I’ve read that you cannot configure an mAP lite to use ap bridge mode (on wlan_main/atheros ar9300) and have a virtual device running in station mode (i.e. client mode).
But that is what is running here now on my mAP lite.
First issue I see is the small bandwidth. Although the connection is reported by RouterOS as 110 MBit, a single client cannot get more than 8 MBit.
Second issue, I’m not sure it has really to do with the setup. I have to use NAT masquerade when I want to access the subnet 192.168.8.0/24 (the subnet of the main AP). Internet access does work without NAT, the mAP lite and the main AP have static routes to reach their respective subnets. Although I cannot access devices on 192.168.8.0/24 using TCP, I can ping all devices without NAT activated. Couldn’t find an explanation through forum and web search.
Despite that I’m curious why ap bridge and station mode run simultaneously .
Or is it just not good practice? Security issues?
You’re using one radio for two purposes at the same time, you can’t expect miracles. But I can’t really say if 8Mbit is too slow or not.
About the other problem, that will require sharing a little more info about your config. But if ping works, routing should be ok. Perhaps some firewall rules affecting only tcp…
Thanks for your thoughts.
So, is it “normal” to use one radio for two different purposes at the same time? I don’t complain about the speed, just wondering how mAP lite’s info is so far away from reality.
In regards to the routing problem, I thought about firewall problems but I had it deactivated completely on the mAP lite. The other device (see the other thread), a Fritz!Box 7430 can’t be configured in detail. Unfortunately, the manufacturer’s support was neither helpful nor polite. When connecting to the mainAP through cable, no NAT masquerading is required and all is working as expected. In addition I used a second mAP lite to test my routing config and there was all working fine. So, I think the problem lies in the internal routing of the mainAP through WLAN.
Anyhow, what config prints could help shed light on a possible misconfiguration I made in the mAP lite?
It’s not normal (disclaimer: that’s just an opinion, not a fact). Poor wireless has enough worries even when doing just one thing. It’s half-duplex by nature, prone to interference and all kind of problems with signals, … And you want it to do two things?
The routing problem, I checked the other thread, and isn’t your mAP lite a little strange? I mean, ether2, where did that come from? mAP lite has only one ethernet port. Did you mean wlan1? So it works when you connect to main router using ethernet and 192.168.88.x clients are on wireless, but it does not work the other way around? That sounds unlikely. Did I misunderstood something?
If you want to share your config, you can’t go wrong with “/export hide-sensitive”.
Thanks for getting back to me. You are right, mAP lite is not what I use. Sorry for misspelling. I’ve https://routerboard.com/RB941-2nD-TC, hAP lite.
Here are all(?) the relevant parts of my config, stripped of all disabled entries:
All firewall rules are disabled. If I disable the nat/masquerading-rule I cannot access clients in the 192.168.8.0/24 subnet despite the FritzBox router itself. Traceroute to the client tested shows
/tool traceroute address=192.168.8.100
# ADDRESS LOSS SENT LAST AVG BEST WORST STD-DEV STATUS
1 192.168.8.100 0% 7 4.1ms 4.9 2.2 13.1 3.5
so ICMP is working (nat does not touch that off course).
And hAp lite as WiFi-client is running better than expected.
Yes I’m sure. The Fritz!Box router does exactly have these two static routes. I contacted the Fritz!Box support but their answer was “your configuration fault, our devices work” (simplified). Due to the fact that I had successfully configured two hAP lite to use static routes two route the traffic between their different subnets, I was confident I could configure in the Fritz!Box.
Well, maybe I missed or misunderstood something. So the difference is between device connected using ethernet (works ok) and the same device connected using wireless (does not work ok), right? How exactly are your interfaces configured (bridged together, etc..)? Maybe post the whole config…
Hmm. Looking at everything again, if internet access works without NAT, then routes from Fritz!Box must be ok. Difference between internet and .8 network is that if devices in this subnet do not have specific route to .87 and .88 subnets, packets from them will first come to Fritz!Box and then “bounce back” to hAP. But if it works with ethernet, then it should also work with wifi. It’s still one subnet, so most likely it’s just a simple bridge on Fritz!Box and it shouldn’t make a difference where client is connected (except that you need to adjust gateway for static routes, because most likely hAP gets different address depending on how it connects). Another thing, you wrote that ping works also with wifi, right? So the problem is only with wifi and tcp. That’s really strange.
You mentioned another hAP. Can you use it to simulate exactly what Fritz!Box should be doing? Bridge ethernets and wifi together, add 192.168.88.1/24 on bridge, together with DHCP server. Then connect some device for testing, your first hAP as client, add static routes and see if everything works with both ethernet and wifi connection. I don’t have any better idea.
Thank you for taking the time and looking at the config. I really appreciate it!
I take it that there is no obvious configuration mistake in the hAP lite–which is good because, now, I plan to discard the Fritz!Box. It’s troubling me in more ways than already described, e.g. forgetting forwarded ports, assign the same IP to different devices, WiFi instability.
The second hAP lite is running on a different site now. Hence, I cannot simulate the configuration of the Fritz!Box as you suggested
I think I’m “stuck” here and will not find the origin of the problem. Luckily, it’s no major issue and the two hAP lite work great.
Final update on the matter.
I’m using a different router-modem now to handle the DSL connection. I set proper static routes for the MikroTik secured LAN. And I kept my MikroTik configuration but disabled the masquerading. As expected, all is working well now.
The Fritz!Box will be disposed
