be wrong. >> >> >> Vince West >> >> Tower Hand >> >> Technical Support >> >> Shelby Broadband >> >> 148 Citizens Blvd >> >> Simpsonville, KY 40067 >> >> Phone: 1-888-364-4232 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jerry Richardson <je...@richardson.bz> >> wrote: >> >> What is the distance and angle from the stations to the AP? Also, the >> pattern on the antenna is pretty wide, LOS is pretty important. If they are >> too low on the roofline they will not perform well >> >> Yes WDS makes a difference but not that much. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett >> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 7:21 AM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: [AFMUG] UBNT Station to Station performance >> >> I'm looking at a site where somebody has installed three UBNT M5 stations >> pointing at a UBNT M5 AP. Performance station to station is important for >> this customer, and it kind of sucks. >> >> I'm suggesting that we replace the whole thing with three separate point >> to point links, but in the short term will I get better performance from >> site to site if I change the stations into WDS APs? My feeling is >> "probably", but I wonder if someone who's already done this can tell me. >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- Harold Bledsoe
