INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3
REPLYADDR tnp@invalid.invalid
REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP
MSGID:  203bdf62
REPLY:  793f14d2
PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
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.

However the ability under windows to make BOTH of them the default
route, led to the TCP/IP stack using them in round robin to send TCP/IP
packets.

Microsoft were complete assholes.

--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
SEEN-BY: 4/0 88/0 90/0 105/81 106/201 128/187 129/305 153/757 7715
SEEN-BY: 218/700 840 220/70 221/1 6 360 226/17 30 100 227/114 229/110
SEEN-BY: 229/111 114 200 206 300 317 400 426 428 470 550 616 664 700
SEEN-BY: 266/512 267/800 282/1038 291/111 292/854 301/1 310/31 320/219
SEEN-BY: 322/757 335/364 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848
SEEN-BY: 770/1 3 100 330 340 772/210 220 230 880/1 900/0 102 106 902/0
SEEN-BY: 902/19 26 930/1 5020/400 5075/35
PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 341/66 902/26 229/426