Ever thought of enabling port isolation per AP switch port to prevent bridge table excess sizes? I can see it growing crazy with sites with many APs and wondering if that’s some of our CPU/memory issues on older Rocket M5s.
> On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Brett A Mansfield <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I use OSPF on my network. I send a /25 to each tower which I then break up > into /27 per AP. I then give static IPs to each customer and only run DHCP > for management networks. > > I used use a /24 that was open to each tower, but the bridge table almost > completely consumed the RAM in the CPEs causing very slow speed issues. > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > > On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Sterling Jacobson <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> OSPF works if you have a truly geographically diverse ring redundancy path. >> >> Barring that it does little for the situation. >> >> I prefer nearness in redundancy which multiple providers, which lends itself >> to /24 or larger public IP space and BGP type protocol. >> >> >> >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On >> Behalf Of Josh Reynolds >> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:31 PM >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers >> >> OSPF >> >> On April 16, 2015 1:46:50 PM AKDT, Sterling Jacobson <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Which isn’t really good for redundancy on fixed IP assignments (whether they >> be DHCP or PPPoE) because a break in the traffic near the site would require >> a redundant connection near the site to carry the minimal /24 or larger >> public block. >> >> >> Or you resort to temporary NAT, or re-assignment. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On >> Behalf Of Mathew Howard >> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:28 AM >> To: af >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers >> >> >> Terminating PPPoE at the tower doesn't really give you much advantage over >> DHCP as far as using limited IP space more efficiently though, you're still >> going to have to assign a subnet to each tower, more or less the same as you >> would with DHCP. if the goal is to use limited IP space more efficiently, >> you really need to centralize PPPoE so you can use the same IP pool for >> everything. >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Just enable the PPPoE server on the routers already at your towers. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> From: "Eric Muehleisen" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:06:36 AM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers >> >> PPPoE auth is broadcast. This will require a L2 path back to you PPPoE >> server (BRAS). This is a deal breaker for many. Overhead is minimal. There >> will be a some broadcast chatter on your L2 subnet. This can be filtered a >> number of ways and usually not a concern. >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:05 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> pppoe has been discussed quite often as a solution for limited IP space. >> Could someone give a breakdown of the required components from the edge of >> the network to the customer and the required topology? >> My understanding, which is probably wrong, is a client on the network >> connects, the device gets an IP, normally DHCP that can communicate all the >> way back to the pppoe server (what exactly is this) >> The credentials are provided and a pppoe session is established, all traffic >> flows through the pppoe tunnel and exits at the edge of the network >> the tunnel is essentially a vpn tunnel? there are overheads that need to be >> accounted for? >> Where is the public IP actually at? is it assigned as essentially a /32 at >> the customer end of the tunnel? >> >> >> How does the client device know where the pppoe server is, is this provided >> in the DHCP response? >> >> >> I know my understanding of this is probably totally way off, but I would >> love to know more, accurately >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Which is why we played with it. In the end, it seemed that the amount of >> support hassles with pppoe wasn't worth the hassle. But, this was a while >> ago and pppoe has grown up a lot, so my opinion is probably not valid >> anymore. >> >> On Apr 15, 2015 5:27 AM, "Mike Hammett" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> There are reasons to have PPPoE other than IP address assignment. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> To: "af" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:02:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers >> >> >> >> (WISP HAT ON) >> >> We have a subnet (or a couple of subnets, as sites have grown) at each >> tower, and an public IP statically assigned to each customer. The radio >> gets a managment address out of 172.[16-31].x.x which corresponds to the >> public IP address. >> >> No DHCP anywhere, no PPPoE. >> >> But again, we have an /18 and a /19 assigned to us from back before NAT >> really existed and DHCP implementations from the early '90's kinda sucked. >> We've played with PPPoE and DHCP, but kinda have been spoiled by the >> simplicity and reliability of a statically numbered network. >> >> -forrest >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> For those of you currently providing public/routed ips to customers? What is >> your topology like and delivery method? >> >> Looking at doing a few things, have considered a few options, and wanted to >> look out there and see what other people are doing. >> >> Thanks >> >> -- >> Josh Reynolds >> CIO, SPITwSPOTS >> www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com/> >> >> >> >> -- >> Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. >> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | http://www.packetflux.com >> <http://www.packetflux.com/> >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> >> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as >> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
