+1..
Once I finally saw how to use the horizon feature on mikrotik on the
AP bridge I could affectively isolate traffic from other APs
which on occasion would make those things see it as a lan. I only use
public addresses to assign to the end user. Gaming consoles will get angry
when it doesnt see a single NAT.
On 11/28/2016 11:45 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Handing out RFC1918 addresses A) Is using that address space
incorrectly and B) Fools routers that think you are using the address
space correctly. RFC6598 space is what you should be using if you're
not handing out public IPs to customers.
SM NAT would be fine with RFC1918.
-----
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: *"Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]>
*To: *[email protected]
*Sent: *Monday, November 28, 2016 11:40:21 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: Apple abandoning development of wireless
routers
Newer Netgear routers typically detect they are behind another router,
and offer during setup to go into Wireless AP mode (basically
bridging), with a different management IP than the default 192.168.1.
I actually find this useful, since it’s hard to find a WAP anymore,
and usually when you use a router as a WAP you end up not using the
“Internet” port but the customer will eventually end up moving the
cable to that port because your installer obviously hooked it up wrong.
I’m not sure I understand the criticism of handing out an RFC1918
address. In part of our network, we hand out typically 192.168.100.2
from the SM and make it the DMZ address, with the intent that the
customer’s router get that address. If the router decides to be a
bridge, that won’t work. Now that I think about it, AFAIK that
doesn’t trigger Netgears to enter WAP mode, so they must be using
something more than just RFC1918 address to detect they are behind
another NAT router. Not sure about that.
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
*Sent:* Monday, November 28, 2016 11:28 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Apple abandoning development of wireless
routers
The irritant was that routers from D-Link, Linksys, Netgear, etc.
would handle this without intervention. Airports always forced some
kind of intervention.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 11/28/2016 9:18 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Yeah, the Airport should have detected the change (at least after
a reboot) from bridge to router and changed accordingly. As you
point out, it sounds like your PtMP vendor shares some of the
blame as well.
-----
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]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Monday, November 28, 2016 11:16:29 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: Apple abandoning development of
wireless routers
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]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*To: *"Motorola III" <[email protected]> <mailto:[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>
--
