On 2015-01-02 18:45, Hans Vlems wrote: What exactly do you mean by "it scales better" ? Less bandwidth load on the Internet line, in my case 12 Mb/s ADSL. Or less load on th local decent hosts? The first would persuade me, easily. The first indeed. The way the bridge works is that every machine on any network connected to a bridge appears as if they are on the same ethernet segment. This means that any broadcast packet from any machine is sent to all bridges. And every router at regular intervals sends broadcast packets. As do any LAT enabled host. The bridge program tries to be smart and not send packets destined for a known host to bridges not involved in the direct path, but also all unknown destinations are sent everywhere. And there are protocol effects of having many routers on the same segment as well. The Cisco tunnel on the other hand means you actually have two routers talking to each other over the internet, so only the specific messages between these two routers actually is the traffic. The only other traffic passing the link is actual traffic that needs to pass over the link. Johnny Hans Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone. *Van: *Tim Sneddon *Verzonden: *vrijdag 2 januari 2015 18:40 *Aan: *hecnet at update.uu.se *Beantwoorden: *hecnet at Update.UU.SE *Onderwerp: *Re: [HECnet] Hecnet Peering On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote: On 2015-01-02 18:28, Hans Vlems wrote: Is there an advantage if you use a tunnel in stead of Johnny's bridge program which I use? It scales better and use less network bandwidth, if that is a concern. But it won't pass through LAT or MOP. Pick your poison. :-) It does scale better. However, it is possible to bridge LAT and/or MOP over the link also. Regards, Tim. -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol