The main advantage is that with appropriate ACLs on all customer facing interfaces, and the radios' management IPs in RFC1918 space, there's very little possibility that somebody could even get to the https login/password page of a ubnt radio, or the ssh/telnet interface of other licensed band type radios.
If you put the radios in public IP space in a /29 along with the OSPF you're risking exposing their admin interfaces to the world at large. On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > I do it the same as you, but what he's saying makes sense just fine to > me... probably the hangover :P > > I don't see that there's really any big advantage to doing it one way or > the other, but it seems a bit simpler to me to not have to deal with vlans. > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Maybe it's the hangover I have from the wedding I was at yesterday, but >> what you're saying doesn't make any sense. This is what I do: >> >> 10.1.255.0/29 >> .1 Router A >> .2 Radio A >> .5 Radio B >> .6 Router B >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" <[email protected]> >> *To: *[email protected] >> *Sent: *Saturday, September 26, 2015 6:17:44 PM >> >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] ospf issues with pbe-5ac-500 not passing >> >> umm, no? Even with radios that have only one cable like the powerbeam, >> use a /30 for OSPF. Have the radios listen on a separate VLAN for >> management traffic on a unique management IP... for example each unique >> physical site might use vlan60 for radio management and have a /28 of >> private space in 10/8 space. The first usable IP in the /28 is used for the >> gateway, then start numbering your radios starting from the second usable >> IP. >> >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Not when you have two radios to manage in the middle. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" <[email protected]> >>> *To: *[email protected] >>> *Sent: *Friday, September 25, 2015 7:25:12 PM >>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] ospf issues with pbe-5ac-500 not passing >>> >>> An OSPF PTP link between two routers is usually configured as a /30 , no? >>> >>> What are your MTU and other settings on the interfaces on both sides? >>> Other things like CDP , LDP? >>> On Sep 25, 2015 4:56 PM, "Tim Reichhart" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Mathew >>>> I am running my links in PTP mode but I am splitting my backhauls in >>>> /29 on each interface I dont know if that would cause any problems. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> >>>> To: af <[email protected]> >>>> Date: 09/25/15 11:03 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ospf issues with pbe-5ac-500 not passing >>>> >>>> I didn't do anything - they just worked. Are you running them in PTP >>>> mode, or PTMP? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Tim Reichhart < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mathew >>>>> please tell me how you got it to work because me and justin wilson is >>>>> having hell of time getting my backhaul link to pass the ospf. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Date: 09/25/15 12:52 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ospf issues with pbe-5ac-500 not passing >>>>> >>>>> that makes sense >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Peter Kranz <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Links by default now run under WDS.. So they removed the ability to >>>>>> disable it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -PK >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of* That One Guy >>>>>> /sarcasm >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:27 PM >>>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ospf issues with pbe-5ac-500 not passing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm poking at eoip tunnels with ospf inside >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> why did they remove wds? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:11 PM, George Skorup <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't have any of the ac radios, only M. Does it have Multicast >>>>>> Data - Allow All (check box)? If that's unchecked, then multicast will >>>>>> not >>>>>> be allowed over the RF interface, thus OSPF (which is multicast) will not >>>>>> work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Other than that, are you sure you have MT OSPF configured correctly? >>>>>> If not that, then I have no idea. Kick it in the pants? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/24/2015 9:58 PM, Tim Reichhart wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> so if the multicast filtering can cause ospf not to work correctly? >>>>>> Even there is no option for wds on the newer firmware? >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "George Skorup" <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Date: 09/24/15 10:53 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ospf issues with pbe-5ac-500 not passing >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this new 11ac stuff have multicast filtering like the M series? I >>>>>> think it's on the advanced tab. I made that mistake once. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/24/2015 9:44 PM, Rhys Cuff (Latrobe I.T) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I find you need WDS enabled >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Reichhart >>>>>> Sent: Friday, 25 September 2015 12:32 PM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] ospf issues with pbe-5ac-500 not passing >>>>>> >>>>>> I am having an weird issues with my PowerBeam 5AC 500 with ospf >>>>>> traffic not passing through and I am using these PowerBeam 5AC 500 as >>>>>> backhauls and they are connected to mikrotik. I am running firmware >>>>>> 7.1.4xc >>>>>> and not doing nbma setup. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
