RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 What about layer 3 segmentation? You do not want to shoot broadcasts trough all your repaters. The problem is, using repeaters wil give you a hub-like environment. When using bridges full frames are stored and forwarded. Martijn - - -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Williamson, Paul Verzonden: woensdag 26 maart 2003 19:15 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270] Anyone know the maximum number of Wireless AP's you can chain of a single wireless bridge ie Switch ---copper---> AP ~~~air~~~> AP ~~~air~~~> AP Does cisco make an AP that supports this Thanks - - -Paul PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender immediately. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus infection, for which Nomura International plc accepts no responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Nomura International plc. This email is intended for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. Nomura International plc is regulated by the Financial Services Authority and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. Version: PGP 8.0 iQA/AwUBPvh+lHdq56XWk+VyEQLx/wCeLUTgVcjRlPouIme3QkH6hr2XANQAoPeT G+DzAbnjMoAjam8DNxM6VlKP =BLub - -END PGP SIGNATURE- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0 iQA/AwUBPvh+oXdq56XWk+VyEQIWigCgs/FTfryrjL/4f+I/rArOJBg0uN0An08m fLRgnpDia8HH7io5k5clhDzF =uWDp -END PGP SIGNATURE- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71258&t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 What about layer 3 segmentation? You do not want to shoot broadcasts trough all your repaters. The problem is, using repeaters wil give you a hub-like environment. When using bridges full frames are stored and forwarded. Martijn - -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Williamson, Paul Verzonden: woensdag 26 maart 2003 19:15 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270] Anyone know the maximum number of Wireless AP's you can chain of a single wireless bridge ie Switch ---copper---> AP ~~~air~~~> AP ~~~air~~~> AP Does cisco make an AP that supports this Thanks - -Paul PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender immediately. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus infection, for which Nomura International plc accepts no responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Nomura International plc. This email is intended for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. Nomura International plc is regulated by the Financial Services Authority and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. Version: PGP 8.0 iQA/AwUBPvh+lHdq56XWk+VyEQLx/wCeLUTgVcjRlPouIme3QkH6hr2XANQAoPeT G+DzAbnjMoAjam8DNxM6VlKP =BLub -END PGP SIGNATURE- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71257&t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
S! ALL! Here's my experience with trying to pass VLANS over Aeronet 350 bridges...this ties into this thread because we ran into issues when we tried to link bridges... glossary: trunk = "switchport mode trunk" with ALL VLANS allowed. 802.1q encapsulation. I run a single DS1 into an office park. There I have a 2620 terminating the DS1 and using FE subinterfaces trunked to a 2950. This 2950 then has a trunk to the root 350 Bridge. Then from there we link to other Bridges (currently 6 others in hub-spoke) in other buildings. Each building has a 350 bridge trunked to a 2950. Clients then have Cat5 run to thier office CPE, usually a firewall. Each client has thier own unique VLAN. There may be more than 1 client per building (in fact, the most populous building currently has 4 clients, and there are over 15 in all). Like so: DS1---2620--[trunk]--2950--[trunk]--ROOT 350Br350Br--[trunk]--2950--[VLAN x]--CPE So this is a hub and spoke with one "ring" around the hub. As long as we stay at this one "ring" level things are just fine. BUT if I do this: DS1---2620---2950---ROOT 350Br---350BR---350BR---2950---CPE A client signed on with us last summer in a building that had no line of sight to the root bridge's omidirectional antennae. So we tried to link them to the root by passing them through an existing bridge, thus creating a second "ring" tier. We tried it both using an existing bridge (that serviced a building through a 2950 etc) and a dedicated bridge we mounted just for this purpose. The result? SEGV whenever anything was plugged into the switch at "ring" level 2 (far end away from the root site). As soon as the interface in the client VLAN came up...POW...SEGV. The router would crash with a SEGV error. It would reboot and immediately crash again...and again...ad infinitum The output was run through Cisco's output interpreter...sent to TAC along with all configs...nada. Note that "VLAN1" was able to traverse the network just fine. I could console into the switch at ring-level 2 and go to any other switch in the office park. Once anything went across in an 802.1q tagged frame though, indeed as soon as an interface in the far switch NOT in VLAN1 came up, the router crashed. Notes of interest: 2620 was using 12.2.5d originally. I could get it to NOT crash if I went to 12.1.17 BUT no traffic would cross to the far switch AND the router and its local switch would not talk on VLAN 1. Unacceptable. All switches were VTP clients except the root, which is in server mode. All VLANS showed up on all switches including the far switch. I set the MTU to a low value, to no effect, thinking maybe the 802.1q tags (4 extra bytes) could be an issue. Nada. No VLAN capability was configured on the 350 bridges. The far 350 cannot communicate with the root 350 so it is not looping anything. All associations seemed proper, i.e. far-to-middle, middle-to-root. All "parent" listings seemed proper. Bridge "IOS" was everything from 11.23 up (we tried em all in matched sets, i.e. all 11.23 or all 12.0 etc). The only interfaces assigned to the VLAN in question were the FE subinterface on the 2620 and a single port on the far switch. No other switches had any ports in this VLAN (trunk ports excepted, of course). All links are at 60% level or greater and are supporting a full 11Mbps. A port on the "middle" switch was configured to be in the same VLAN as the client and it could NOT talk to the client. The middle bridge has an omnidirectional antennae, so the "one at a time" rule does not apply...or does it? Still, we did use a separate dedicated bridge as the middle of the chain to no avail. TAC swears that this should work because the 350 bridge is functionally a hub. GIGO rules apply. It is unaware, nor does it care about the VLAN tagging or anything else. It should just relay anything and everything. Anyone got any suggestions? I'm open :) Oh yeah...I "fixed" it by placing the far 350 at the other end of the building where it could get LOS to the root...once the leaves fell off the trees on the intervening ridge. Spring is coming though and with it, certain loss of LOS. Short of a "chainsaw-in-the-night" approach, it seems a DS1 to the client is my only answer. S! (Salute!) Brian Carroll CCNP, CCSE, MCSE, CCA Director of Professional Services Air Net Link LLC. ""Williamson, Paul"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Anyone know the maximum number of Wireless AP's you can chain of a single > wireless bridge > ie > > Switch ---copper---> AP ~~~air~~~> AP ~~~air~~~> AP > > Does cisco make an AP that supports this > Thanks > -Paul > > > PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential > and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended > recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute or take any > further action in reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the > sender immediately. Email is not a secure method of communication and > Nomura Internationa
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > > > You are not supposed to use more than 3 repeaters... > > > > Now here is a question. Why couldn't you use actual wireless > > bridge > > units? > > Then you would be limited by the rule that you shouldn't have more than 7 > bridges. Ok, that is my fault. In the haste of trying to get out the door I typed to fast and didn't chose my words carefully. I meant an actually wireless router and not a bridge sorry. See below for more info on those. > > But if you > > use the smarts of the box and use its routing capabilities > > Does it really do routing?? I'm not to sure about the Cisco wireless product line. But I know the Lucent Orinoco Outdoor Routers are actual routers. I have a set that was up between two offices and I had an ip block over the p2p link and then an IP block on the other office side of it. It was the gateway for the entire wired network over there. So yes there are wireless vendors that have routing abilities. I got to thinking about it and the TTL issue can be avoided by using a GRE or IPSec tunnel over the series of AP's so that the TTLs aren't decremented. :) > > have to have units with two cards and two antennas pointing in > > opposite directions to accomplish this. It's just like > > building a > > Microwave relay network > > Hmm. I don't know much about the PHY layer here. But that may be where the > issues are Good question. The only issue I can think of would be interferance from the other transmitter if they were in a straight line. So this can be avoided by simply placing them on the lowest power required and then by placing them far enough apart linearly that they can only see the signal from their partner down the line. Another thing that might help is to place the antennas at two different elevations on the tower. Or more easily just place a large sheet of copper between the two to absorb the signal and prevent it from reaching the other antenna from behind. And for those concerned about latency...What's the difference between that and using an INMARSAT terminal or any other satellite system for that matter? They have over .5sec delays in most cases. Granted some systems like DirecPC run a custom TCP/IP stack to minimize this, others like INMARSAT do not. Andrew --- http://www.andrewsworld.net/ ICQ: 2895251 Cisco Certified Network Associate "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself." Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66329&t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
Andrew Dorsett wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Dave wrote: > > > You are not supposed to use more than 3 repeaters... > > Now here is a question. Why couldn't you use actual wireless > bridge > units? Then you would be limited by the rule that you shouldn't have more than 7 bridges. > As long as you have addressing schemes and the TTL on > the packets > is high enough, TTL is a routing (Layer 3) issue. > you should be able to bounce it down the line > without > worrying about it. Repeaters are usually just dumb relays. > But if you > use the smarts of the box and use its routing capabilities Does it really do routing?? > couldn't you > build line-of-sight pathways that are infinitely long? Just > remember you > have to have units with two cards and two antennas pointing in > opposite directions to accomplish this. It's just like > building a > Microwave relay network Hmm. I don't know much about the PHY layer here. But that may be where the issues are Good question. Priscilla > > Andrew > --- > > http://www.andrewsworld.net/ > ICQ: 2895251 > Cisco Certified Network Associate > > "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough > to make all of them yourself." > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66295&t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Dave wrote: > You are not supposed to use more than 3 repeaters... Now here is a question. Why couldn't you use actual wireless bridge units? As long as you have addressing schemes and the TTL on the packets is high enough, you should be able to bounce it down the line without worrying about it. Repeaters are usually just dumb relays. But if you use the smarts of the box and use its routing capabilities couldn't you build line-of-sight pathways that are infinitely long? Just remember you have to have units with two cards and two antennas pointing in opposite directions to accomplish this. It's just like building a Microwave relay network Andrew --- http://www.andrewsworld.net/ ICQ: 2895251 Cisco Certified Network Associate "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself." Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66282&t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270]
You are not supposed to use more than 3 repeaters... d- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Williamson, Paul Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wireless AP Chaining [7:66270] Anyone know the maximum number of Wireless AP's you can chain of a single wireless bridge ie Switch ---copper---> AP ~~~air~~~> AP ~~~air~~~> AP Does cisco make an AP that supports this Thanks -Paul PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient of this email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender immediately. Email is not a secure method of communication and Nomura International plc cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus infection, for which Nomura International plc accepts no responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Nomura International plc. This email is intended for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation or offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. Nomura International plc is regulated by the Financial Services Authority and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66276&t=66270 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
