This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Wireless Interface Difference

Hey Folks,

I've recently invested in a few AP10's and although I'm very happy with the integration, I'm quite curious about the Wireless Interfaces (wlanX).

My hope was that I would be able to track all Wireless Traffic, such that wlan0 would be the Wireless Network and wlan1 would be the Wireless Guest Network. In this particular example, the Wireless Guest Network is separate and logs traffic and bandwidth usage accordingly. However, when utilizing the Bridge to AP feature, it does so seamlessly, without explicitly creating a wlanX interface, thus making it impossible to track bandwidth usage.

Normally I wouldn't have an issue with this, however, I really would like to track my Wireless traffic. In light of that, I suppose I have two questions.
[LIST=1]

Is this handled or enhanced in UTM 9, such that my concerns are moot.
If that isn't the case, what are my options with creating a Separate wlan and utilizing a Packet Filter rule to connect the Internal Network with the Wireless Network?

This thread was automatically locked due to age.

0 hschaa over 12 years ago

Bridge-to-LAN is a shortcut where traffic isn't passed to the ASG but directly put onto the wire by the AP. Hence, the ASG cannot completely monitor what's happening on Bridge-to-LAN interfaces. The interface still exists for implementation reasons but does not handle the APs traffic.

Helmut
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 DaMaN841 over 12 years ago

Thank you for the clarification. I suppose it would then be possible to separate the interfaces, however, that would put additional strain on the Gateway?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 BarryG over 12 years ago

Hi,
Additional strain could be mitigated by adding IPS and Traffic Classification exceptions, if needed.

Barry
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel