Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.sys.raspberry-pi Subject: Re: Dual wifi connections in Bookworm Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 16:28:51 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:28:51 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="da8bb458e25559027b5b1e6625ec8922"; logging-data="95439"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18AbJ/w1AJUoG7LuaNzT/AZNnE7TUKVngI=" User-Agent: tin/2.6.2-20221225 ("Pittyvaich") (FreeBSD/14.1-RELEASE-p5 (arm64)) Cancel-Lock: sha1:yv3Dolk8b83KCgTeWVYRfexAymk= Bytes: 2224 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/11/2024 10:50, Michael Schwingen wrote: >> On 2024-11-25, druck wrote: >>> If both interfaces are talking to the same Access point on the same >>> frequency, it's going to be worse as WiFi can only talk to one thing at >>> a time, and the two interfaces will compete for bandwidth. >> >> It's not different from having two completely separate clients connected to >> the same AP. Unless the channel is fully saturated, the available bandwith >> will be shared between the clients. >> >> cu >> Michael > > It reminds me of a really strange situation we encountered in the early > days of NT and TCP/IP > > The customer complained of 50% packet loss. > > EXACTLY 50% packet loss. > > It turned out their NT server was bridging tow networks and had two > Ethernet cards. And two different IP addresses. > Nothing wrong with that. > Hmm, that's a close parallel to my situation. Each wifi interface has its own IP address. However, I'm losing much more than half my traffic, and not repeatably. Sometimes almost none is lost, other times everything, seemingly but not predictably depending on load. Thanks for writing, bob prohaska