*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 (BRAS). This is a deal breaker for many. Overhead is minimal. There
will be a some broadcast chatter on your L2
.
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 more
to carry the minimal /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
PM
To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
OSPF
On April 16, 2015 1:46:50 PM AKDT, Sterling Jacobson sterl...@avative.net
mailto:sterl...@avative.net wrote:
Which isn’t really good for redundancy on fixed IP assignments (whether
: 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: Re
the minimal
/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
Terminating PPPoE at the tower doesn't
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 more efficiently though,
you're still going to have to assign a subnet to each tower, more or
less the same as you would
...@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
sterl...@avative.netmailto:sterl...@avative.net wrote:
Which isn’t really good
- Original Message -
From: Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com
To: af af@afmug.com
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 limited
, 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
Terminating PPPoE at the tower doesn't really give you much advantage over DHCP
as far as using
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
-solutions
https://twitter.com/ICSIL
--
*From: *Forrest Christian (List Account) li...@packetflux.com
*To: *af 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 have a subnet
*Sent: *Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:02:50 AM
*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
: 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
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
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. VERY
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
:* 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. Overhead is minimal. There
will be a some broadcast chatter
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
_
From: Forrest Christian (List Account) li...@packetflux.com
mailto:li...@packetflux.com
To: af af@afmug.com 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 have a subnet (or a couple
[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
…
/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 one. Also want to not do a bunch of /30's
Christian (List Account) li...@packetflux.com
*To: *af 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 have a subnet (or a couple of subnets, as sites have grown) at each
tower, and an public IP
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
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers
I use DHCP on my fiber network and PPPoE on wireless
they plug in.
Filtering at the port for local protocoals to drop them.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf
Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:31 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs
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
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
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
://twitter.com/ICSIL
_
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com 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 customer router has to support PPPoE and we give
(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
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
:02:50 AM
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
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
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
Trying to avoid PPPoE, for one. Also want to not do a bunch
, 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
everywhere
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
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 j...@spitwspots.com
To: af@afmug.com, WISPA General List wirel...@wispa.org
I use DHCP on my fiber network and PPPoE on wireless.
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com 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
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
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
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
