Re: USR2450 implimentation

Your setup is quite comlex, and I think cipe is not very suitable here
afterall,

better use ipsec to only protect your internet access, and leave the network
itself open.
that way you may not care about your ap security.

so you will need to install one into linux box and others on client
machines.
but win 98 may not support ipsec






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Serr" <[email protected]>
To: "Linux Access Point Development" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: [LinuxAP-dev] USR2450 implimentation


> I'm looking into cipe now.
>
> Is WDS possible with CIPE?  From what I understand CIPE will encrypt an
> IP connection...  I'm guessing that in a simple wireless bridging setup
> you would do this on wlan0.  But I'm wondering when you have a br0
> wrapped around eth0 and multiple wds'...  What to do?
>
> If I have:
>
> [Linux1] --- [AP1] === [AP2] === [WinXP1]
>                  ^ === [AP3] === [WinXP2]
>                            ^ --- [Win98]
>
> '"'---'"' is wired
> '"'==='"' is wireless
>
> Even if all APs where not in a WDS mess, which they currently are, what
> makes sense?
>
> Seems like CIPE from AP1 to AP2 and AP1 to AP3 in a simpler WDS config
> would work... But how would WinXP1 and WinXP2 talk CIPE without much
hastle?
>
> I'm open to any ideas...
>
> Thanks,
> -Scott
>
> Roy wrote:
>
> >As I found on inet, wep is quite useless anyway. it takes about
> 1-3 days to
> >hack in.
> >
> >you can use cipe which is supposed to be secure.  and is more or
> less
> >implemented in latest flash.
> >(it is same as ipsec)
> >
> >I use unsecure network, and performance is still bad,
> 16mhz(bogomips) cpu is
> >capable for 350kbytes/s
> >
> >if you set it to 32mhz it can transfer little more than
> 400kbytes/s but
> >requires heatsink on cpu.
> >
> >this is between same type aps (USR2450)
> >
> >USR2450 was capable to receive 500kbytes/s
> >and transmit 350kbytes/s tcp traffic for me.
> >
> >since it is not duplex it decreases speed about 30% or
> teoretical maximum
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: '"'Scott Serr'"' <[email protected]>
> >To: '"'Linux Access Point Development'"'
> <[email protected]>
> >Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:49 PM
> >Subject: [LinuxAP-dev] USR2450 implimentation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>[I was beginning to doubt the viability of my USR2450s,
> it
> >>seems you
> >>guys are still interested in advancing with them...]
> >>
> >>I am doing WDS and WEP on a 4 node (all USR2450) system.
> The
> >>performance is pretty bad.  I know that both of these
> kill
> >>performance...  Can someone tell me from experience what to
> expect from
> >>WEP vs non-WEP?  Speeds?  Also, what are some alternatives
> to WEP?
> >>IPSec?  But can the 2450 do that?
> >>
> >>I'm thinking that maybe I will have the users VPN into a
> server that is
> >>accessible through the ''"''public''"'' non-WEP
> wireless mesh-thing.  But it
> >>would be better if I didn't have to throw a full sized
> computer at the
> >>problem.  Also, the public wireless network could be abused
> or DOSed.
> >>
> >>Right now I have WDS on each of the 4 APs bridging to the
> other 3 APs.
> >>I might have some weird cascading going on.  But I thought
> WDS was
> >>supposed to find shortest routes for you?
> >>
> >>Any advice?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>-Scott
> >>
> >>PS- I have recently purchased a WRT54G to add to the mix or
> run beside.
> >>Maybe that can have enough RAM and CPU to do IPSec for the
> others?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>LinuxAP-dev mailing list
> >>[email protected]
> >>http://linuxAP.ksmith.com/mailman/listinfo/linuxap-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >LinuxAP-dev mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://linuxAP.ksmith.com/mailman/listinfo/linuxap-dev
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxAP-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://linuxAP.ksmith.com/mailman/listinfo/linuxap-dev
>