On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Jochen Hebbrecht <jochenhebbrecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nicolas de Pesloüan schreef: >> bridge-hw and bridge_hw is exactly the same. (No difference between >> underscore and dash). Both will set a variable $IF_BRIDGE_HW, to be >> used by the scripts in /etc/network/if-*.d/*. >> >> From interfaces(5) : "Additionally, all options given in an interface >> definition stanza are exported to the environment in upper case with >> "IF_" prepended and with hyphens converted to underscores and >> non-alphanumeric characters discarded." > Ah, ok, thnx! >> >> This is unfortunately what I expected. >> >> Now, you can have a last try with your current bridge configuration, >> by upgrading the firmware of your router, ensuring WDS is enabled in >> the router, and hope that the driver of your wifi adapter support >> WDS... By the way, what is the type of your wifi adapter ? > I had a "chat" with somebody of the support site of Linksys. The WRT54GS > enables WDS. So we can say this is my problem. My wifi adapter is a WMP54G >> >> If that fail, I think we have two options : >> >> - Try to setup a very special bridge configuration, with some sort of >> masquerading of the MAC address. This would require at least to use >> ebtables to replace the source MAC address in the header (and in the >> payload for ARP) of packets sent on the wifi interface, to route >> packets in the server, to stop the server from sending ICMP redirect >> in the wifi interface and to setup a proxy_dhcp on the server. It >> would be hard to setup, hard to debug and impossible to maintain... >> Probably not a good idea... Funny to try, but not a good target. > This really sounds like Chinese in my ears :-D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_ARP http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter/2007-May/068615.html >> >> - Setup a simple router configuration on the server, using another >> private subnet on location B. Using a simple NAT/Masquerading >> configuration (with iptables), it could be possible to hide the subnet >> of location B from location A, but still allow access to the printer >> of location B from location A and access to location A and to Internet >> from location B. If you don't have a really good reason to stick to >> bridge (like using a non-IP protocol), I suggest you try this. > I was thinking on this situation too. But how will be somebody in subnet > A able to reach someone of subnet B? We are gonna have to change the > routing tables on the client side too? > > Jochen > _______________________________________________ > Bridge mailing list > Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge > _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
