Im probably mucking our whole network up, but we are putting a mikrotik rb1200ahx2 at each site, each backhaul goes into its own port for routing and running OSPF, there is a /30 between each site for router to router and the ospf traffic, a /30 secondary on each interface for the local backhaul radio to communicate. I just finished isolating the big layer 2 into chunks and will push the routers out to each site as time permits, but from our primary center point there are 4 isolated layer 2 networks connecting into the mikrotik.
at the site, depending on the number of "LAN" side devices and number of backhauls, Im either creating a bridge on the mikrotik, or connecting to a site switch. this is saving us a ton of dough in switches, since these routers are so cheap, we pay less for them than one of the two switches at the sites We are turning up our first of the redundant paths tomorrow on the OSPF network, so learning how to toy with the metrics should be interesting. After all the work and hammering it turns out its pretty simple. With the OSPF people have yelled about distributing connected routes, its easier to do, but ive caused myself trouble a couple of times already so I see why people get so emotional about it On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Glen Waldrop <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm running Mikrotik, all routed, got a different subnet for each tower, > got a different subnet between each tower, public IP's routed to the > customers, all the fun stuff. > > I'm thinking of restructuring my network so the entire backbone is one big > L2 network. If I plug into the switch at the tower at tower 5 it will be no > different than tower 1 or 7. Each AP would still have it's own subnet, but > the backside of each AP would be on the same L2 as the rest. > > I'm planning on looping it all the way around and building redundancy into > the network, haven't quite decided how I'm going to do that yet, might use > STP, that is a little ways down the road. I'll have another fiber feed in > case the main goes down and I'd like to have a level of redundancy should a > tower go out, I'll only lose the one rather than the ones behind it as well. > > I've fried my brain today, so if I'm sounding half crazy, just tell me to > take the rest of the day off... > > I'm thinking it might be best to have a few large L2 segments to the > backbone, maybe three or four, rather than one big L2 and much simpler than > 12+ subnets from tower to tower. > > Input is appreciated. > -- 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.
