ya I think that's a good point. Also, if you are taking sniffer traces, you should be able to map all the MAC addresses from the ping replies to actual physical hosts (since they are all in the same subnet, right?) , and determine if a MAC is replying for more than one IP address.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Andrew McNabb <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 02:13:34PM -0600, Michael Torrie wrote: > > On 05/18/2011 10:33 AM, Andrew McNabb wrote: > > >> WAP1 <--- Bridge1 <=== WAP2 <--- Bridge2 === Device > > >> \==device > > >> +==device > > > > > > I presume that the WAPs are configured as bridges, too, right? > > > > No, the WAPs are normal access points; the bridges connect as wireless > > clients, letting the wired devices attached to them be as if they were > > wireless devices themselves. I hope that makes sense. I should note > > that everything works great across the first bridge (IE all the devices > > on WAP2 are visible everywhere and have connectivity). Only the device > > (singular) attached to Bridge2 is having issues. > > If the WAPs aren't bridging, then they must be trying to route, right? > It seems to me that they would have to be pure bridges for the system to > work. > > -- > Andrew McNabb > http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/ > PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868 > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
