Wireless Appletalk Router?

[crhyde]

Hi:

I submit that wireless routers only route IP and specifically do not route Appletalk.

Appletalk support in wireless routers amounts to proper bridging between the 802.3 port used exclusively for inside wired connectivity and the 802.11 port used exclusively for inside wireless connectivity. IP is routed between this virtual bridge group interface and the 802.3 interface used exclusively for outside wired connectivity such as DSL modem, CableTV modem, or public hospitality Ethernet.

Please show me if I am wrong.

Thanks. /criss

[scottmac]

Access Points are Layer One/Two devices: they don't care what higher-level protocols are operating above.

I say Layer one/two only because the radio portion behaves as a hub: shared bandwidth. Hubs are layer one devices ("wire emulation"). I mention layer two only because they are (with no exceptions I can think of) currently all Ethernet based devices on the wired side.

So, at best, you have a switch with a built-in hub bridged in for radio communication.

SO .. back to the original point: it's true that an AP will not "do" Appletalk ... but it will do EtherTalk (AppleTalk over Ethernet). As a layer two device, it doesn't / shouldn't care what the higher level protocols are contained in the Ethernet Frame.

There is no Layer Three / Routing in the AP. There is the provision to put an IP address on the device, but that is strictly for remote management purposes. It will still function properly without an IP address, mask, and default gateway.

That's my take on it. You decide.

FWIW

Scott

[dixho]

I agree that Cisco Aironet AP is strictly layer 2 device. I would like to add comment on IP, IPX, and Appletalk routing.

The Cisco Aironet AP basically modifies the IRB function in IOS. IRB in IOS supports IP, IPX, and Appletalk routing. (i.e. other Cisco routers) Cisco could have launched an AP product which supports IP, IPX, and Appletalk routing. I am not working with the marketing/engineering area. Thus, I do not know the exact reason why Cisco Aironet Product is the way it is. In fact, most consumer APs (i.e. Linksys, Netgear, Airlink, and etc) provide a so called IP routing. In fact, they just provide IP NAT (network address translation).

I know that I am getting too far. My point is that it is technical possible to implement Appletalk routing in Cisco Aironet Product. The problem is that the AP may need more CPU power and memory. On top of it, more resource is required to test Appletalk routing. The bottom line is that "Is there a market for the product?" As Appletalk is dying (I am not saying Apple is dying. Just Appletalk. I hope that I do not offend anyone), I doubt that there is a business case for Cisco to built such a product.

Please contact the Cisco local account team if you want this feature.