A confluence of bugs perhaps. We usually run our SMs in NAT mode. When
the airport discovers that it's getting NATted, it would default to
bridge mode. This would typically overwhelm the SM's admittedly poor NAT
overflow algorithm. Then for a number of reasons, we would have to
switch the SM into bridge mode to handle VPN, or VoIP, or a femtocell,
or whatever. The airport would stay in bridge mode, and we would end up
with an additional public IPs being served from the local pool.
Depending on the situation, it would overflow the local IP pool, or just
be an irritant.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 11/28/2016 8:36 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
"(3) They would usually default to bridge mode, and saturate the local
DHCP pool"
Is this because you're not IPing your network properly? Usually this
only happens if you're handing client RFC1918 addresses in which case
bridging is appropriate behavior for the router.
The rest I'd say are valid complaints.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <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>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Bill Prince" <[email protected]>
*To: *[email protected]
*Sent: *Monday, November 28, 2016 10:32:09 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: Apple abandoning development of wireless
routers
The biggest issues for me was that (1) they were constantly changing
the UI of their proprietary "airport admin" tool, (2) The Windows
version was always a few revs behind (or would not work), (3) They
would usually default to bridge mode, and saturate the local DHCP
pool, (4) would not allow simple adjustments to channel frequencies,
(5) their admin tool was proprietary, and not just a simple web server.
There are probably another half dozen or so issues that I'm not
recalling now.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 11/28/2016 8:13 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I know some WISP's beef with them was because the WISP wasn't
properly IPing their network. What other concerns are there?
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <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>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Bill Prince" <[email protected]>
*To: *"Motorola III" <[email protected]>
*Sent: *Monday, November 28, 2016 10:07:21 AM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] OT: Apple abandoning development of wireless
routers
Finally! There routers have caused more than their fair share of
support
calls. I say good riddance.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/apple-said-to-abandon-development-of-wireless-routers-ivs0ssec
--
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
