What's the difference between using pseudobridge and station wds on the client side?

I know pseudo doesn't pass actual mac address information but advantages does one have over the other?

could someone explain the difference between the two settings for a su in a ptmp environment.

I've heard using wds on the backhaul and pseudo on the pmtp is works well.

Thanks for the input.

psudo only allows one active mac address to be behind the client.

so if you have a CPE with a customers router or single PC behind it, it works great. If the customer plugs in a switch and tries to hook up two computers that try to get online, it won't work as expected for them, and only one device at a time can receive packets.

Additionally it has less overhead than WDS, and reconnects to the AP faster in the event of a disconnect (WDS has to connect once regular, probe the AP to determine if WDS is supported, then reconnect as a WDS connection), Plus the option of turning off default forwarding on the AP works (To accomplish the same when using WDS you have to get creative and use a bunch of bridge rules).

For a backhaul, you should really avoid using WDS (or psudobridge), you should be using regular station and bridge mode, with no other devices connected, and then routing the data across a /30 subnet, preferably using OSPF (and a redundant path available), but static routing can be used if necessary.

Thanks, that was a very helpful reply.

Lower overhead = less air time = better service, throughput etc.

Most people have routers these days and as long as they can't push something back up the network causing me head aches I'm willing to wait for the support call and recommend a router.

under what circumstance would you recommend wds?

under what circumstance would you recommend wds?

sorry for the delayed response...

I'd reccomend WDS only in the following circumstance:

You have an AP, and a small group (usually under 10) of potential customers in a small area, but only one customer can actually get a signal.

把CPE,配置它station-wds和康涅狄格州ect to the AP, then bridge wlan1 and ether1. Setup another small AP so the other potential customers are able to connect to the new "MicroCell", configure that as a normal AP with wlan1 bridged to ether1, and then connect ether1 to ether1 of the CPE (this could also be done with a single board with 2 radios, but they need to be on different bands otherwise they will interfere too much with each other)

Then configure the CPEs that connect to the MicroCell as station-psudobridge, and the WDS uplink will connect them all to the tower.

我在这一个理解why one is better than the other. I had 15-20 CPEs on different APs and used station-psuedobridge, but it doesn't seem like i will have control over bandwidth as easily. If I use WDS to bridge the CPE to their lan then I get a unique interface in RouterOS that I can separate, one for each customer. All of their MAC addresses come thru to that wds bridge and now I can tell what they have connected. I am hoping I can perform QoS on the wds bridge for each customer, but it doesn't seem like that is working.

You are better off doing your bandwith shaping via PPP (ex pppoe) than by interface or mac. It requires MUCH less managment / config on your part, and gives just as much control.

do you run pppoe with a 1500 byte mtu inside so it's transparent to the user? i thought about doing it this way. I don't really want any bridges in the network at all because its just more overhead. Do you run a pppoe server on each ap or tunnel everything?

Just for clarification as it appears I am about to setup a micro cell...

my ap is set to ap-bridge. clients as station wds. If I set a client to station pseudo it will connect back to my ap in its current setting and pass traffic. I don't have a bench scenario so I'm looking for some confirmation before I find a live client to test out. I know this is the reverse for a micro cell. I'm prepping for some network reconfiguration if I like the results.

(IE as I understand it with wds a client could put in a switch and pull multiple ips from my pool. I'd at least like to limit each customer to one ip. One less head ache it seems.)