x27;re usually inflexible,
> have variable reliability and cost too much.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz"
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: S
:)
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Butch Evans"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:11:39 PM
> Subject: Re:
gt;
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Butch Evans"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:11:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as rout
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net
On 10/21/2012 9:53 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> There is no method known to me in the WISP industry to do what I have
> described, the abili
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
m: "Butch Evans"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 16:49 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> No.
>
> The cable modem (radio) does the authentication (therefore rate limitin
*smh*
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Butch Evans"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:20:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:50
t; cable does it.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "LTI - Dennis Burgess"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:48:58 PM
>
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 cus
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 ca
t.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "LTI - Dennis Burgess" mailto:gmsm...@gmail.com>>
> To: "WISPA General Li
ration on their behalf. You
> know... how cable does it.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "LTI - Dennis Burge
Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "LTI - Dennis Burgess"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:48:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
>
> Either they have to configure PPPoE or I have to configure NAT. If they use
> PPPoE, they don't pass 1500 byte packets (I've asked about raising the MTUs
> above 1500 to accommodate, and no one had an answer) and they have to
> configure the router. You use DHCP and now either you can't do the
>
No, I think he wants some piece of equipment that allows the subscriber
to plug into the ethernet port on his CPE and it is handed a public IP
address via DHCP (that he can control without knowing the MAC of the
equipment).
One way to come close would be to assign a /30 to each customer and hav
Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Butch Evans"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:40:01 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:52 -0500, Mike Hammett wr
-
From: "Butch Evans"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:38:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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
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
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
It's going to require the radio company to do it first.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Butch Evans"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:16:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] U
ist"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:58:13 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
I have all of that now. I NAT the CPE.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Simon Westlake &
From: "LTI - Dennis Burgess"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:48:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
don't know why you would let the customer equipment auth. our network all auth
is done at the CPE that we control.
On Fri, Oct 1
> To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:51:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
>
> While this is your opinion, others have a different
t;>> WISP industry makes it difficult to do so. Currently everything I do is
>>> NATed at the CPE, but I'd like to make that optional, not a requirement.
>>> Obviously for enterprise\wholesale level connections I do something
>>> different, but there's to
On 10/19/2012 1:48 PM, LTI - Dennis Burgess wrote:
> don't know why you would let the customer equipment auth. our network
> all auth is done at the CPE that we control.
A lot of people are enabling public IPs at the premise by having the
customer router engage in PPPoE with the ISP concentrator
---
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>>
> To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
27;s too many hands involved to do that for residential at this time.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -
> > From: "Faisal Imtiaz"
&g
> 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 :-)
>
Perhaps I have said too much
;)
--
Simon Westlake
Powercode.com
(920) 351-1010
__
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 y
different, but
>> there's too many hands involved to do that for residential at this time.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > Mike Hammett
>> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> > http://www.ics-il.com
>> >
>> >
ns
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>>
> To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:51:50 AM
> S
omething different, but
> there's too many hands involved to do that for residential at this time.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
aisal Imtiaz"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:51:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
>
> While this is your opinion, others have a different opinion...
> For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attribut
At 10/19/2012 12:40 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
Maybe I should take this off-list but this would be a better
question. What RFC or industry standard features are you referring
? Specific items! :)
It's not in RFCs; RFCs are the IETF vehicle, which is really all
about TCP/IP. Carrier Ether
inline comments
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 10/18/2012 02:52 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
>
> MPLS does run over a IP backbone, but can use VPLS tunnels to create what
> you are doing at layer 2. Not to mention you would get all of the benefit
> of Traffic Engineeri
;
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "LTI - Dennis Burgess"
> > To: "WISPA General List"
> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:52:39 PM
>
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "LTI - Dennis Burgess"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:52:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios
quot;WISPA General List"
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:52:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
MPLS does run over a IP backbone, but can use VPLS tunnels to create what you
are doing at layer 2. Not to mention you would get all of the benefit of
Traffic Engineering, and i
At 10/18/2012 02:52 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
MPLS does run over a IP backbone, but can use VPLS tunnels to create
what you are doing at layer 2. Not to mention you would get all of
the benefit of Traffic Engineering, and internal routing giving you
the best of both worlds. Why its sometimes
t: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
> We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and assign a ip address to the
> customers router.
> He have heard other wisp are using the Ubiquiti radio as a router.
> Would like feed back why one would do this when it appears customers would b
MPLS does run over a IP backbone, but can use VPLS tunnels to create what
you are doing at layer 2. Not to mention you would get all of
the benefit of Traffic Engineering, and internal routing giving you the
best of both worlds. Why its sometimes called Layer 2.5, as it creates
tunnels inside you
At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
>* Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > At 10/12/2012 10:23 AM, Tim Densmore 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 regiona
* Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 10/12/2012 10:23 AM, Tim Densmore 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 (
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
ome too annoying. I'll have to home-run some more cable,
but so is life.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Butch Evans"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:44:24 PM
Subjec
You can do tag swapping and other fancy VLAN tricks in AirOS by
creating VLAN subints and mapping them to each other using bridge
interfaces.
The Linux bridge interface behaves more like a switch than a "bridge"
in that you can control mac aging, learning, etc so it doesn't blindly
forward traffic.
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-effec
Butch, thanks for that information! I've marked that message
priority "high" so I don't lose it in my mailing list archive.
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
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
Hi Gino,
Pardon my ignorance, but what's Mk?
TD
On 10/13/2012 09:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
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
ssage-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists
>Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:28 PM
>To: fai...@snappydsl.net; WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
>
>I do...it used to say
, 2012 12:28 PM
To: fai...@snappydsl.net; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
I do...it used to say his Motorola Startac...
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> ...now for a little bit of a distraction...
>
>>>&g
At 10/13/2012 11:27 AM, Tim Densmore wrote:
>Hi Fred,
>
>I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're
>using generic terms like "switching" and "VLAN" to describe complex
>Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains,
>but they don't create virtual
I do...it used to say his Motorola Startac...
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> ...now for a little bit of a distraction...
>
Sent from a Apple Newton
>
> Every time I see the above tag line on Gino's email... I cannot help but
> crack a sm
...now for a little bit of a distraction...
>>>Sent from a Apple Newton
Every time I see the above tag line on Gino's email... I cannot help but crack
a smile...
now how many folks know what an Apple Newton was ?
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 3
> With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you
> lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and
> you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to
> be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the Route
It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq
Sent from a Apple Newton
On Oct 13, 2012, at 11:29 AM, "Tim Densmore"
wrote:
> Hi Fred,
>
> I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're
> using generic terms like "switching" and "VLAN" to describe complex
> Metro
Hi Fred,
I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're
using generic terms like "switching" and "VLAN" to describe complex
Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains,
but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total isolation - this
is
, where I can drop
the tag when it leaves.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Josh Luthman"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:20:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Josh Luthman"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:10:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti
ation of the Atheros chips they are using.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Josh Luthman"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios a
day, October 13, 2012 8:46:30 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
hehe... A switch is a switch is a switch... and then there are switches
with additional functionality built in...
The question here is what is this 'other functionality' are we talking
about ?
Faisal Imtiaz
ve as using what Mikrotik supplies.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz"
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM
>
outerOS is just as effective as
using what Mikrotik supplies.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Faisal Imtiaz"
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti R
quot;
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:51:50 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
While this is your opinion, others have a different opinion...
For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for
provisioning the radio..It currentl
omputing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Scott Reed"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
>
>
> MT has several devices wi
gt; Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Scott Reed"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:16:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
>
>
>
e, but
> that's far from the truth.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Fred Goldstein"
> To: fai...@snappydsl.net, "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Friday, Oc
Mike Hammett duly noted,
Fred, I don't think most of the people here understand what YOU'RE
talking about. They think a switch is just a switch and they're all
the same, but that's far from the truth.
Probably true, which is why I'd like to clarify it. Vendors who sell
primarily to ISPs or
All MT switching is junk.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Reed"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
MT has
ntelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Reed"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:16:43 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
NAT at the at a couple of towers, but not at the CPE.
On 10
ge -
From: "Fred Goldstein"
To: fai...@snappydsl.net, "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 6:19:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
At 10/12/2012 07:06 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>Being a Technical person, and a visual learner.. I am having
What is being described is the default behavior of any standard managed
switch. There is no "virtual circuit" being built and it still
"broadcasts" across said VLAN. They are simply only allowing the VLAN to
go from point A to point B. This though can be done at wire speed in the
hardware of any
MT has several devices with hardware switches on board and fully
accessible through the GUI. They also have a switch sort of based on ROS.
On 10/11/2012 8:35 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
At 10/11/2012 06:52 PM, SamT wrote:
Not sure I under stand the no-NAT, so every device on the other side
of th
NAT at the at a couple of towers, but not at the CPE.
On 10/11/2012 6:52 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote:
Not sure I under stand the no-NAT, so every device on the other side
of the CPE has it's own public IP?
On 10/11/2012 4:53 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
We run MT, not UBNT, CPE, but it doesn't matter what
Faisal Imtiaz
On 10/12/2012 7:19 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 10/12/2012 07:06 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>> Being a Technical person, and a visual learner.. I am having trouble
>> translating what Fred is trying to do with a Mikrotik, which he thinks
>> it cannot do.
> Actually, I said that I d
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephens
wrote:
> We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and assign a ip address to
> the customers router.
> He have heard other wisp are using the Ubiquiti radio as a router.
> Would like feed back why one would do this when it appears customers w
At 10/12/2012 07:06 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>Being a Technical person, and a visual learner.. I am having trouble
>translating what Fred is trying to do with a Mikrotik, which he thinks
>it cannot do.
Actually, I said that I don't know how to do it, not that it can or
cannot be done. It may be
Being a Technical person, and a visual learner.. I am having trouble
translating what Fred is trying to do with a Mikrotik, which he thinks
it cannot do.
We build our Fixed wireless pop's with a Mikrotik Router doing the
Routing Functions at each pop.
Each of the Sectors are connected on their
At 10/12/2012 05:48 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
>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.
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
At 10/12/2012 10:23 AM, Tim Densmore wrote:
>Hi Fred,
>
>Could you expand a bit on this? It sounds like you're describing what
>I'd refer to as "virtual circuits" rather than "switching." Are you
>setting up per-customer VLANs or something like that?
It helps if you think of it as "Ethernet-frame
Hi Fred,
Could you expand a bit on this? It sounds like you're describing what
I'd refer to as "virtual circuits" rather than "switching." Are you
setting up per-customer VLANs or something like that?
TD
On 10/11/2012 06:35 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> Switching, though, is what Frame Relay an
lf
Of Dustin Jurman
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Hey Fred, we did exactly that with our Hardee County Network, we use licensed
links between MEF switches. Rapid deployment with fiber forward
Hey Fred, we did exactly that with our Hardee County Network, we use licensed
links between MEF switches. Rapid deployment with fiber forward design.
I think we have been through all configurations, bridging, routing and layer2
switching. You could not hit the nail on the head any better her
Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Goldstein"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:35:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
At 10/11/2012 06:52 PM, SamT wrote:
Not sure I under stand the
At 10/11/2012 06:52 PM, SamT wrote:
Not sure I under stand the no-NAT, so every device on the other side
of the CPE has it's own public IP?
There could be one NAT, at the access point.
My taste, which to be sure I haven't tested at scale in a wireless
network (but plan to), is to follow what
Not sure I under stand the no-NAT, so every device on the other side of
the CPE has it's own public IP?
On 10/11/2012 4:53 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
We run MT, not UBNT, CPE, but it doesn't matter what brand it is. We
run them in as routers, but do not NAT. Same benefits others
mentioned for rout
I did this for the first time last week. It seems to work fine.
On 10/11/2012 12:46 PM, Arthur Stephens
wrote:
We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and
assign a ip address to the customers router.
He have heard other wisp are using the
We run MT, not UBNT, CPE, but it doesn't matter what brand it is. We run
them in as routers, but do not NAT. Same benefits others mentioned for
routing, just one fewer NAT. Never have a problem with it this way and
can't see any good reason to NAT there.
On 10/11/2012 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephen
We do it because it makes customer maintenance a lot easier. They can
replace/remove their router without having to call the office or
changing settings in their computer or router, everything comes with
DHCP enabled default. There are very few places where the customer will
ever know. If th
Steve Barnes
General Manager
PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi<http://www.rcwifi.com/>
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
Of Arthur Stephens
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:47 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
We currently us
We run Ubiquiti CPE in router mode and it acts as the NAT router for
the customer. We install a wifi router inside as part of standard
install package, but just run it as a switch+AP. This gives us more
visibility into customer network for troubleshooting and abuse
detection (why does this house ha
Almost all of my customers have NAT'ed Ubnt CPE radios. The handful that
need a static get charged for it (or free if business) and then I do the
port forwrading for them.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:49
Very few customers know any difference.
On 10/11/2012 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephens wrote:
We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and
assign a ip address to the customers router.
He have heard other wisp are using the Ubiquiti radio as a
rout
We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and assign a ip address to
the customers router.
He have heard other wisp are using the Ubiquiti radio as a router.
Would like feed back why one would do this when it appears customers would
be double natted when they hook up their routers?
Or does it
97 matches
Mail list logo
