>      Can anyone tell me if I can create a wireless bridge between
> different subnets?
>
>      For example, wireless bridge number1 is on the 192.168.1.0 network,
> whereas wireless bridge number 2 is on the 192.168.5.0 network. Can I
> create a wireless bridge between 192.168.1.0 and 192.168.5.0 or do I have
> to use the same subnet?
>
>      Thanks in advance.
>      Todd
>
>
>

>      Can anyone tell me if I can create a wireless bridge between
> different subnets?
>
>      For example, wireless bridge number1 is on the 192.168.1.0 network,
> whereas wireless bridge number 2 is on the 192.168.5.0 network. Can I
> create a wireless bridge between 192.168.1.0 and 192.168.5.0 or do I have
> to use the same subnet?
>
>      Thanks in advance.
>      Todd
>
>
>

"Jeff Liebermann" <je***@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:ebnn215073ug0v5635u3t4oj09mp4ev4d4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 20:18:24 -0700, "Todd Logan" <todd.lo***@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>      Can anyone tell me if I can create a wireless bridge between
>> different
>>subnets?
>
> Hint:  A bridge works on ISO layer 2 or the MAC address layer.  It
> knows NOTHING about IP addresses, which are on layer 3.
>
>>      For example, wireless bridge number1 is on the 192.168.1.0 network,
>>whereas wireless bridge number 2 is on the 192.168.5.0 network. Can I
>>create
>>a wireless bridge between 192.168.1.0 and 192.168.5.0 or do I have to use
>>the same subnet?
>
> You can create the bridge but nothing will pass.  A network on:
>  192.168.1.0/24
> will not pass traffic to a network on:
>  192.168.5.0/24
> without an IP router (on layer 3).  With just a bridge, the only
> packets that will pass are broadcasts.
>
> Routers are used to glue together two different IP networks.  In this
> case, it's done by setting up a static route through a gateway.
>
> A really crude way to connect these two networks is to just enlarge
> the netmask to /16.  Just change it from 255.255.255.0 to 255.255.0.0
> and packets will pass in both directions.  Traffic across the bridge
> will be limited to only those with destination MAC addresses that are
> across the bridge.  Not the best of traffic control, but tolerable.
>
> Someone suggested a transparent bridge.  That will work with the /16
> enlarged netmask.   Note that you also have to increase the netmask on
> the client computahs to 255.255.0.0 or the clients will not "see" the
> machines on the other side of the network.  Broadcast packets will go
> everywhere and across the bridge.
>
> I can think of several ways to connect these networks.  One is a
> router at the remote office with a static route to the remote office
> network IP block pointing to remote office router IP address
> (gateway).  Another is to use a VPN which will assign additional IP
> addresses delivered from remote systems, to a local machine.  Yech.
>
> However, I don't see why you don't simply renumber the network so that
> all the machine fit in a single /24 IP block.  If these networks are
> going to be connected permanently, you might was well make life easy
> and share the same /24 IP block.  Now, if the remote office were
> connected via the internet instead of via a transparent bridge, then a
> router would certainly be necessary due to the limitations of a single
> IP addresss.  However, with a transparent wireless bridge, that can
> pass multiple MAC addresses simultaneously, there's no benifit to
> using a router.
>
> Incidentally, watch out for transparent bridges with a limited number
> of MAC addresses that may be bridged.  The current products are 256
> MAC addresses and up.  However, some of the older devices will only do
> as few as 32.  That's total MAC addresses for both ends including the
> wireless bridge MAC addresses.
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann    je***@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D   http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060    AE6KS  831-336-2558

>