Can the Ethernet ports be split on N5M & N2M ?

[JustJoe]

OK, I have been wanting to replace the other brands of general purpose AP routers we sell to our ISP & WISP customers with UBNTs. These are used as APs for their local wireless networks, in the office or in the home.

Alas, we have seen the AP1000 mentioned, but it looks like another no-show. :(

The feature all other UBNT radios are missing is 2 separate wired Ethernet interfaces, one on the "WAN" side and one on the "LAN" side.

I know there are some PPPoE haters out there. But we use it, like it, and I especially liked the features PPPoE has in V3 radios. I know V5 PPPoE had a few problems, but I think many have been worked out.

So in AP-Router mode, the Ethernet interface becomes the "WAN" side and it is possible to put that in PPPoE mode. That means the wireless interface acting as the AP becomes the "LAN" side.

What we are missing is a second Ethernet interface, this time on the LAN side and bridged to the wireless interface.

What got me thinking is that when I did an SNMPwalk of a N5M, it actually shows 2 separate interfaces, eth0_real and eth1_real ! (the similar case of a PS2 with 2 Eth ports shows only one interface, meaning they are probably just bridged in the hardware.)

So UBNT programmers, wouldn't that mean that the hardware is such that you can actually have an option to reassign the Ethernet interfaces to opposite sides of the "router" ??????

[Zehd]

They really are two separate interfaces bridged in software. It IS possible to bridge them like you suggest by creating a custom rc.poststart file, using the brctl program and some reconfiguring. You'll also need to run a second cat5 wire from the radio for the second port.

Some people are instead using vlan tagging to accomplish the same tasks (but requires a managed vlan-capable switch hooked up to the radio)--which can use just the one cable going to the radio instead of two.

[Dave-D]

Zehd, are you saying that someone could
open up a radio and find the connections
to support a second Ethernet port? Dave

[JustJoe]

Zehd, are you saying that someone could
open up a radio and find the connections
to support a second Ethernet port? Dave

No, my fault that I was not clear on one thing.

What I am suggesting is that only the new NanoStationM2 & M5 *already* have 2 Ethernet interfaces available on standard external jacks. What I want is the ability in the GUI to assign one to the LAN side and the other to the WAN side of the "router".

[Dave-D]

I see what Zehd is saying about 'running a
CAT5 cable' to the existing port. This is kinda
interesting; Zehd are you certain these two
ports are actually hubbed only in firmware?

A separately routed Ethernet port could be
very useful. Dave

[JustJoe]

They really are two separate interfaces bridged in software. It IS possible to bridge them like you suggest by creating a custom rc.poststart file, using the brctl program and some reconfiguring. You'll also need to run a second cat5 wire from the radio for the second port.

Some people are instead using vlan tagging to accomplish the same tasks (but requires a managed vlan-capable switch hooked up to the radio)--which can use just the one cable going to the radio instead of two.

Thanks Zehd, that is what I suspected. :)

For our application, I prefer using 2 separate jacks, because it provides a better degree of physical isolation between individual tenants in a building. It is the old model of each tenant's LAN and their equipment isolated by the NanoMx from the building infrastructure WAN which is shared by everyone and controlled by a managed switch. I feel separate cables are desirable in this case.

[JustJoe]

I see what Zehd is saying about 'running a
CAT5 cable' to the existing port. This is kinda
interesting; Zehd are you certain these two
ports are actually hubbed only in firmware?

A separately routed Ethernet port could be
very useful. Dave

My basis for thinking that was the fact that SNMP was even taking the trouble to create separate stats for each interface. ;)

[Zehd]

While I don't know the full implementation details, I can say that the Linux kernel sees them as two separate ethernet ports--they even have different IRQ lines (eth0_real is irq4, eth1_real is irq5). The AirOS firmware (currently) always bridges them together in software using brctl as device br0.

The second ethernet port in the NS5 is eth1_real. It's MAC address is even different (the first two digits change from 00 to 02). There's no reason why you couldn't configure the box to remove eth1_real from br0 and assign it to a new software bridge and bridge that to ath0 (the wireless port). You'd have to move the IP assignment from ath0 to the new bridge device, fix the routing table, and possibly fix the NAT rules... but it's do-able.

[JustJoe]

While I don't know the full implementation details, I can say that the Linux kernel sees them as two separate ethernet ports--they even have different IRQ lines (eth0_real is irq4, eth1_real is irq5). The AirOS firmware (currently) always bridges them together in software using brctl as device br0.

The second ethernet port in the NS5 is eth1_real. It's MAC address is even different (the first two digits change from 00 to 02). There's no reason why you couldn't configure the box to remove eth1_real from br0 and assign it to a new software bridge and bridge that to ath0 (the wireless port). You'd have to move the IP assignment from ath0 to the new bridge device, fix the routing table, and possibly fix the NAT rules... but it's do-able.

Wow, thanks Zehd, that pretty much says it all! :)

First, makes me think I should put this under the suggestion thread. :)

Second, makes me think UBNT could take the exact circuit board of the N2M & N5M and package it in an indoor enclosure with a pair of rubber duck antennas and sell it as a general purpose 802.11n AP/Station. :)