Yeah, no...that explanation makes no sense to me. ENBs made for the mobile market exclusively employ local offload and enforce NAT? Pretty sure not. If anything, mobile providers are GTP-U tunneling customer traffic to a central PGW where the NAT happens (if it happens).
The best "Occam's razor" answer I can manage to come up with is that since fixed wireless providers are *not* likely to have their own 3GPP cores, and since they've stated that they are trying to make deployment for providers as easy as possible, and since the software is still being baked, they are probably trying to cover the widest Venn-diagram section of use-cases possible with the amount of time and effort they currently have available to spend (most bang for their engineering buck). Let's face it: a good chunk of fixed regional operators do not have enough v4 addresses to cover all of their end-users, and they already NAT a vast majority of them. So Baicells probably thought, for us to start getting results back from the trial as quickly as possible, we need to remove as much friction as possible from the chore of getting these ENBs in the air. So rather than requiring providers to spend a bunch of time configuring a gateway and figuring out how to set up an IP pool for an address block that they define, they would just have the trial participants hand the ENB a single IP and have it locally NAT user traffic, which is the simplest configuration possible that covers the widest likely set of use-cases. That's not to say that they won't make it more flexible in the future. At least, I certainly *hope* not. -- Nathan -----Original Message----- From: craig at skywaveconnect.com (Craig Schmaderer) [mailto:craig at skywaveconnect.com (Craig Schmaderer)] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:12 AM Subject: [AFMUG] Baicells - who's deployed it? I think it is because they are using the software they use over in china for cell phone (mobile) deployment. This is their first run at fixed, so some features we take as normal are not always that way in the mobile market. It was not started that way from scratch is what I am being told. From: Af [mailto:af-bounces at afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 10:05 AM To: af at afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Baicells - who's deployed it? I'm not sure why someone thought NAT needed to be done at the eNB in the first place. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ________________________________ From: "Craig Schmaderer" <craig at skywaveconnect.com<mailto:craig at skywaveconnect.com>> To: af at afmug.com<mailto:af at afmug.com> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 10:01:11 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Baicells - who's deployed it? I just got this email from that customer this morning?.. The NAT issue is a big thing Baicells is working on with the software, remember it is still heavily in beta?. FYI - that radio worked pretty good during the storm Friday night. We lost power in Dodge for about an hour, but as soon as it came back on I checked it. Even in heavy rain and wind with those trees moving all over the place, I was still easily pulling 30-35. I also got a chance to test out some gaming on the Xbox. The latency is awesome and good enough for any type of game, but the multiple NATs are an issue. My NAT type is listed as ?Strict?, which is the worst on the scale (Open, Moderate, Strict). Once we can do bridging on the CPE, I don?t see any reason why the NAT shouldn?t be detected as ?Open.? From: Af [mailto:af-bounces at afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Schmaderer Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 9:39 AM To: af at afmug.com<mailto:af at afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Baicells - who's deployed it? Its not bad, I need to do more testing, but it seems to be around 10-15ms or. Don?t quote me on that though ?? From: Af [mailto:af-bounces at afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:48 AM To: af at afmug.com<mailto:af at afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Baicells - who's deployed it? Latency? From: Craig Schmaderer<mailto:craig at skywaveconnect.com> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 7:45 AM To: af at afmug.com<mailto:af at afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Baicells - who's deployed it? I don?t have any 3.65 450 or wimax gear to compare it to, but so far nlos probably has exceeded my expectations. We are trying to cover a town of about 400 homes and the tower is on the edge, all the main links will be between .5 and 1 mile and so far we have 3 links going through anywhere between 3 and 7 trees. If it is just 1 or 2 trees you barely notice a speed drop. This link gets around 70mb down and 7mb up. We have the LTE set to subframe 3:1 so LOS results will get you about 90mb down and 8ish up. Our worst link so far which goes through a lot of stuff gets around 40mb down and 1mb up. The upload is what will stop your link before the download. I will get back to you on pricing, not sure what msrp is for sure, but it should be priced around cambiums cpe pricing with no license keys, and access points will be a bit higher with gps included. Also so far starting out you have to use their cloud EPC and pricing on that might be around $1 a month, the have promised to come out with a local solution like Telrad has that you can purchase. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D1CAD6.A4DBDEE0] [cid:image002.jpg at 01D1CAD6.A4DBDEE0] From: Af [mailto:af-bounces at afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:05 AM To: af at afmug.com<mailto:af at afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Baicells - who's deployed it? NLOS capability? Price point? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 20, 2016 9:00 AM, "Craig Schmaderer" <craig at skywaveconnect.com<mailto:craig at skywaveconnect.com>> wrote: I have it. They are letting me talk about it pass my nda. Hardware so far is solid. Software is very beta. Missing many key features needed for comerical deployment. We are seeing about 90mb on 20mhz which is what is to be expected with R9 LTE. I posted maybe a week ago on one of our links. 5ghz is on the road map. Shoot me your questions. Craig Schmaderer Cell 402-380-1245<tel:402-380-1245> Skywave Wireless, Inc. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:52 PM -0500, "Colin Stanners" <cstanners at gmail.com<mailto:cstanners at gmail.com>> wrote: Like are you thinking against each other, or fighting Matt and Sriram from Cambium in one corner and Telrad ex-Mossad snipers in another? On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:17 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <thatoneguysteve at gmail.com<mailto:thatoneguysteve at gmail.com>> wrote: I havent heard much from them lately, do you think rick and Patrick ended up in a knife fight? On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote: Ban all Baicells 5 GHz. Leave it to the cheap gear!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340<tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343<tel:937-552-2343> 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavelinc at gmail.com<mailto:lists.wavelinc at gmail.com>> wrote: Do they have any frequencies out there besides 3.65ghz? Are 5ghz trials going on right now? On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote: Does anyone besides the guys in Amarillo have this gear deployed? Care to comment on/off list? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340<tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343<tel:937-552-2343> 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 -- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20160620/c14e1f9e/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 178421 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: <http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20160620/c14e1f9e/attachment-0002.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 87232 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: <http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20160620/c14e1f9e/attachment-0003.jpg>
