Connectivity Issues with Linksys 802.11 USB Adapter

[new_guy]

Hi guys,

I have a Linksys WUSB11 v2.8 802.11 USB wireless adapter on a fresh OpenBSD 4.2 install. It is recognized as an atu0 device. Internally it works great. I can ping all of the IPs inside the gateway (and ping the gateway) and browse to internal web sites, etc. Externally, I have no connectivity on atu0, but I can get outside on my wired (fxp0) interface. Here's the relevant portion of my ifconfig with the wired (fxp0) interface down:


fxp0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        lladdr 00:50:8b:67:04:60
        groups: egress
        media: Ethernet autoselect (none)
        status: no carrier
        inet 192.168.0.254 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
        inet6 fe80::250:8bff:fe67:460%fxp0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1

atu0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        lladdr 00:0c:41:56:f4:30
        groups: wlan egress
        media: IEEE802.11 autoselect (DS1 mode 11b)
        status: active
        ieee80211: nwid NETGEAR chan 11 bssid 00:0f:b5:c5:31:7e 87%
        inet 192.168.0.127 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
        inet6 fe80::20c:41ff:fe56:f430%atu0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4

I've tried adding atu0 to the 'egress' group, but still no go. Any ideas?

Thanks,
Brad

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2007/11/13 20:33, new_guy wrote:
> fxp0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> inet 192.168.0.254 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
>
> atu0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> inet 192.168.0.127 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255

These are in the same subnet, this won't work. You might like
to look at trunk(4).

> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Connectivity-Issues-with-Linksys-802.11-USB-Adapter-tf4802127.html#a13739799

Wow, a nabble post with sufficient information to spot the
problem, that is somewhat unusual :-)

[Girish Venkatachalam-2]

On 10:01:31 Nov 14, Stuart Henderson wrote:
 
> These are in the same subnet, this won't work. You might like
> to look at trunk(4).
>

Can't you bridge them or create separate subnets and route them?

Is trunking the purpose here?

Just wondering....

regards,
Girish

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2007/11/14 16:44, Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
> > These are in the same subnet, this won't work. You might like
> > to look at trunk(4).
>
> Can't you bridge them or create separate subnets and route them?
>
> Is trunking the purpose here?

failover trunks are quite good for this situation (depending on how
long your switch takes to notice the move). Separate subnets are another
option but means doing more (and losing active connections) when you
change between wired and wireless.

You might use bridge(4) for an access point but that's somewhat
unlikely with atu(4). :-)


> Just wondering....
>
> regards,
> Girish

[new_guy]

Girish Venkatachalam-2 wrote:

Can't you bridge them or create separate subnets and route them?

Is trunking the purpose here?

Just wondering....

It was just an experiment. I was trying to do some funky routing through the wireless interface. I'll play with it some more. Thanks to all for the tips!

Brad

[Girish Venkatachalam-2]

On 11:37:48 Nov 14, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> failover trunks are quite good for this situation (depending on how
> long your switch takes to notice the move). Separate subnets are another
> option but means doing more (and losing active connections) when you
> change between wired and wireless.
>
> You might use bridge(4) for an access point but that's somewhat
> unlikely with atu(4). :-)

Thanks Stuart.

regards,
Girish