Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core

2014-01-24 Thread Butch Evans
On 01/24/2014 07:20 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

 Has anyone tested how small the average packet size can be and still
 achieve theoretical wirespeed, in a simplified configuration over a
 single port?
 1Gbps FDX, can 90% of that be acheived with 384k avg packet size?

I hate to be that guy, but have you even LOOKED?  It's right on the 
page where Mikrotik sells the routers.

http://routerboard.com/CCR1036-12G-4S



-- 
Butch Evans
702-537-0979
Network Support and Engineering
http://store.wispgear.net/
http://www.butchevans.com/
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] be on the look out for this

2014-01-17 Thread Butch Evans
On 01/17/2014 10:46 AM, Clay Stewart wrote:
 I would assume using NTP servers that do not use Monlist which are??


Newer than v4.2.7.  Also, with a firewall, you can block the traffic 
coming INTO your network with (logic rules):

chain: forward for routers, input for servers

* permit established, related
* permit local machines (desired) dst udp/123 toward your server
* permit your server dst udp/123 to the outside world
* drop other udp/123

The exact rules will depend on whether you are using mikrotik, linux, 
cisco or whatever and whether you are configuring a router that passes 
traffic or the server where the ntp service is running.

-- 
Butch Evans
702-537-0979
Network Support and Engineering
http://store.wispgear.net/
http://www.butchevans.com/
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Solution to Regulate Video Streaming?

2014-01-03 Thread Butch Evans
On 01/02/2014 01:15 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
 or a lot of time developing regexs and other things needed for Mikrotik
 or various other routing\firewall engines.

There is a lot that Mikrotik can do, but there is no comparison to a 
dedicated box like Procera.  Swiss army knife can cut down a tree, but 
an axe is a better choice.


-- 
Butch Evans
702-537-0979
Network Support and Engineering
http://store.wispgear.net/
http://www.butchevans.com/
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Wireless Orbit closing. Interested in new portal provider

2013-11-24 Thread Butch Evans
On 11/20/2013 06:26 PM, ralph wrote:
 Didn't we go through this with them already though.
 Lacks some important feature I can't remember.
 Maybe it was multiple, different payment plans for multiple different
 hotspots or something else.
 Perhaps it was not having MAC authentication for browserless devices that
 tied back to the user's main account and aggregated their bandwidth to not
 go over an allocated speed.

 I just can't remember.

I don't recall what you may have been missing in the GateSpot software. 
  I can't think of anything that wireless orbit can do that it can't.  I 
can think of several things GateSpot can do that Wireless Orbit cannot. 
  It was just a suggestion.  You can call them or not.  I don't earn 
anything from it either way.  :-)


-- 
Butch Evans
702-537-0979
Network Support and Engineering
http://store.wispgear.net/
http://www.butchevans.com/
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Wireless Orbit closing. Interested in new portal provider

2013-11-20 Thread Butch Evans
On 11/20/2013 08:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
  From what I know of Wireless Orbit (admittedly very little), it does
 what hotspot + WISPMon would do.

Not sure about WISPMon capabilities here, but these types of software 
are ALL the same capabilities as a minimum requirement.

1. They provide a landing page for a new user to create a login/pass 
and process their payment for access

2. This information must be sent to the RADIUS server that allows the 
login to happen.  (after payment is processed of course).

3. The page should either automatically log them in or send them back to 
the login page.

Beyond those basic functions, which should be a minimum in each of them, 
there are other possible add-ons that make one better than the other. 
  There are a number of options out there and you can pick which one 
best suits the needs of the network.  For me, I like gatespot because it 
supports a number of useful features:

1. Unique landing page per hotspot (if you want)
2. Flexible in what type of information you collect from each customer
3. Runs on the same box as RADIUS server
4. Management for each hotspot

There are other add-on features that I like, but these are the most 
useful for me personally.

-- 
Butch Evans
702-537-0979
Network Support and Engineering
http://store.wispgear.net/
http://www.butchevans.com/
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Wireless Orbit closing. Interested in new portal provider

2013-11-19 Thread Butch Evans
On 11/19/2013 05:42 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
 You really should do this yourself, especially if you can program a
 website  Why pay someone else every day as your users sign up?  Use
 mikrotik hotspot, clear box radius and a sql server.  Then you write the
 code...  its a little bit of work but then you control it completely and
 can attach to any merchant account / bank you choose.

 Or you could pay someone to set up your own then you still own and
 maintain it...

WISP-Router has a system for this purpose, too.  Just runs on a linux 
server and handles both authentication and signup.  Supports multiple 
payment backends.  PLUS, WISP-Router is a vendor member of WISPA.  The 
system is called Gatespot and can be found here:
http://store.wisp-router.com/GateSpot

I'm not sure, but he may have a hosted service as well.

-- 
Butch Evans
702-537-0979
Network Support and Engineering
http://store.wispgear.net/
http://www.butchevans.com/
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] OSPF Tutorial/Guide

2013-07-22 Thread Butch Evans
On 07/20/2013 12:43 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:
 I have a bench setup running based on the Mikrotik Wiki example, it's
 running and working, but I'm stuck on the part where I assign
 cost/distance/priority or whatever the term is to make it decide one
 link over another. I'm not really grasping how that works.

In ospf, the path cost determines where a packet is routed.  Take this 
simple example:


 -- R2 --
 |  |
R1  -  - R4 -Target
 |  |
 -- R3 --

If, on the R1-R2 interface, you add cost and all other settings are 
left at default then the traffic at R1 destined for the networks beyond 
R2/R3 would prefer the path that includes R3, since the cost is higher 
going through R2 interface.  Note that this cost is calculated on the 
OUTGOING interface, so this example assumes you have one interface for 
R2 and one for R3.  Additionally, because the outgoing path is the one 
where cost is calculated, the return traffic would consider both the R2 
and R3 path to be equal.  The essence of path cost is this:
higher cost = less preferred path

To calculate the path cost (from R1), the router would look at the cost 
of the interface: R1-R2, R2-R4 and compare it to R1-R3, R3,R4 path.

Distance is the metric that the kernel uses to determine which learned 
route to use.  You can google the default route distance to see the 
full chart.  Connected routes are distance 0; Static routes default at 
distance 1 and ospf learned routes are distance 110.  What this means is 
that a route learned by ospf will be used ONLY if there is no other 
shorter distance route installed.  In RouterOS, you can change the 
distance for static routes, so that you can use them as backup in case 
OSPF fails.

The OSPF priority parameter is only used to determine which router in a 
segment becomes the DR, BDR or just another router.  You can google 
ospf designated router election to see exactly how this happens.

 I want to be able to assign priority to the links so that it won't
 always take the least # of hops path, we have a redundant link between
 two main towers which is an old nanobridge link and want to reserve it
 as the backup link.

You are probably looking for cost instead of priority.  Just for the 
record, this is one of the things we cover in my classes.  There is one 
lab that we do that covers all of these things in great detail.


-- 
Butch Evans
702-537-0979
Network Support and Engineering
http://store.wispgear.net/
http://www.butchevans.com/
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [WISPA - Offlist] OSPF Tutorial/Guide

2013-07-22 Thread Butch Evans
On 07/20/2013 07:06 PM, can...@believewireless.net wrote:
 Cost should be set based on the speed of the link.  So, if you have a 1
 Gbps link in your network, set the cost of routers on either side to 1.
   If you have a 333 Mbps link, set the cost of the routers on either
 side to 3.  100 Mbps link?  Cost = 10.  So, your 1 Gbps link speed is
 really 1000 Mbps so cost = 1000 / Speed.

This is generally the approach, but not really a should be sort of 
thing.  There are many reasons why you don't want to always use the 
fastest link as the only parameter.


-- 
Butch Evans
702-537-0979
Network Support and Engineering
http://store.wispgear.net/
http://www.butchevans.com/
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Maxxwave router MTU problem / question

2013-07-15 Thread Butch Evans
On 07/13/2013 03:07 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
 I know these are fairly popular routers so I was wondering if anyone has
 seen this issue before

 Mikrotik v5.24 or 5.25 - go to ethernet interface and open an interface,
 I can't increase the MTU size greater then the default 1500.  Some of
 the Maxxwave routers I can.  No rhyme or reason between them I can tell
 - some just allow the MTU change some don't.  Not sure if this is MT
 fubar or some other issue with the device.  Anyone?  Thanks

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Maximum_Transmission_Unit_on_RouterBoards



-- 
Butch Evans
702-537-0979
Network Support and Engineering
http://store.wispgear.net/
http://www.butchevans.com/
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] network password manager

2013-03-31 Thread Butch Evans
On Sat, 2013-03-30 at 19:23 -0400, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
 individual user accounts via RADIUS w/ an LDAP backend is the best way 

RADIUS backend doesn't matter.  Personally, I've always used SQL
backend.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*   702-537-0979   *



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Hotspot/Billing/AAA options?

2013-03-22 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 20:07 -0400, ralph wrote:
 Anyone using DMA Softlabs RADIUS Manager for their hotspots?

I have a few customers using that software.  It's decent, but it is a
bear to install and set up unless you use the precise versions he
recommends.  Last time I looked, it was an older version of Freeradius,
but I seem to recall that he has updated to use FreeRadius 2.x.

 How about the Gatespot system that Butch sells? 

This is actually software written by Eje of Wisp-Router.  It is by far
the most flexible system I've ever seen.

 (I spoke on the phone to a couple of Gatespot users already but I
 don’t think they used customized portals)

It is up to you how you create the portal.  It's just some php code
embedded in your web page. It's very flexible.

 I don’t think Mikrotik User Manager even does multiple portals, but
 please let me know if you are using it for that.

User Manager only allows one web page/portal per installation.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*   702-537-0979   *



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] network password manager

2013-03-21 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 13:04 -0600, Sean Heskett wrote:
 As our network grows and we keep adding more hardware I am wondering
 what others do with passwords to all these devices.

I suspect that if you are wondering what most do, it's 1 password key
for the entire network.  While that may be a problem, here is a bit of
advice:

1. Use a centralized password authentication system - Many devices
support radius auth for login.  Restrict access to this server.

2. Create and enforce a REAL secure password - Mix numbers, letters,
capitalization, etc.  Main goal is to create a standard and follow it.
If you are really paranoid, force them to change this password
periodically.  

3. Provide each person with access to devices with a UNIQUE login.  This
allows you to track WHO is logging in.

4. Set up a syslog service and push syslog data from your infrastructure
devices out to this central server.  This allows you to easily track who
is logging in to the devices, when and which devices.  Also, this makes
it more difficult for people to log in and clear the log of their login.
Access to this server should be VERY limited.

5. Where possible, create firewalls to limit where logins can come from.
While many devices do not have firewalls, it should be possible to use a
firewall at some point to protect your infrastructure devices.  If this
is not the case, perhaps you should re-think how the network is built.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*   702-537-0979   *



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [AFMUG] Complete list of WISP used billing products

2013-03-20 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 14:16 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote:
 I'm looking to put a complete list together.  Does anyone have any
 additional ideas?
 
 Powercode
 Platypus
 Billmax
 Wispmon
 BOSS (beta? released?)
 Azotel
 Freeside
 VISP
 Rodopi

Rodopi...YUK!!  Lot of people still use QuickBooks.


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*   702-537-0979   *



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ERLite-3 3-port Router

2013-01-11 Thread Butch Evans
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 18:21 -0600, Sam Tetherow wrote:
 Which is debian under the hood.  Haven't used vyatta though so I don't
 know if there is a vyatta abstraction for tc or not, which is why I
 asked the question of the interface for bandwidth limiting.

I haven't looked into the qos in my ERLite, yet.  I DO know that there
is an UGLY abstraction for iptables.  SIGH...I've never understood why
vendors (vyatta in this case) want to make something that is SIMPLE
harder to use.  The firewall should be a very simple input, output,
forward...not all this mess that requires you to define interface, then,
create rules based on interface for input, output and forward for every
interface. 


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


[WISPA] Is there a list moderator in the house? Re: Ubiquiti ERLite-3 3-port Router

2013-01-11 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 08:05 -0500, Matt Hoppes wrote:
 Each has their placeand MT has no place anywhere until they can
 prove that they can write reliable firmware and offer friendly
 support. 

It works for MILLIONS of installations.  Perhaps the issue on your
network was as much user related as software?  CAN WE KILL THIS THREAD?
IT HAS GONE FAR ENOUGH BASHING A VENDOR MEMBER.


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Fwd: OpenSSL and BOVPN tunnels

2012-12-03 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 20:29 -0500, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
 If it is between two routers ...why not do an IPSec VPN ?

Openvpn is just as secure and it is much less problematic than IPSec.
It's actually quite easy to set up any one of a multitude of tunnel
types in RouterOS.  What are you not able to accomplish (for the OP,
obviously)?


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials

2012-11-28 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 15:46 -0500, Blair Davis wrote:
 Learn RouterOS.

 By Dennis out at Link Technologies

A better book, IMO, is this one: 
http://www.amazon.com/RouterOS-by-Example-ebook/dp/B006U3MP7W for kindle
and http://www.learnmikrotik.com/index.php/get-the-book.html for the
paper.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Hotspot / Internet Cafe billing management solution

2012-11-06 Thread Butch Evans
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 08:25 -0600, Josh Bowsher wrote:
 Is that only available for use with user manager? I would be
 interested in that but we don’t use the user manager.

I'm not sure what printer they use, but this type of printer is not that
uncommon.  

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] MikroTik PCQ and Queue Tree

2012-11-05 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 08:42 -0600, Josh Bowsher wrote:
 One thing that I am sure you understand that is still foggy 
 to me is the whole limit and total limit fields on a PCQ 
 being divided to determine how many connections fill the queue 
 any advice on that?

Under queue-type?  
limit=total number of packets (maximum) per flow/classifier group
allowed to be enqueued
total-limit = total number of packets (max) for ALL combined flows in
this queue that are allowed to be enqueued at the same time.

These fields are what keeps the pcq from filling memory with enqueued
packets.  For MOST of the typical applications, the default is fine.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] MikroTik PCQ and Queue Tree

2012-11-02 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:12 -0500, Josh Bowsher wrote:
 Anyone have experience with PCQ and Queue Tree in MikroTik I am trying
 to get away from simple queues and I am a little confused on how to
 actually accomplish the shaping of the traffic that I want to achieve.
 If anyone has knowledge in this I will fully explain what I have done
 and what I want to accomplish.

Post an export of the queue tree, queue types and mangle, then describe
what you WANT to do that is not working.

/queue tree export
/queue type export
/ip firewall mangle export


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] Is IPv6 ready?

2012-10-30 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 19:45 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 My favorite ideas (not that I'm the lead architect behind them) 
 haven't been fully developed yet, so they can't have won or lost 
 yet.  This takes time.

And currently, IPv6 is what ARIN and the other RIRs are handing out.  It
is the protocol suite being added to gear.  Maybe it would be stated
better as the current suite is being added to.  Either way, v6 is the
thing that IS happening.

 IPv6 has lost many times over.  The point of the articles is that 
 *the whole concept of large address spaces is wrong*.  IPv6 solves a 
 non-problem.

What is solves is not really at issue.

 I am thinking about writing a little opinionated history piece about 
 where IPv6 and IPv4 and their addressing actually came from.  It's a 
 real fustercluck.  You assume that the best and the brightest must 
 have really thought it out, but it didn't quite happen that way.

You assume too much in assuming that this is my thoughts on the matter.
My opinion of IPv6 matters little more than yours.  I don't like the
idea of ethanol.  It's actual usefulness in the real world of today is
actually creating a worse problem than it solves.  Having that opinion,
even IF a lot of people agree with me, isn't going to change what comes
out of nearly every pump in the states.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] Is IPv6 ready?

2012-10-28 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 16:54 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 An article I wrote seven years ago but is still somewhat current 
 (since IPv6 is always five years away ;-) ):
 IPv6:  More Filling, Less Taste http://www.ionary.com/ion-ipv6.html
 
 And a more general slide presentation on the topic of naming and 
 addressing by John Day from 2010, which points out why IPv6 is 
 answering the wrong question and solving a non-problem while the 
 actual problems are ignored:
 
 http://www.pouzinsociety.org/images/KoreaNamingFund100218.pdf


No matter how long you hold onto and continue to promote, IPv6 IS what
is happening.  You don't have to like it or adopt it, but your ideas
didn't win.  At best, you will have to wait a few years and say I
told you so.  Now let's try my ideas.  It's not even an issue of
whether you were/are right or wrong in your opinions...

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] FW: New Broadband Public Notice has been Published

2012-10-25 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 09:00 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181)
wrote:
 I think you and I are the only two wisps that didn't go!

I didn't go and I'm kinda a wisp (I provide wireless service for 3
people outside my home).

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-21 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 2012-10-21 at 09:25 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
 Other than custom solutions that cost thousands of dollars, 
 there's no way of doing what I want.

With this one statement, you have summarized the problem.  I will drop
this thread because it has become clear that the problem is not really
about creating or making a standard, but about the desire to have
something for nothing.  Good luck with that.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-19 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 12:55 -0500, Simon Westlake wrote:
 I completely agree and I think it is a goal the WISP industry needs to 
 work towards - the provisioning of CPE is still a nightmare in 
 comparison to DOCSIS. PPPoE is not a good solution, IMO - it's arguably 
 better than nothing but you shouldn't have to rely on the customer 
 supplied equipment being configured correctly to just auth to the 
 network - that's the job of the ISP CPE.

In some regards, I agree with your take on this.  It isn't really fair
to compare ethernet-like protocols that WISPs use to DOCSIS, though.
DOCSIS is it's own transport and one of the things that was built into
the standard is authentication.  That is not so with ethernet-like
protocols.  There IS some level of authentication available for this
purpose, however.  We can use radio/AP authentication based on MAC
addresses of radios, which offers at least a small amount of security.
We have SOME proprietary protocol devices, such as Canopy, AirMAX and
nstreme, that offer various levels of security and authentication
mechanisms (most are still MAC-based).  The problem is that even with
this authentication, it is still not provisioning.  The main issue to
contend with regarding provisioning is the difference between physical
connectivity (Cables) vs RF connectivity that requires SOME
configuration in the CPE to even allow it to connect in the first place.
There are a number of methods to provide CPE provisioning beyond that
first step, which ARE easy to accomplish.

 It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things.

This is true.  If there were only some software company that would come
up with a way to make this easier and add some level of security into
the mix  :-)

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-19 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:52 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
 Except that's sub-optimal. I do it that way, but it's not the best way of 
 doing it. We shouldn't have to manage that.

What is it that you feel you have to manage behind the natted CPE?
Unless they are a business account, they don't really NEED to do
anything other than private space on their end, which means YOU don't
have to manage anything.  If they ARE a business account, you can hand
them public space.  I don't get what is hard about that...

For example, if you provide static assignments (not pppoe), you can
simply:
1. Configure the public side of the radio
2. Set up NAT
3. Done

If you provide DHCP, you have to:
1. Configure your DHCP server space
2. DONE

If you provide pppoe, you must:
1. Set up user account with their IP address or pool
2. DONE

If you need to provide them a public IP to their gear, behind your CPE
(like your beloved cable companies):
1. Bridge your CPE
2. Do one of the above using THEIR information/router and let them
configure their gear
3. DONE


I don't see the problem you apparently see.


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-19 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:52 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
 It's going to require the radio company to do it first.

So, you want to see a mechanism in place where you (or your customer)
purchase some random gear, put it on their tower or house and they are
online without you doing anything?  THAT is a bad plan, even if it were
possible.


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-19 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 16:49 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
 No.
 
 The cable modem (radio) does the authentication (therefore rate limiting, one 
 address per house, etc.) while the customer supplied device is the terminus 
 for the public IP and does the NAT. I install the radio, hand them the cat6 
 out of the back of the PoE and they plug it into whatever their heart 
 desires. That device receives my public IP address without any configuration, 
 yet the customer is still rate limited (automatically, not manual queues). If 
 they require two public IPs, I simply configure the back-end to allow two 
 DHCP leases from devices behind that CPE.

This is not that hard to accomplish.  I have a partnership in a WISP in
Texas that does almost exactly what you want.  It just takes a little
creativity, time and expertise.  Further, there is no client to client
communication through the wireless device, so broadcasts, even on a
local network, are eliminated.  This is already built into ubiquiti,
canopy, mikrotik and a number of other devices you could use as CPE
radios.  IF a customer want's a different speed plan, they visit their
portal and select it.  Within seconds, they have been upgraded (or
downgraded) to the new plan.  There is no human intervention required
beyond the effort that made it possible.  FWIW, this system uses all 3
of the manufacturers I mentioned above and the portal works
(automatically) with all 3.  That portal was written in PHP by a
programmer that I hired and he and I spent a total of about 400 hours
getting it together.  You want one?  Just find a programmer and tell him
what you want and how you accomplish it manually and let him do the
rest, OR start programming it yourself.  It isn't that hard, as Simon
said.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-19 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:50 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
 What we're (well, I am anyway) saying is that the way 
 the WISP industry does it...  is sub-optimal. 

The way YOU are doing it may be sub-optimal.  It is not an industry wide
problem.  There are ways to accomplish what you want.

 The customer should be able to supply whatever device they want, be 
 handed up to a configured maximum number of public IP addresses (specified 
 per account), but the CPE has managed all account authorization. 

You are missing a key component here.  It is NEVER the CPE that manages
anything.  Even in the cable world.  It is the NETWORK that manages the
CPE.

 The customer should still be permitted to pass 1500 byte packets. The 
 customer shouldn't have any configuration on their behalf. You know...  
 how cable does it.

Your presumptions and statements tell me you really don't understand
what happens in a DOCSIS environment.  

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-13 Thread Butch Evans
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 09:02 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
 Cisco, Dell and Extreme Networks (my current favorite) have 
 almost unlimited power and granular control. They don't have
 some of the features of RouterOS, but teaming one of them with
 something running RouterOS is just as effective as using what 
 Mikrotik supplies.

And you expected that ANYONE could produce the same features and such
for a fraction of the cost?  It isn't fair to compare a $40 switch to
one that sells at $500 or more.  It isn't SUPPOSED to do the same
things.  Statements and comparisons like this really show your age.  The
Mikrotik devices are what they are.  They have limitations which should
be expected.  They work well when they are put in a spot within the
network that fits their capability. 

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-13 Thread Butch Evans
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 12:30 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 I've enjoyed it.  I still hope somebody at some point figures out 
 just how close you can get to an MEF-type switch using RouterOS or 
 AirOS.  Or EdgeOS, Real Soon Now.  (They're all Linux under the skin, 
 after all.)

It can be done (sort of) in Linux.  Which, of course, RouterOS has at
it's core.  The problem, though, is that Mikrotik's software is called
RotuerOS for a reason.  These devices are built to be routers.  While
what you are talking about is (at some levels) a hybrid of routing (at
layer 2) and switching.  I realize that is an oversimplification, but
bear with me.  RouterOS is certainly capable of doing much of what you
want, but it is not intended to behave as a switch. It will, however,
have to do it in software, which IS bridging.  You can, for example,
create the following configurations:

Ether1 - trunk port for vlans 10,20,30
Ether2 - Untagged traffic for vlan10
Ether3 - Tagged for vlan20
vlan30 is for managment of the device

The vlans would be configured as:
vlan 10 - created on ether1 only (E1V10)
vlan 20 - created on ether1 (E1V20) and ether3 (E3V20)
vlan 30 - created on ether1 only (E1V30)

Now for the software routing configuration.
You need a bridge device that includes the following:
bvlan10 - includes E1V10 and ether2
bvlan20 - includes E1V20 and E3V20
bvlan30 - (management) includes E1V30 only

This configuration, while it uses bridges to tie the ports together,
would not send broadcast traffic between bridges.  Even on the trunk
port side (ether1).  

IP addressing would be on the bridge devices (if you want them to be
visible at layer 3).  Obviously, bvlan30 would need an address.
Strictly speaking, you could simply eliminate the bridge for vlan30 and
add the layer 3 stuff at E1V30, but personally, I like the consistent
behavior of allowing the bridges to be the communication interface.  

Because RouterOS is designed to be a router and not a switch, the
ability to create a port that handles both tagged and untagged traffic
becomes rather ugly.  It can be done, but it is a horribly ugly
configuration and it uses bridges.  This, of course, depends somewhat on
exactly what you are trying to accomplish.

Because of the limitations of the backend software and the design
purpose of that software, RouterOS would work fine at certain places in
a CE network, but it certainly doesn't fit at the core.  The same is
true of other routers.


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-13 Thread Butch Evans
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 17:33 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 I do get your point, that RouterOS was optimized for routing; there's 
 just nothing else that fits its price points and form factors 
 (especially outdoor Routerboards), so even if it's a little 
 inefficient, it may still be cost-effective for some traffic 
 levels.

Specifically, it fits well at the edge (customer edge).  I have some
clients who use RouterOS in a similar way to what you are describing for
that purpose.  For example, one client is running RouterOS as the head
end device in a few buildings he manages.  He is able to combine the
routing capability in RouterOS with it's VLAN capability and deliver
some quality services to tenants in the building.  Throughout the
buildings, he has either switches (mostly Cisco switches) or more
Routerboards (some are X86 systems instead) to manage traffic flows.
The problem with these devices is really centered around management
rather than functionality.  Cisco, for example, has some really nice
tools that can do some routing of vlan traffic at the switch layer,
whereas Mikrotik has to be statically configured for this.  It is not
too hard to build the redundant routes and just use STP or RSTP to
provide the failover in these building networks, but on a large scale,
this can be rather difficult and daunting.  

   The discussion began with questions about multiple NATs and 
 routing within a network; I'd expect the VLAN configurations to get 
 at least as much throughput as full-scale routing.  It won't compete 
 with Ciena but their boxes don't cost $100 and run on 6 watts.

Bear in mind that with RouterOS is actually faster in bridge than in
routing.  Really, that is true of ALL Linux devices.  Because you are
not needing to do a lot of traffic management, you can probably afford
to turn off connection tracking on the Routerboard devices, which can
save an impressive amount of CPU and latency.  

As for multiple NAT, I will just say that I am not a fan of NAT in any
way, other than at the customer edge.  In my networks, I always provided
my customers with one or more public IP addresses.  If they wanted more,
I could deliver more, but it was behind a router.  Customer layer2
traffic belongs to them and I always kept it there.  

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

2012-10-13 Thread Butch Evans
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 23:43 -0400, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
 I dunno about that.. While I can understand everyone wanting to have
 only relevant discussion on the main list...

Question is, what do those who complain consider relevant?  Every list
I'm on has the same set of topics to some degree.  UBNT, Mikrotik,
Canopy (Cabmium or whatever), WISP business, etc.  While there ARE lists
created specifically for these topics, they all are made up of WISPs and
people will ask their question where they are most comfortable...NOT
where it is most appropriate (if that is different).  My Mikrotik list
has been rather quiet lately, but even on a Mikrotik specific list,
there are other topics that come up.  I think people should just create
better filters for their email (unless you use windows or gmail, which
limits your ability to create good filters).  Alternatively, instead of
posting ANOTHER off-topic message whining about an off-topic message,
why not send a PRIVATE message to the moderator asking THEM to address
the issue.  Looks like I'm gonna have to figure out how to match this
type of whining in a regex so I don't have to see it anyway.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-13 Thread Butch Evans
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 23:16 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
 Of course they fit the networks they're capable of, because 
 they're capable of so little. ;-) I'm honestly working to 
 remove all the RB250s from my house's network as they've 
 become too annoying. I'll have to home-run some more cable, 
 but so is life.

They are plenty capable for a $40 switch.  That is what they are and to
expect something more is not a problem of the product, but the
implementer.  I have 3 of them here in my home network and guess
what...they work perfectly as I expect.  I don't expect them to be more
than a cheap switch, though.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

2012-10-12 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:52 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP 
 vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This 
 would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a 
 building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a 
 separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School 
 Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate 
 VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from 
 each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a 
 Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are 
 multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and 
 firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a 
 Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of 
 course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a 
 shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.
 
 I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly 
 instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs 
 and queues.

So, what you're saying is that you don't understand HOW to make the
network using MT as a tool?  NOTE: This is not the same as It can't do
.  It's all in the documentation.  You just have to either
figure it out from what is there or ask for help from someone who has.

It is there and can be done in a number of different ways (bridged OR
switched).  Truth be told, I am amazed at what can be done in a small
box like the mikrotik devices.  It is a swiss army knife.  However, the
other side of this coin is that often, there is a BETTER tool for some
network needs.  Much like a swiss army knife, while it is true that it
has a screwdriver built in, a REAL screwdriver is usually better suited.
At the same time, often, you only need the functionality provided by the
built-in screwdriver, but it takes a special knack to make it do the
job.  The point being, that while it is certainly possible to make
RouterOS NOT be a router, why would you?  If you want a switch, put in a
switch.  If you want to save money, just realize that you are trading
something to get it.

There is very little that you can't do with RouterOS in terms of vlan
behaviors, but there certainly ARE a few limitations.  Your needs will
determine which is better.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti next product.... another router?

2012-09-14 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 11:20 -0400, Greg Ihnen wrote:

 Once again they're breaking new ground, this time with low cost/high
 pps throughput. Will they be able to make it powerful (rich feature
 set) and easy?

Of course it will be easy!  It says right on their page that the
Advanced UI Next-generation user experience allows anyone to quickly
become a routing expert.  ROLLING EYES



-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Classified Ads Page

2012-09-13 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 13:17 -0400, Rick Harnish wrote:
 The classified ads was a part of the old website.  Since we changed hosting
 providers which ties the website to our database records, they do not let us
 add third party plugins.  Therefore, I have been unable to add a classified
 section.  We will hopefully be moving the website to a different host in the
 coming months because I would like to restore the classifieds and other
 features to the website.  

With all the ISPs that are part of this organization, why would we go to
a third party to host the website?  There is certain to be a member who
would sell a host for a few bucks a month.  Some of our membership is
pretty well connected, too.  Of course, the other side of the coin may
be the need to not maintain a server.  Just a thought.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Classified Ads Page

2012-09-13 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 15:09 -0400, Rick Harnish wrote:
 It was part of the package deal with Avectra, who was hosting the
 Association Management database. 

That certainly makes sense.  Just to be clear, I hope this wasn't taken
as a criticism, as it was just a question/suggestion.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Next Step

2012-09-10 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 10:03 -0400, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote:
 This week my career with ImageStream/Blue Technology will come to an end.
 It's been a 12 year run (to the day!) filled with highs and lows...but far
 more highs. 

I can't remember exactly when I met you, Jeff, but I'd guess it was very
close to the beginning of that 12 year span.  There are a lot of people
in this industry who I can say are men of integrity and without
reservation, I'd put you at the top of that list.  You have been a good
friend to the industry, WISPA and for me personally.  I honestly hope
whatever you find leaves you among us in some capacity, as our industry
needs men like you.  I will add you to my prayer list and please do keep
us posted once you do find a place.  

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] I've been cleaning house, anything you might need? (trango motorola unlicensed licensed, Cisco stuff, Watchguard stuff etc)

2012-09-05 Thread Butch Evans
How much for:

 Cisco 2500 router
 Cisco 2600 router
 Cisco 3500 XL series 48 port switch
 Cisco Catalyst Switch 3560G-48TS-E
 
 Dell 2400MP DLP Projector, Mount,  Wall Screen

I don't want them all, but would be interested in some of these.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] I've been cleaning house, anything you might need? (trango motorola unlicensed licensed, Cisco stuff, Watchguard stuff etc)

2012-09-05 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 15:54 -0500, Butch Evans wrote:
 How much for:

That was intended for offlist...sorry.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] What you can do!

2012-05-24 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 05:50 -0700, Spann, Chip wrote:
 Jeff's #1 point is spot on!  

All of them are spot on.  Not just the ones that get's CN some money.
Just sayin'

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [AFMUG] MK DOS Attack vulnerability

2012-05-15 Thread Butch Evans
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 20:23 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
 Are you one of those guys that think a system is only secure if it's never 
 created in the first place? ;-)

Are you kidding?  lol.  I think a system is only secure when the user
INTENTIONALLY makes it so.  I do, however, believe in REAL security vs a
false sense of security.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [AFMUG] MK DOS Attack vulnerability

2012-05-13 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 17:43 +, Gino Villarini wrote:

  http://www.133tsec.com/2012/04/30/0day-ddos-mikrotik-server-side-ddos-attack/

And with a proper input firewall, this means what?  Not a thing.
Vulnerabilities, such as this one, are not an issue if you stop the
attack before it can begin.


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [AFMUG] MK DOS Attack vulnerability

2012-05-13 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 01:12 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote:
 http://gregsowell.com/?p=3773

Yeah.  Greg said the same thing I did.  :-)  FWIW, port knocking and
changing the port is NOT a good security mechanism, though both would
likely thwart the bulk of the attacks on this vulnerability.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] It's been a ride... Some up, some down.

2012-05-03 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 09:12 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181)
wrote:
 Very nicely said Rick.  Great job.

Indeed.  I was just gonna call him an idiot and explain why I felt that
way.  What is REALLY strange, is that from a political standpoint, I
almost 100% agree.  The difference, though, is that I don't think
burying our head in the sand will FIX the problems in Washington (as he
seems to believe).

Rick is MUCH more dignified in his response.  FWIW, I thought his last
and final post to the WISPA lists happened over a year or two ago when
he left in a huff THAT time.  


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] It's been a ride... Some up, some down.

2012-05-03 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 19:27 -0500, Butch Evans wrote:
 Indeed.  

CRAP!  I intended this to be OFFLIST.  Please forgive this error.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik User

2012-04-04 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 07:17 +, aajayi...@as-technologies.com wrote:
 I'm using user manager. IP hotspot/user didn't work. 

Using user manager?  Did you LOOK at the documentation before asking?
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/User_Manager/User_page

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik User

2012-04-03 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 23:49 +, aajayi...@as-technologies.com wrote:
 Is there an easy way for Mikrotik hotspot users to change their password?

Depends on if you are using a RADIUS server or not.  If you are, then
that would be some interface to the radius server database.  User
Manager, for example, has a way for them to do that.  If you use a local
database (/ip hotspot user ) then there isn't an easy way built in for
them to do that.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


[WISPA] THANKS!

2012-04-01 Thread Butch Evans
ISPAmerica 2012 was a GREAT show!  There were a LOT of awesome speakers
and sessions (thanks to Nathan).  This was a very well organized event
overall (thanks to Rick and Trina).

I would like to extend my thanks to those of you who visited the booth
as well as those who attended the training.  It was amazing to get a
chance to meet face to face so many new people as well as catch up with
those old friends who were there.  I am grateful for the opportunity to
serve this great group of people.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] THANKS!

2012-04-01 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 20:27 -0400, Chuck Hogg wrote:
 + 1000.

WOOHOO!!  High score!!

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] vUnity DSL bonding service

2012-03-22 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 23:52 -0400, Chris Fabien wrote:
 Is anyone familiar with this provider? They are offering a service
 using a bonding appliance that communicates over GRE tunnel to their
 equipment in a datacenter to bond multiple DSL/cable lines into a
 bigger pipe. Seems to be a fairly new company, has anyone worked with
 them or heard anything about them? Seems similar to what SharedBand
 and Mushroom Networks offer but their pricing and IP availability seem
 more geared toward ISP usage. 

I'm not familiar with this company, but I AM familiar with what they are
doing (more or less).  If you decide NOT to go with them, then perhaps I
can help you out with a similar solution.  Are you planning to be in
Orlando?  If so, look me up there and we can discuss it.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Monitoring and Presentation

2012-01-05 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 13:51 -0800, Matt Jenkins wrote:
 I put together a very simple page: http://usage.sbbnet.com
 Currently it takes an IP address but could easily take a customer ID 
 number instead.
 http://usage.sbbnet.com/customer.php?customer=173.195.182.210curDate=1325107879
  
 http://usage.sbbnet.com/customer.php?customer=173.195.182.210curDate=1325107879
 
 I would be happy to share the code if you want it.

Code sharing is nice, but I'm more interested in what gear you are
gathering these stats from.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship

2011-11-17 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 21:08 -0800, John Thomas wrote:
 What is everyone's take on this?
 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/sopa-internet-piracy-bill-criticized-as-internet-censorship/

My take is that piracy should be punishable by jail time.  We have laws
against such things already.  The technology is there to detect the IP
of the offending party, there are laws in place that permit law
enforcement to request end user information from ISPs and there is no
need for yet another law to do what is already in place.  I think that
if enough people go to jail for theft, it will grow MUCH less common.
As for the censorship idea...I think people need to get a life.  Theft
is illegal and those crying censorship should focus on THAT.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship

2011-11-17 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:14 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote:
 So some people go to jail for downloading Cars 2 illegally for 15
 years where a week before a rapist went to prison for 90 days.  That's
 so insanely ridiculous.

I agree that it is ridiculous.  It doesn't change my opinion of what
SHOULD happen.
-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship

2011-11-17 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 16:34 -0600, David E. Smith wrote:

 On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 16:12, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com
 wrote:
 
 
 My take is that piracy should be punishable by jail time.
 
 
 Yikes. I think we'll have to agree-to-disagree here (biting tongue so
 hard it's bleeding).

Define piracy without it being theft of IP.  It is illegal to steal and
those who steal are punished by jail time.  I don't understand what you
are disagreeing with.  


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship

2011-11-17 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 16:51 -0600, Sam Tetherow wrote:
 I disagree on your statement about censorship.  If someone posts a fair 
 use clip on a website parodying the MPAA or the RIAA for instance, all 
 they need to do is file a complaint to paypal/CC processors and that 
 site's ability to collect donations or conduct business online will be 
 shut down until they can get a court order to have it turned back on, 
 and if they find a sympathetic ear at the federal level the DNS for that 
 site can be shut down.  All without due process of actually finding the 
 party guilty or any violation other than offending someone with on-staff 
 lawyers willing to file the paperwork.

I have not read the proposed legislation.  I am not saying that I
support that legislation, as I don't know what is in it.  I AM, however,
saying that there is no need to create a NEW law that makes theft of IP
illegal.  There IS such a thing as censorship, but I don't think that it
is the opposite of protecting IP.  Does that clarify what I said?

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship

2011-11-17 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:41 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of 
 proof to prove one's innocence.  And some put more onus on the ISP 
 than before, no small issue.  The copyright lobby does not like the 
 Internet at all. It breaks their artifact-based business model.

This is, unfortunately, one of the costs for ISPs who NAT their customer
traffic.  When all users have a public IP (say, an IPv6 address), then
the problem of identifying thieves would be much simpler and can be
easily identified by the ISP AND law enforcement.

 There's also a question of what constitutes theft, vs. other 
 copyright violations.  Literal theft refers to rivalrous goods:  If I 
 steal the dish off of your tower, I have the dish, you 
 don't.  So-called theft of so-called intellectual property -- more 
 accurately, simply the violation of copyright -- does not deprive the 
 legitimate owner of their property, it merely deprives the seller of 
 the *opportunity cost* of the sale that was not made.  Which in most 
 cases, frankly, would not have been made.

SO, if you owned a Ford dealership and I came onto your lot and used one
of your vehicles, it wouldn't be theft since I would never purchase that
car anyway?  What a stupid argument.

 So there's a real spread between true piracy and some of the casual 
 copyright violations that are being called piracy. True piracy is the 
 crook who counterfeits a CD and sells it as real, or sells a 
 counterfeit software DVD-ROM as the real thing.

So downloading a movie without paying the author/owner (who IS selling
that movie) is not piracy?  You really are as good as my first
impression of you lead me to believe.

 But some of these copyright extremists want to put you in jail for 
 having the radio on in a YouTube home movie (they've issued takedowns 
 to look at our toddler dance, isn't she cute videos).  Just to give 
 an example, my son just had a college class (TV production) 
 assignment to make a music video.  So he had to take a copyrighted 
 record and use it.  (Hey, I was the star!  We filmed at Occupy 
 Boston.)  In class, it's no doubt Fair Use, though I suspect the RIAA 
 wishes that weren't the case.  Is he a pirate if he posts it on 
 YouTube?  I think not, but the RIAA probably does.  But somehow I 
 don't equate that to the guys selling fake CDs to record store owners.

Fair Use is defined by the owner of the content.  Note that owner is
NOT the person who purchased a CD.  

 In other words, intellectual property law is a confused mess already, 
 and the proposals on the table just make it worse, and won't actualy 
 help the industries they're trying to help.  They're like ILECs, who 
 harm ISPs because it's what they do, even if it costs them.  The 
 scorpion and the frog comes to mind.

Adding still more laws is that I said was a problem.  Glad you had a
place to rant, though.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship

2011-11-17 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:01 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 Well, I'm on record as disliking IPv6 and telling my clients to not 
 adopt it, so this is one more reason... ;-)

Really?  Hiding a customer identity behind a NAT in order to make it
harder for law enforcement is your argument against IPv6?  

 Of course not.  An automobile is a rivalrous good.  Using it lowers 
 its value. Knowledge is a different type of good -- it sometime is 
 worth more the more it's disseminated.

I know that when another company took MY work (training materials) and
attempted to sell THEIR training class, I certainly did not look on it
as increasing the value of MY work.  You can say it as many times as you
want, but it doesn't make you right. 

 Downloading a whole movie is a borderline case.  It's clearly a 
 violation of copyright, so there's some loss to the seller.  But it's 
 not conversion of rivalrous property, or fraudulent substitution of 
 counterfeit goods.  So the download strikes me as a good example of a 
 civil tort, actionable at law but not, when done on a small scale, in 
 criminal law.  For the record, I'm not a big fan of the use of 
 criminal law when civil law is adequate.  Just to give an example, 
 Jewish Law (Halacha) is entirely civil.  What the west calls criminal 
 acts are viewed as civil torts against the society as a whole.  I 
 like that approach.  Criminalizing civil disputes bothers me.

Theft is theft is theft.  While there is some support for this being a
civil action, the reality is that the end user is taking something that
was created for the purpose of making money (CD, movie, etc.) and doing
so without compensating the seller of that product.  To me, this is not
grey...it IS black and white.  I am not a lawyer and I don't know (or
really care) exactly where the law sits here.  I am simply expressing my
own opinion of what I think SHOULD be.  Besides, any way you slice it,
whether civil OR criminal, there ARE ALREADY LAWS TO ADDRESS THIS.
There is no reason to add more.  

 No, fair use is statutory.  You should read up on it. 

Why?  In case I ever decide to become a lawyer?  No thanks.

 The point is that there is no clear bright line about what 
 constitutes fair use, so a misjudgment here could lead to criminal 
 charges, and allow a take-down of valid, fair-use content or loss of 
 a domain without due process.  That sort of guts fair use.

So perhaps you are talking about something other than what I am.  I am
not talking about LEGAL use of materials.  I am speaking about what is
ILLEGAL.  There IS a clear line there.  Downloading of a movie, music or
other IP without paying for it, when it is CLEARLY supposed to be for
sale is theft.  I am not trying to draw out an argument over what the
law says or which law is what.  I honestly don't care to get into a
debate over the finer points of the law about fair use or anything else.
If you want to be a lawyer, then go do that and leave the networking
behind.  

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship

2011-11-17 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 19:17 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote:
 The authors are paid either way.  Doesn't matter if 1 or a million
 copies are sold.  Can't feel bad for them as they aren't directly
 effected.  That is publicized falsely.

This is not entirely true, or is misleading at best. Musicians are often
paid percentages based on sales of CDs.  Actors are often paid based on
sales levels.  Producers of both music and video entertainment are paid
the same way.  I am not speaking out of what I've heard.  I have
family that are in the music business and have been for a long time.

 Stealing a car by comparison is different...the original owner still
 has it and completely without change.

I have no idea what this sentence means.  However, the only difference
between stealing a car and stealing music is that when you steal a car,
you are taking something that has been paid for by the owner and is a
chance for profit when it sells.  With music, you are taking money from
media companies AND all those who make their money as a percentage of
the sales.  

 Do I think it is wrong to hurt the media companies?  Yes.  But that
 doesn't mean what they do is all peaches and cream.  Terrible
 contracts with cable/satellite and Netflix drive consumers to go the
 easier way.

This is without a doubt true as well.  However, making a bad decision in
one area (or a series of bad decisions) doesn't mean that it's ok to
steal from them or those they represent.

I'm tired of this argument.  You folks can believe whatever you want,
but it is wrong to steal.  It doesn't matter what pretty paper you wrap
it up in, that's what it is.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT interface bonding

2011-11-14 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 09:44 -0600, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:
 As far as performance is concerned which will offer the better 
 end result? Bonding or routing the interfaces?  Can you elaborate 
 on how to use ospf to create dedicated tx / rx interfaces?  We use 
 ospf currently to facilitate a self-healing network.

If you are already running OSPF, you can use this:
http://blog.butchevans.com/2008/10/using-ospf-to-create-full-duplex-behaviour-for-wireless-links/

Adding a second path will add SOME bandwidth, but it will not be likely
to double the throughput.  Bonding, on the other hand, will double the
throughput, but will not be full duplex behavior.  There are examples of
bonding on Mikrotik's wiki that may be of use.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT interface bonding

2011-11-14 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 12:17 -0600, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:
 Which would give the better experience?   

It depends on what you need.  If more it's just more throughput, then
either will likely give you what you need.  Both can give you failover
capability.  OSPF will act more like FDX, though it is not true FDX.  My
advice is to use what you're most comfortable with from the technical
perspective.  

OSPF uses path cost to simulate the FDX behavior.  Bonding uses a round
robin approach and failure detection to aggregate traffic over the
links.  I've done both and both work well.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] New Stuff from MUM

2011-10-20 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 2011-10-16 at 05:00 -0400, Justin Wilson wrote:
 Some links
 http://gregsowell.com/?p=3253
 http://www.mikrotik-routeros.com/?p=254


Or straight from the horses mouth:
http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/US11/us11.pdf


-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] [WUG] MT, Skype, P2P and Butch's script

2011-09-16 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 21:02 -0430, Greg Ihnen wrote:

 The fix I wrote below works nicely because it keeps the Skype queue
 clean of P2P traffic.

Another idea would be to move the skype match rule below the connection
counting rules.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP

2011-07-07 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 15:02 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
 Yeah, MT and ImageStream really don't have anything to offer when
 really pushing 10 gig interfaces.  We'll be needing them before too
 much longer!

I have 10G interfaces available with RouterOS.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] [MT] Will setting up VLANS eliminate arp poisoning problem?

2011-05-14 Thread Butch Evans
On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 13:05 -0500, John McDowell wrote:
 We've been having an ongoing issue with ARP poisoning 
 one tower that we have, originating from some SM out there.
 We thought it might be a bad firewall at one of the County 
 offices or something before, and it still may be? Nonetheless, 
 these are all Canopy APs and SMs, just wondering if setting 
 up a VLAN on these APs and subs would eliminate this type of 
 issue. If not, do any of you have any suggestions? It 
 basically cripples the rest of the subs on this tower when it 
 occurs and typically we have to go through and reboot APs for 
 long enough to see which one was the culprit...

The best approach here will be somewhat dependent upon how the network
is set up.  

Are the Canopy devices bridged or configured as routers?  If they are
routers, perhaps you can set up a static arp entry for their gateway
device in the SMs (not sure if Canopy supports this).  

Is your router (the customer gateway) a Mikrotik?  If you assign IP
space dynamically (via dhcp or some other mechanism), then there are
methods to create static ARP mappings when the assignment happens.
There are other routers that can support a similar function.

With Cisco switches, you can use port protection creatively to prevent
the spread of bad ARP information between customers.  

If you have Mikrotik devices at the towers you can create some bridge
filters and limit the extent of the ARP poisoning that way.  

For a more direct answer to your question, VLANs can help, too,
depending on your network design.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE MY NEW NUMBER:  702-537-0979 *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] looking for ideas...

2011-05-06 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 17:17 -0400, Blair Davis wrote:
 I have a special job to do.
 
 I need to connect 4 sites together in a line and provide Ethernet
 connectivity between them.  I may NOT use wireless to do this.
 
 I can run overhead cable of most any type I need to.  Coax, cat3 or
 cat5, or even fiber if the price is right...
 
 Site 1 to site 2 is 700 ft.  Site 2 to site 3 is 900 ft.  Site 3 to
 site 4 is 2400 ft. 

I would HIGHLY recommend fiber for this.  I am assuming these are
different buildings.  If they are, and they are on their own electric
meters, then grounding alone would make me want use fiber instead of
copper.  There are some solutions out there that will use the copper
lines, but I'd still go with fiber.Cost difference is likely to be
minimal and by the time you save $$ on the ethernet extenders (SDSL type
devices), you may come out at nearly the same cost with more bandwidth
to boot.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE MY NEW NUMBER:  702-537-0979 *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this?

2011-04-08 Thread Butch Evans
On 04/08/2011 12:07 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
 There is definately a need for different queue types at different points on
 the network. Multiple Queue types have been developed because there are
 different problems to solve for different situations.
This is true.

 What I question is when it is necessary to solve a problem. I hardly justify
 a complete network queueing standard overhaul, just to satisfy the abilty to
 perform a single stream TCP test to Speak easy at full speed, when most
 business circuits serve many TCP streams at a time to fill capacity.
This is a very good point.  The current trending of internet traffic is 
geared toward more and more streams.  Of the available queue types, only 
SFQ (or one of it's derivative types) and RED make much sense.  FIFO 
queues, without properly managing the traffic entering those queues, 
will cause customers to sit up and take notice in a negative way.  The 
problem with SFQ is that the algorithm used to implement this is fairly 
slow.  It doesn't work well under heavy load.  More specifically, it 
falls apart when the volume of traffic is excessive.  Mikrotik adds 
another queue type called PCQ, which is sort of like FIFO queues grouped 
by some classifier such as source addresses and/or ports OR destination 
addresses and/or ports OR some wicked combination of all of the above.  
PCQ is an alternative, as it allows you to set per classification speed 
limits, but in the end, it is still FIFO per class, which requires very 
careful crafting of defining traffic types to be sorted into these queues.

As to WHEN you need to begin managing network traffic, I personally feel 
it is ALWAYS necessary.  The reality is that even with sufficient 
bandwidth available, some of that traffic is more sensitive than others 
to network latencies.  Even if you are not creating a QOS policy, you 
have one.  Every interface has an output queue.  All a policy does is 
inform the operating system as to what your preferred order is when 
placing packets into that queue.  There is obviously SOME added latency 
involved in doing that, but usually that added time can result in a 
better end user experience.  QOS enables you to manage not only high 
bandwidth use, but high packet rates.  You are not limiting packet rates 
per se, but when that increases (especially on a wireless network), you 
are more likely to experience collisions.  QOS enables you to make those 
collisions less problematic because you are managing the output side of 
the interface and know that the important traffic will go first.

 So it boils down to weighing the scale of how bad the problem is and how
 badly the customers notices it. There can be a very fine line on which
 Queueing methods are required for specific cases, and sometimes picking one
 makes it easier to consistently implement, even if there are some trade
 offs. On our core routers we've found RED to work well.  But we also have
 other areas where we queue where we use other things, such building routers
 or customer routers.
QOS involves speed limits, but is not always about limiting speeds.  A 
more accurate description of what QOS is would be something like: 
Management of network traffic policies such that periods of low 
utilization permit full access to network resources and periods of high 
utilization will permit preferred access to certain traffic types.  
Additionally, QOS policies enable an admistrator to level out peaks 
during very high utilization periods such that all traffic is permitted 
to pass the policy, but in an orderly fashion.

I spent almost 1 minute coming up with that definition, so give me some 
slack.  :-)


-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this?

2011-04-07 Thread Butch Evans
On 04/07/2011 06:23 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
 My little network is a wireless network with about 20 user devices 
 (computers, iPads, iPods, Wiis, Blackberries etc). Our upstream is a 
 1Mbps/256KBps.

 I was running Butch's script with PCQ queues but I started wondering about 
 buffer bloat (yeah, I follow NANOG too) on the router. I thought about 
 trying RED on the outbound queue since if packets are dropped and resent on 
 our wireless network it's no biggie. Our wireless network is way overkill as 
 far as our bandwidth needs. But I didn't want dropped packets on our inbound 
 side because I didn't want to waste any of our precious satellite bandwidth. 
 So I kept PCQ queues there.

 It seems like it made things work better but I never know for sure because 
 our satellite bandwidth is oversold and what we get at any given moment is 
 effected by what the other users who are on this same bandwidth are doing.

 Does anyone else mix queue types like that? Is this a dumb idea?
FWIW, the NEWEST version of this script uses RED queues.  (just so you 
know).  As for splitting the queues per direction like this, I'm not 
sure I've ever tried this, but it should perform reasonably well.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik rb433ah

2011-04-03 Thread Butch Evans
On 04/01/2011 01:07 PM, Jeremy Parr wrote:
 Update the os *and* the firmware. Two step process, if you don't have
 the matching firmware loaded bad things happen.
http://blog.butchevans.com/2010/08/routeros-upgrade-process/

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] query for the list

2011-03-16 Thread Butch Evans
On 03/15/2011 08:17 PM, Chris Stradtman wrote:
 Hello all,

 This may not be the right place for this query, but if it's not I'm
 hoping someone will point me in the correct direction.

 I'm not actually a WISP, however on a regular basis I could use
 service from WISPs.

 We do network professional services for tradeshows and other events.
 Many times I could really use a wireless backup link to venues that
 just have one terrestrial link (or indeed sometimes we could use the
 wireless as the primary link).  Typically these events need
 connectivity for between 2 days and 2 weeks.  We're willing to pay for
 up to a month's service even if we only need it for 2 days, however
 for obvious reasons full year contracts are out of the question.  We
 typically know months ahead of time where the location is (once and a
 great while we will only get 2 weeks warning).  Bandwidth demands can
 vary between 5M and 1G depending on a lot of factors.

 Typically the information we would get would be something like

 somebuilding
 123 Anywhere Street
 sometown, somestate X
 bandwith = 10M burstable to 50M

 for example.

 My question is: Is this an appropriate place to post the requests, or
 if not, where could we post requests to get exposure to potentially
 interested WISPs??

 We've found that just doing a web search for WISPs in the area and
 repetitive phone calls to yield a close to 0 success rate.  I do
 understand that not every WISP is going to be interested in this sort
 of business.
Chris,
I would guess that many wisps may be interested, but you'd pay a pretty 
high price for that month of service.  Anyway, Rick Harnish has created 
a national map of WISPA members (not all wisps on this list are WISPA 
members).  rharn...@wispa.org would be a good contact email for him.  I 
have copied him on this email as well, in case he misses it on the 
list.  He can give you the URL, since I can't find it at the moment.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Calea Compliance

2011-03-06 Thread Butch Evans
On 03/06/2011 09:18 AM, John Scrivner wrote:
 The FBI told me (and I am paraphrasing) that if you work with them 
 that they will work with you. Basically as long as you are not acting 
 like you do not think they have a right to do the tap and are not 
 being a pain in the behind then you will get all the support you need 
 from them in a lawful intercept situation. I would say that having 
 this box on the shelf shows your intentions of being compliant to the 
 act. CALEA is all about 2 things. It is about making sure that tools 
 exist to find and stop crime on the Internet and about making sure 
 that we help be a check against government becoming too intrusive.

Correct.  Protect the rights of our customers, protect the rights of the 
service provider AND allow for what LEA needs to get a conviction for 
the guilty party.  All of these are built into CALEA.


 CALEA has many regs which say when we are doing too much to help tap 
 connections.  The WISPA CALEA standard was created to act as a 
 guideline for WISPs. It tells precisely what our obligations are in 
 helping assure we can perform lawful intercepts in our network and in 
 preventing overstepping the bounds of what is lawful.

In addition, the WCS for IPNA provides technical requirements as well.  
It defines the technical standard that our software/hardware MUST meet.  
For the original poster:  Be sure you are familiar enough with the way 
the MT handles the CALEA software so that you can properly capture this 
data for the LEA.  Mikrotik's CALEA implementation is 2 parts.  It 
requires a server AND a tap.  One box CAN be both pieces.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] OSPF Route Cost Calculations

2011-03-05 Thread Butch Evans
On 03/05/2011 05:23 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
 What is the largest value you can put in for an OSPF cost?  I'd almost
 recommend multiplying all of those numbers by 10 so you can do the fine
 level tweaking between the links.
See http://www.workrobot.com/sysadmin/routing/ospf_costs.html for a 
brief discussion of auto-costing in Cisco (and some other devices).  It 
also gives a brief discussion of type1 vs type2 announcements.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic

2011-02-14 Thread Butch Evans
On 02/14/2011 07:50 AM, Optimum Wireless Services wrote:
 Hello.

 Thought I share this with the list.

 I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his
 radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar
 set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he
 finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His
 explanation:

 The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board
 is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This
 pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the
 more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way
 too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that
 radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high
 traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links
 between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the
 bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason
 why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a
 routerboard and radios with pigtails.

 What you guys think of his logic?
Well, his logic is fine, but his reasoning is wrong.  There are a 
couple of reasons that the bullet devices work better (or MAY work 
better).  The first (and most important) has to do with RF shielding.  
The radio cards used in the MT platform are mini-pci type cards and they 
are connected to their antenna using a very small rf cable.  This rf 
cable (the pigtail) has a tendency toward being very lossy, which can 
dramatically impact performance.  Another problem has to do with the 
shielding on the card itself.  When you install these devices in a 
routerboard (for example), the radio cards have SOME shielding on them, 
but in practice, this shielding tends to be less than perfect.  It's 
position on the board is subject to RF coming from the routerboard.  
With the bullet device, this position can be optimized so that the 
impact of these rf signals (noise) are minimized.

The second reason is related to the first.  This has to do with being 
purpose built.  In the MT device, there are drivers that allow it to run 
as an access point/client.  There are also a HUGE number of other 
options available.  Ubiquiti builds radios.  Making the comparison 
between a purpose built radio (bullet) and a device capable of being a 
radio (MT) is similar to comparing a luxury H3 and the Army's HumVee.  
While you can certainly take the H3 offroad, it's performance there will 
not even approach the performance of the Army's purpose built 
specifically to do just that.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem

2011-02-14 Thread Butch Evans
On 02/14/2011 01:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
 For 7 miles?  Use the 23dbi ARC things.  I get them from Streakwave.  
 Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures.  Very lightweight 
 solution (compared to a two foot dish!)

http://tinyurl.com/4jqqq2h is a complete system (with routerboard, 
radio, power supply and antenna).  I have the antennas available as well.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses

2011-02-07 Thread Butch Evans
On 02/07/2011 09:40 AM, Jeremie Chism wrote:
 It will just turn into 1999 all over again with businesses everywhere 
 worried they won't be able to use the Internet so they bring in high 
 priced consultants to show them how to transition to IPV6.

Not all of us are that high priced!  :-)

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Blocking DHCP traffic

2011-01-26 Thread Butch Evans
On 01/26/2011 02:04 PM, Kristian Hoffmann wrote:
 Although it's a bit of work to get setup, and it helps to have scripts
 and automated provisioning to keep everything organized, we haven't had
 any problems with rouge DHCP since implementing it...

 http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/2009-November/001178.html

 Josh, did you end up implementing something like this yourself?

I think that I posted another solution in that same thread.  I have also 
posted similar solutions on the WISPA member list.  IIRC, the post to 
the WISPA member list was a complete solution.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] new list

2011-01-24 Thread Butch Evans
On 01/24/2011 12:31 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
 What is the link for Butches Mikotik list, is it listed under a WISPA lists
 page?

http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik

The archives are open if you would like to peruse them to see if this is 
a useful list for you.  WISPA has a MT list as well, though it is 
(generally) not as busy as mine.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
*NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979   *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?

2011-01-16 Thread Butch Evans
On 01/16/2011 01:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 At 1/15/2011 11:56 PM, ButchE wrote:
 On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
  Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is
  printed on. Ignore it and it will go away.  Really.

 Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice.

 Obviously we have different opinions.

Opinion isn't the key to this.  It is FACT that IPv6 is here and WILL 
need to be implemented.  There is, in the very near future, going to be 
some content that WILL be reachable via IPv6 only.  It may not be this 
year or next, but ignore it and it will go away is bad advice.  It 
isn't a matter of opinion.  THAT was my point.


 You make my point.  IPv6 is needless complexity that doesn't solve the 
 real problems while focusing on a non-problem that it doesn't solve 
 anyway.

The point is that WHEN content is reachable only via IPv6, whether via 
some transition mechanism or native implementation, customers WILL want 
it.  Complexity isn't the problem.  Your statement to let the customers 
worry with it is what I was addressing.  Which non-problem are you 
referring to?  Lack of currently allocatable space?  The fact that there 
is still lots of unused (yet allocated) space really is an issue, 
whether you like it (or admit it) or not.  And if that IS the issue you 
are referring to, IPv6 DOES address and fix that issue.

 The only folks who would put up an IPv6-only site are a) Chinese (and 
 we don't really care), or b) zealots who think they are on a mission 
 from some diety to follow the advice of the IETF.  Anyone wanting to 
 put up a site for the public will make it available on v4, and that is 
 how the transition is planned to work.

 So the average Joe who calls up and asks about how to configure 
 Windows Mail or what-have-you will have no need for v6.  They won't 
 know the difference, and won't need to connect to zealot sites.

So you are basing your opinions on the fact that since the content is 
unimportant to you, it is assumed to be unimportant to your customers?

 It reminds me of the beer commercial, in reverse:  Tastes worse, more 
 filling. Yes, it works, but not as well as v4.  Billions of dollars 
 of transition cost will result in negligible improvement.  Collossal 
 waste, especially considering how they went out of their way to *not* 
 fix things that were really broken.  In 1991, the public Internet 
 didn't exist yet, so it was all a little club with little concern 
 about massive cybercrime.  But it will result in a lot of new box 
 sales for Cisco.

Well, high horse aside, your advice to ignore it and it will go away 
seems to be nulled by this opinion that it will result in a lot of new 
box sales for Cisco.  Perhaps you don't really believe that it will go 
away?  If that is the case, why would you provide that as your advised 
approach?  As a consultant, it seems to me that our advice should be 
published with the best interest of our customers in mind and not our 
personal beefs, which yours seems to be on this subject.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?

2011-01-16 Thread Butch Evans
On 01/16/2011 02:24 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 If there really does turn out to be *meaningful* content that can 
 *only* be reached via v6, then gateways will exist.  One form or other 
 of a 4-to-6-NAT.  Name-based services will help; using an IP address 
 in the application layer is a capital-M Mistake in the current stack.

So NAT is the answer to everything?  SIGH.  I can see that attempting to 
discuss this further with you will be fruitless and a waste of time.

 No, I didn't say customers should worry about it.

Ummm, from YOUR message:

If one of your subscribers really needs to reach something only 
accessible via IPv6, they can tunnel out. 

Maybe I didn't interpret this correctly?  Sounds to me that you DID say 
that.


 Since space is a non-problem, why spend so much to fix it?

You are the only one with the opinion that available space is a 
non-problem.

   Use the space more efficiently.  It's much cheaper and for that 
 matter more secure. 

I'll not even attempt to have this NAT is secure argument with you.  I 
know the truth and it will do little good to try to convince you.  
Efficiency aside (that is, after all the REAL purpose of NAT), there is 
no good reason to NAT.  IPv6, even with all the inherent issues, WILL 
address the lack of space.  Additionally, it is child's play to create 
an SPI firewall that mimics the security of NAT, even with public space.


 Let the market re-allocate existing v4 blocks.  That has to happen 
 anyway, *because* the transition requires dual-stack, probably for 
 10-20 years.  (And by then I hope to have succeeded in getting an 
 alternative available and accepted.  I am working on it.)

So your beef isn't Cisco, it's the fact that your preferred protocol 
lost?  I knew that all along, but was waiting for you to say it 
outright.  FWIW, I agree that TUBA was a MUCH better approach, but that 
isn't the world we live in.  Also, even if the market reallocates 
existing space, we will not last 10+ years with the current growth 
rates.  This is an argument that you have not won for the past 10 years, 
why would you expect us to bury our heads in the sand (ignore it and it 
will go away) with some confidence that you will win in the next 10 years?

 Yes, in one sense.  Because anyone who wants their content to be 
 available to the general pubilc *will* make it available in v4.  But 
 gateways will also exist, so a v4 user will be able to reach most 
 v6-only content, if there's demand.

And what about the reality that space IS limited (even if every unused 
IP block were returned, we'd only have a year or so at the MOST)?

 One of the *problems* in the current model is the inability to make 
 networks *not* available to everyone.  Think about that... host-based 
 security isn't perfect.  Power infrastructure, security, corporate 
 data, etc.  V6 doesn't really fix this.  We will still need firewalls, 
 which relay applications.  NAT is your friend.

NAT is not a security model.  Sorry, but that's just fact.  Even if you 
say it 10 times, it will STILL be fact.  You can try 100 times, but I 
doubt it will change just because you say it.  Good try, but not a valid 
argument.  Proper security measures are still going to be needed 
(whether there is v4 or v6 with or without NAT).  I understand the 
security implications, but NAT won't fix those under any circumstance.
 Huh?  If everyone ignored it, then it would go the way of GOSIP.  End 
 users are tending to ignore it; it's the vendor community, and some 
 ISPs, who are all atwitter about it.

This is just ridiculous.  Sure, if everyone ignored it, it WOULD go 
away.  The problem is that the RIRs are right now handing out IP space 
from the v6 pool.  It isn't being ignored.  So, where does that leave 
you?  Perhaps you can bury your head, but those of us in the real world 
should continue planning to transition our networks, since the world 
around us will be doing the same thing.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?

2011-01-15 Thread Butch Evans
On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is
 printed on. Ignore it and it will go away.  Really.

Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice.

 If one of your subscribers really needs to reach something only
 accessible via IPv6, they can tunnel out.
Have you even tried explaining how to configure their email client?  
Explaining IPv6 would be much harder.


 Plus v6 is an abomination, a misdesign of immense proportions, so you 
 shouldn't
 buy into Cisco's fantasies.

Umm...IPv6 is not a Cisco fantasy.   While I agree that there are some 
serious problems with the current implementation, I cannot say that it 
is a total waste.  There are some security issues to be sure, but for 
the most part, it works and works well.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?

2011-01-15 Thread Butch Evans
On 01/13/2011 05:54 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
 No, I'm not offended at all. I appreciate your comments and the privilege of 
 being in the forum.

 When I read what you wrote about how the HE tunnel is IPv4 as far as the MT 
 router is concerned (that had escaped me).

 But I still would be interested to know if others are doing true IPv6 through 
 the MT RB750/RB450.

Greg, are you on the IPv6 mailing list?  I posted a complete 
configuration there (very simple config) for MT with an HE tunnel.  I 
believe that most of that post was put up on the member's wiki, though I 
can't be certain.  It will work with any MT device (including 750).

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?

2011-01-15 Thread Butch Evans
On 01/13/2011 06:23 PM, Kristian Hoffmann wrote:
 I ran across this subtle caveat today in the MT wiki...

 http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/Wireless

 Note: Currently IPv6 doesn't work over Pseudobridge

This could (should?) be reworded as: Note: Currently most things 
(including IPv6) do not work (well) over Pseudobridge.  Just a 
thought.  :-)


-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] IPv6 Training Survey

2010-11-29 Thread Butch Evans
I am in the process of developing a training that will cover IPv6.  In
talking to a few people about this idea, I've gotten some mixed results
regarding a few things I consider when I develop new trainings.  Please
take a few minutes and answer the following survey.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/596PKT8

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Webbox

2010-11-17 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 10:04 -0600, Jeremie Chism wrote: 
 Does anyone here know an easy way to make the Webbox only 
 available internally or change the port it is accessible. 
 I have a range o ip addresses (one of which is 212.156.98.214) 
 that have been trying continuously to login. Would be nice to 
 block those ip's but I'm sure they would try from another one.

To make it available only inside the network:

If the public facing interface is called ether1, then:
/ip firewall filter
add chain=input in-interface=ether1 protocol=tcp \
dst-port=80 action=drop

That will stop ALL access to tcp/80 from the internet.  If you want to
limit access just to specific IP addresses, you can do:
/ip firewall address-list
add list=webboxadmin address=10.10.10.10
add list=webboxadmin address=10.10.1.0/24

/ip firewall filter
add chain=input protocol=tcp dst-port=80 \
src-address-list=!webboxadmin action=drop


This would limit access to webbox for anyone who does not have
10.10.10.10 or 10.10.1.0/24 as an address.  Give me a shout if you need
a more complete firewall solution.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Filters Question

2010-11-15 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 17:51 -0500, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: 
 A while back I had asked a similar question .. Butch was kind enough to 
 provide a great answer.. see below:-

Awww, shucks!  :-)


-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Question: Subinterface?

2010-11-15 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 15:23 -0800, Matt Jenkins wrote:
 In this instance, I have no control upstream beyond the mikrotik

You cannot do multiple dhcp-clients, either (which is what you'd need).

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Filters Question

2010-11-15 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 14:46 -0800, Matt Jenkins wrote: 
 I have 6 virtual wlan interfaces. I want to prevent traffic form any 
 wlan interface to reach any other wlan interface. This includes the IP 
 address of the wlan interface. Besides creating 42 (I think) filters to 
 do this is there any way to group interfaces into a filter template or 
 something?
 
 WLAN1 - 10.66.1.1/24
 WLAN2 - 10.66.2.1/24
 etc
 
 All are NATed to a different public IP on eth1.

assuming your public interface is ether1, you can do:

/ip firewall filter
add chain=forward in-interface=!ether1 out-interface=ether1 \
comment=permit traffic leaving on ether1 action=accept
add chain=forward in-interface=!ether1 action=drop \
comment=don't allow traffic from wlans to talk to each other


Again, this is not a complete firewall application, but it will do
exactly what you want.  You could do the above in one rule as:

add chain=forward in-interface=!ether1 out-interface=!ether1 action=drop

FWIW, this is one of the things we cover in GREAT detail in my training
classes.  Firewall/filter is one of the things we spend a LOT of time
covering.  I dedicate a full day to this topic.  Hit me offlist for more
information on the training opportunities coming up, or see my website
below.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Question: Subinterface?

2010-11-15 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:13 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote:
 In terms of requests?  Can you add ether1 to multiple bridges, put one
 dhcpc on each bridge?

Unless this has changed, an interface cannot be on more than one bridge.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Console route lookup

2010-11-15 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 20:10 -0700, Blake Covarrubias wrote: 
 I've tested this on 4.9, 4.11, 4.12 and 5.0rc1.

This was added in 4.x, IIRC.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel

2010-11-11 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 21:43 -0500, RickG wrote:
 Tom, it gets better as I go back further in time. I had to use a
 cassette tape for storage with my TRS-80 - no floppy ;)

I remember those days.  The cassette was a MAJOR upgrade for me.  I
recall spending hours writing a program one time and my brother came by
and unplugged the computer!  After that, I was careful to leave a note
until I got the storage.  WHAT a GREAT upgrade that was!

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Need Mikrotik Wireless help

2010-11-09 Thread Butch Evans
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 12:29 -0800, Matt Jenkins wrote: 
 What mikrotik would be best for doing what is shown in the picture?

ANY routerboard with an Atheros card and level 4 license would work for
that.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Need Mikrotik Wireless help

2010-11-09 Thread Butch Evans
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 12:49 -0800, Matt Jenkins wrote: 
 I will need to do 1 simple queue per customer for throughput control. 
 Total traffic would be about 5-7 mbps. Need a single 802.11b/g wireless 
 with internal antenna. All of the customers will be laptops or ruckus 
 indoor wireless units. Only 1 customer will be plugged in to a port. I 
 would like to get a complete box that my guys don't have to build. Pull 
 out of packaging and load prebuilt config.

How soon do you need it?  Hit me offlist and I'll get this together for
you.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Need Mikrotik Wireless help

2010-11-09 Thread Butch Evans
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 16:58 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote:
 Needs multiple ethernet ports and a radio.  Doesn't work for 1100 or
 750 or 411.

lol...I said with an Atheros card, so obviously 1100 and 750 are out.
411AH (or other 411 varieties with level 4 license) will work if you use
vlans and a switch.  ;-)  See what happens when you top post?  DUCKING

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS

2010-11-03 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 19:53 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote:
 Having two routers talking to each other is not the same as a single
 router with redundant parts. I can pull the CPU card from my Cisco and
 the box never misses a single packet because the 2nd CPU card is in
 the same box. Same with the route processor cards. Same with the power
 supplies.
 
 If you have two boxes doing VRRP, and BGP, if the power supply goes
 out of a box, how long before the 2nd box could fully take over? 30
 seconds? 60 seconds? :(

What if the backplane is the problem?

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS

2010-11-03 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 19:54 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote:
 And, many of us in the middle of nowhere are still getting upstream
 links via telco circuits (such as OC3 and OC12). How do you terminate
 an OC12 into two separate boxes to run VRRP? You don't.

THIS is a more sensible argument.  The other one (regarding what
is/isn't redundant) is not.  Both are redundant, but this method is
redundant AND does the added feature of being connected to a
(non-redundant) OC12 with a (non-redundant) OC12 interface.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS

2010-11-03 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:59 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: 
 Then you move the cards into the spare chassis you have sitting 3ft 
 away in another rack and boot up and go... :)

My only point was that all that redundancy, which I think is a GOOD
thing, is only redundant to a point.  At some point in the system, there
is a point of failure.

 However, I have NEVER heard of a Cisco 12000 series backplane failing. 
 EVER.

Nor have I.  That wasn't really the point I was making anyway.  The
point, as stated above, is that there IS a point of failure in the
system, even if it is a rare failure.  Don't get me wrong, the router
you have sounds like a great bargain.  I am not knocking that at all. 

 Can't say that for an X86 based anything... they fail all the 
 time... cards, system boards, processors, memory, power supplies, etc.

I'd say that this is a bit of an exaggeration.  

 The point was, running RouterOS on a device taking multiple BGP feeds... 
 which I would never do... Cisco still owns the BGP space... and my next 
 choice would be Imagestream.

In general, I don't recommend ROS for BGP when you need anything beyond
basic functionality.  The only difference between your choice and mine
is which one we put as first choice, which, for me, would be
ImageStream.  Except that Cisco wouldn't likely be my second choice,
either...I'd be more likely to go with Juniper and then Cisco.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] RB1100U Anywhere?

2010-11-01 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 08:15 -0700, Mark Nash wrote: 
 I'd like to have at least 8 ports at every site so that I don't have to 
 include a switch:
 
 2 for backhauls
 3 for APs
 1 for UPS
 1 for remote power control unit
 1 for laptop access when technician is there

Strictly Mikrotik options for this include:

RB1100 - not available at this time due to backorders and EVERY
distributor. 

RB800 + RB816 - The 816 board is around, but the RB800 (like the 1100)
is hard to come by.

RB1100 will be around $400 and the RB800 with expansion will be around
$475-500.  RB1100 has 13GigE ports while the RB800+816 will have 19
total ports with 3 GigE and 16 10/100.  FWIW, they both have the same
processor and (I think) the same memory.  

If timing is of essence, then one of the other routers that are out
there are your only choice.  Every distributor is giving a time frame,
but nobody really knows.  

 It says thirteen individual gigabit ethernet ports, two 5-port switch 
 groups, and includes ethernet bypass capability
 
 The two questions I have:
 
 1. The 5-port switch groups... Does this mean that the individual ports 
 can't be routed independently of the other 4 ports in the switch group?

No.  It means that you have the ability to configure 2 groups of actual
switch ports.  In other words, if you chose to do so, you could have 2
switches + 3 additional ports all in the same box.

 2. The ethernet bypass capability... What's the application for this?

This just means that when the router loses power (for whatever reason),
there is a pair of ports that will still pass ethernet traffic.  This
would be useful in the case where you have another device that (or pair
of devices) that may not rely on the same power source.  I have not seen
a good example of where this will be useful in any WISP/tower
configuration, though I am certain there may be some out there.

I'm happy to work with you on getting the right parts, but like everyone
else, I am at the mercy of MT and the shippers.  I would hope that you
consider purchasing from my own store, given the time I'm investing in
trying to help you understand your options (link is below).

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS

2010-10-29 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 08:51 -0700, Kristian Hoffmann wrote: 
 An AS that yielded 500 routes took 1-2 minutes at 100% CPU to complete.
 Is this normal these days, or is significantly greater hardware in
 order?  I used to have a full feed on a Cisco 3640.  It took 5-10
 minutes to load all of the routes after a reload, and it was almost
 impossible to log in, high packet loss, etc. during that time.
 
 So, should it take 10 seconds on real hardware, or is this type of query
 always slow?

Given the hardware you are using, that is about normal.  Upgrading will
certainly make this better/faster.  It is only the searching that is a
problem in most cases, as the router is not likely to have a problem
looking up the best path.  So, I guess you could call this a cosmetic
problem (only when you want to look).  More CPU=faster in this case, but
only faster for you.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] RB1100U Anywhere?

2010-10-29 Thread Butch Evans
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 16:49 -0400, Chuck Hogg wrote: 
 You and about 30 other WISPs are looking for them.  Last I heard was
 end of November.

My earliest expectation (this is VERY optimistic guess) is third week of
November.  That's what I'm told from MT and shippers.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >