[isf-wifidog] Re: [isf-vol] Overlapping signals

[Gabe Sawhney]

I'd be curious to know how other groups using wifidog are approaching
this.  Because the network setup at our venues varies so widely
(highly-secured and complex networks to
dsl-modem-next-to-the-deep-fryer), we've been pretty ad-hoc about how
to bridge routers.  What's consistent is that only the "gateway"
router has wifidog on it, and that the other routers are set up as
bridges with the same ssid and subnet, so that users can roam between
them.  (We haven't tested this extensively, but it seems to work
mostly ok.)  We've identified part of our role as a group is
simplification of technology, and so I don't want to have to try to
explain IP network topography to venue owners or network users -- I'd
rather that it "just work".

We haven't been in a situation yet where it's been important to track
stats uniquely between two bridged routers -- ideally, we never will.
Perhaps this is stepping into the realm of oversimplification, but in
that kind of situation (seperate routers covering indoors and
outdoors), I'd rather just say that the wifi signal will just "go
where it goes".

That we tend towards this approach could easily be 'cause we're a lot
less tech-savvy than you guys in Montreal.  <smile>

I don't have any real complaints about how we do monitoring now -- the
wifidog monitor effectively tells us if the hotspot/venue is down as a
whole, and the openvpn monitor gives us info at the level of
individual routers.

Gabe


On 7/12/06, Benoit Gregoire <bock at step.polymtl.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 July 2006 13:05, Gabe Sawhney wrote:
> > That's a good point, but it seems awkward for a monitoring system to
> > interfere with people's ability to use the network...
>
> Agreed, but the basic problem is having to bridge to routers in the first
> place.  The reason we didn't spend time fixing wifidog to have a monitor-only
> mode is that we don't only loose monitoring by bridging the routers, we also
> lose separate statistics and content for that node.  Not important (and even
> preferable) when covering floors of a restaurant.  However it's very
> important when it's an outdoor antenna leaking into the establishment that
> hosts it.
>
>