"Reid Linnemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm bridging the devices so that the wired and wireless nets will appear
> to be on the same physical network to eachother.
Well, yes, that's what bridging means. Why do you want that? [Is it
a Microsoft thing?]
> I think I was really tired when I wrote my original email.. so let me
> rewrite my hypothesis:
>
> I am suspicious that, since the wireless interface on the BSD machine
> operates in AP mode, if a wireless client wants to send a packet to
> another wireless client, it must be first sent to the wireless interface
> of the BSD machine, which should theoretically redirect the packet to
> the appropriate host on the wireless net. In the wired network, a switch
> handles this case automagically on the datalink layer before any
> messages can hit the rl1 interface of the BSD router. I've looked at
> the bridge code, and it seems that unless a packet is multicast or
> broadcast it will be copied to the other bridged interfaces but not
> returned to the original caller. Since the packets being sent from one
> wireless client to another are not broadcast, I think that the bridge
> module may be dumping them into the black hole of the wired LAN, and
> they are not being processed and pumped back out through the ath
> interface. Is this a correct assumption? Are there ways I can overcome
> this problem?
On a quick look, I think you might be on the right track. The
bridging code seems in a number of spots to be built specifically for
Ethernet. I have always maintained that bridging unlike media was a
hack bound for problems...
You might have more success using dummynet for bridging rather than
trying to fix things in the protocol stack.
Good luck.
--
Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area
http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
