Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
Nice, but pretty much the same as OSPF or anything else besides actual BGP in
the scenario below.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 7:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: R
Nice, but pretty much the same as OSPF or anything else besides actual BGP in
the scenario below.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 7:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
MPLS would re
MPLS would re-route the traffic.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Sterling Jacobson"
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:46:50 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to
l.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mathew Howard"
To: "af"
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:27:50 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
Terminating PPPoE at the tower doesn't really give you much advantage over DHCP
as far as using lim
@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On
>> Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
>> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:31 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
>>
>> OSPF
>>
>>
s in redundancy which multiple providers, which lends itself
> to /24 or larger public IP space and BGP type protocol.
>
>
>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:31 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AF
...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:31 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
OSPF
On April 16, 2015 1:46:50 PM AKDT, Sterling Jacobson
mailto:sterl...@avative.net>> wrote:
Which isn’t really good for redundancy on fi
On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
>>Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:28 AM
>>To: af
>>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
>>
>>Terminating PPPoE at the tower doesn't really give you much advantage
>>over DHCP as far as using limited IP space
24 or larger public block.
>
>Or you resort to temporary NAT, or re-assignment.
>
>
>
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
>Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:28 AM
>To: af
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
>
>
.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:28 AM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
Terminating PPPoE at the tower doesn't really give you much advantage over DHCP
as far as using limited IP space
-
> *From: *"Eric Muehleisen"
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:06:36 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
>
> PPPoE auth is broadcast. This will require a L2 path back to you PPPoE
> server (BR
lug in.
Filtering at the port for local protocoals to drop them.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf
Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:31 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs t
t; so they only get the one public IP no matter what they plug in.
>
>
>
> Filtering at the port for local protocoals to drop them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:31 PM
&g
We’ve been begging Mikrotik for LAC/LNS functionality for years. YEARS.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
PPPoE auth is broadcast. This
t;
>
>/30’s – maybe use /31’s ?
>
>
>
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
>Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:33 PM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
>
>
>
>Trying to avoid PPPoE, for on
We have MTs at all sites, and simply terminate PPPoE right there ☺
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:21 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
We have two Redback SE 600's.
protocoals to drop them.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:31 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
I use DHCP on my fiber network and PPPoE on wireless.
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Josh
via MPLS network (RSVP-TE, L2VPN) and that worked very well –
roughly 3500 subs across 36 sites at the time.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
PPPoE auth is broadcast. This will require a L2 path back to you PPPoE server
(BRAS). This is a deal breaker for many. Overhead is minimal. There will be a
some broadcast chatter on your L2 subnet. This can be filtered a number of ways
and usu
Muehleisen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:07 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
>
>
>
> PPPoE auth is broadcast. This will require a L2 path back to you PPPoE
> server (BRAS). This is a deal breaker for many. Ov
twitter.com/ICSIL>
_
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" mailto:li...@packetflux.com> >
To: "af" mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:02:50 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
(WISP HAT ON)
We
[mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
PPPoE auth is broadcast. This will require a L2 path back to you PPPoE server
(BRAS). This is a deal breaker for many
.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>
>&g
ons>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>
>> --------------
>> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)"
>> *To: *"af"
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:02:50 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Providing public ro
t;
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>
> --
> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)"
> *To: *"af"
> *Sent: *Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:02:50 AM
> *Sub
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
(WISP HAT ON)
We have a subnet (or a couple of subnets, as sites have grown) at each tower,
and an public IP statically assigned to each customer. The radio gets a
managment address out of 172.[16-31].x.x which correspo
We used to assign /25 to segments and use DHCP with isolation turned on on
AP. Once we built out a secondary path from a different location we had to
renumber it all to a /24 since none would route something that small.
Aggregation proved tricky as it depended on where things broke as to if it
was
uting-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
_
From: "Josh Reynolds" mailto:j...@spitwspots.com> >
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:43:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
And then custome
Right … haven’t seen a router in years that didn’t support PPPoE ;)
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
And then customer router has to support
Why avoid PPPoE? Don’t want to deal with the authentication component? Just
curious…
/30’s – maybe use /31’s ?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to
Yes, public IP's to customers via PPPOE. Topology is basically "hub and spoke"
- one main site feeding several regional sites. Then all main sites connected
together. VLAN based layer2 network.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
(WISP HAT ON)
We have a subnet (or a couple of subnets, as sites have grown) at each
tower, and an public IP statically assigned to each customer. The radio
gets a managment address out of 172.[16-31].x.x which corresponds to the
public IP address.
No DHCP anywhere, no PPPoE.
But again, we have
We still do this today :)
Makes administration easier and can pin point problems easily.
On 4/14/2015 8:05 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,
Back in the day (2+ years ago), we did a /27 to each tower and then
statically assigned an IP from that block to each customer. Then we
knew exactly which
I agree, I don't want to burn a /30 for every business that wants a
block. I do a /26 at the tower, then route a /29 or whatever to the
customer. We can give them a backup link, even to another core router,
and set route metrics, gateway checks, etc. appropriately. Or hell, use
OSPF or BGP if w
Hi,
Back in the day (2+ years ago), we did a /27 to each tower and then
statically assigned an IP from that block to each customer. Then we knew
exactly which customer had what IP address (tracking, throttling,
disabling, subpoenas, etc) and it made it simple on the customer router
for config
Do any routers not support PPPoE?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Josh Reynolds"
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:43:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to
, local IP can be anything
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Reynolds
*Sent:* Wednesday, 15 April 2015 10:33 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
Trying to avoid PPPoE, for one. Also want to not do a bunch of /30's
every
I do PPPoE you don’t need /30’s
Just the single IP via the tunnel, local IP can be anything
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday, 15 April 2015 10:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
Yeah, we want to drop an ip off right at the customer router, but we
also don't want to add a layer of NAT to them, nor track the damn macs
of all of these customers.
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com
On 04/14/2015 04:36 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
PPPoE to NATed CPE for most. Some
PPPoE to NATed CPE for most. Some are static IP directly on non-consumer
routers.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Josh Reynolds"
To: af@afmug.com, "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:20:3
Trying to avoid PPPoE, for one. Also want to not do a bunch of /30's
everywhere like we are now.
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com
On 04/14/2015 04:30 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
I use DHCP on my fiber network and PPPoE on wireless.
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Josh Reynolds
I use DHCP on my fiber network and PPPoE on wireless.
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Josh Reynolds wrote:
> For those of you currently providing public/routed ips to customers? What
> is your topology like and delivery method?
>
> Looking at doing a few things, have considered a few options, and wa
42 matches
Mail list logo