Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
I'm not saying what we do doesn't work. I'm saying what we do isn't the best. I was referring to residential or small-business customers. CE or MPLS are for dedicated services. There is no method known to me in the WISP industry to do what I have described, the ability to separate authentication\provisioning and IP address assignment without requiring extra management. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 5:52:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers i will respectfully disagree..WISP Industry is rather a broad Term... How one provider (WISP or otherwise) sets up their Service DMARC / Delivery of the Service is totally dependent on the WISP and to Whom they are delivering the Service to. If you are saying what you are saying in the context of a Residential Service Provider, there is plenty of proven options on how to define that handoff... If you are talking about Business service providers then the answer can be very different. While this conversation is very interesting, I am thinking about how this applies to us We are not delivering Residential Service, and for businesses we do an Ethernet Hand-off, sometimes it is directly off the UBNT Radio, other times we install a Mikrotik Router as the Dmarc. Doing this gives us the the ultimate flexibility to mix and match service for the Customer, even in cases where they are wanting to have L2 Transport and not internet access.. We use EoIP tunnels to accomplish that for them. While it is nice to have an automated system, but keep in mind that automated system and Flexibility are polar opposites. In my Opinion WISP's are specialty providers, and as such have to offer Flexibility... In case of Residential Service ... There are existing documented ways of creating a Walled Garden, and letting the users Register, Cable Industry uses this approach for authenticating the Modems and matching them to a Subscriber Account.. However, I believe that what Fred is talking about is not something that applies fully to Residential Service (Remember all Resi BroadBand is classified as best effort, and there is a good reason for it...) While I can understand Fred asking about CE (Carrier Ethernet) showing up in WISP's networks, I am still puzzled as to the need of CE in Radios or Routers... Mikrotiks are routers, and very flexible tools There is nothing stopping anyone today to deploy these in combination with CE switches... The question of the day then becomes, is the problem the WISP's face, have to do with the equipment they are using (not having these functionality), or is the problem the WISP, building their network in a Layered approach so that the Common Denominators (of functionality) can be used as a mass provisioning tool I personally think that most WISP's want their Radios / devices to do everything in the world for them, and do it extremely well, and do it for a very in-expensive cost. which of course is not reality. Customer Provisioning and Customer management are 'Systems' and not a device or protocol ATT / Comcast / Verizon, have the CPE mfg. write special firmware for them to auto provision the devices, WISP's can accomplish the same or similar using a Systems approach. 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 10/19/2012 4:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: What we're (well, I am anyway) saying is that the way the WISP industry does it... is sub-optimal. 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. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com wrote: Mike, 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
*smh* - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:20:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
It wouldn't be hard to accomplish, no. RADIUS already tells MT the necessary information for PPPoE or DHCP. Canopy and UBNT already have manual methods of defining speed. Everything provides a method for authenticating the customer radio to the AP. Since all of the pieces are already there in one form or another, it shouldn't be difficult to go the rest of the way. Other than custom solutions that cost thousands of dollars, there's no way of doing what I want. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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
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 ability to separate authentication\provisioning and IP address assignment without requiring extra management. And what makes you think that such exists for any other segment of our industry (other than WiSP) ? :) ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
See Comments Inline. 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 10:25 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: It wouldn't be hard to accomplish, no. RADIUS already tells MT the necessary information for PPPoE or DHCP. Canopy and UBNT already have manual methods of defining speed. Everything provides a method for authenticating the customer radio to the AP. Ok. I am confused... PPPoe DHCP are for Resi Services... what are you exactly needing ? Since all of the pieces are already there in one form or another, it shouldn't be difficult to go the rest of the way. Rest of the way to what ? I thought we just established that all the pieces exist, and all it needs is the 'Glue'... 'integration' to put it together for one's specific network. Other than custom solutions that cost thousands of dollars, there's no way of doing what I want. ...Hehe.. It costs thousands, because it is worth 10's of Thousands integration is never cheap, never has been, nor it will ever be. You can hire very sharp Russian or Indian programer to do this for you, and it will be less expensive than the going rate but the decision you have to make is, what is your ROI going to be on it ? Remember the 80/20 Rule of Life... It applies here too :) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 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. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Well, it would still be a piece-meal operation even if you were able to code all of the management pieces. Lots of things in the chain to break. What I would like to see is the radio platform authenticate the wireless client to the AP with RADIUS, providing rate limiting information. Something (whether the radio platform is inspecting packets or the DHCP server) has the intelligence to restrict the number of DHCP addresses devices behind that radio are permitted to have. In most cases, it would be one, but could be another amount. I have a decreasing opinion of custom solutions. They'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 fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 1:51:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers See Comments Inline. 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 10:25 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: It wouldn't be hard to accomplish, no. RADIUS already tells MT the necessary information for PPPoE or DHCP. Canopy and UBNT already have manual methods of defining speed. Everything provides a method for authenticating the customer radio to the AP. Ok. I am confused... PPPoe DHCP are for Resi Services... what are you exactly needing ? Since all of the pieces are already there in one form or another, it shouldn't be difficult to go the rest of the way. Rest of the way to what ? I thought we just established that all the pieces exist, and all it needs is the 'Glue'... 'integration' to put it together for one's specific network. Other than custom solutions that cost thousands of dollars, there's no way of doing what I want. ...Hehe.. It costs thousands, because it is worth 10's of Thousands integration is never cheap, never has been, nor it will ever be. You can hire very sharp Russian or Indian programer to do this for you, and it will be less expensive than the going rate but the decision you have to make is, what is your ROI going to be on it ? Remember the 80/20 Rule of Life... It applies here too :) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 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. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
I have only been following this thread in a cursory manner, but I, too, am missing what you need that is not available. Lots of radios can authenticate in multiple ways to the AP and accept rate limiting information. If you are OK with the radio limiting the number addresses, make the CPE the DHCP server and limit the pool to the number addresses you want as the maximum. Some will accept the pool addresses from Radius as well. Custom solutions are as flexible on inflexible as the specification write makes them. Having managed a custom solution shop, defining the specification correctly is the hard part. I don't know why a custom solution would have different reducibility than an off-the-shelf solution. The reliability is determined by the specification and the code writers, not the intended audience. Custom solutions do not generally cost more to create, they are paid fr by fewer entities, therefore the cost per user is higher. If you specify a flexible and robust solution, it should naturally move from custom to off-the-shelf as others learn about it. On 10/21/2012 2:57 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well, it would still be a piece-meal operation even if you were able to code all of the management pieces. Lots of things in the chain to break. What I would like to see is the radio platform authenticate the wireless client to the AP with RADIUS, providing rate limiting information. Something (whether the radio platform is inspecting packets or the DHCP server) has the intelligence to restrict the number of DHCP addresses devices behind that radio are permitted to have. In most cases, it would be one, but could be another amount. I have a decreasing opinion of custom solutions. They'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 fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 1:51:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers See Comments Inline. 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 10:25 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: It wouldn't be hard to accomplish, no. RADIUS already tells MT the necessary information for PPPoE or DHCP. Canopy and UBNT already have manual methods of defining speed. Everything provides a method for authenticating the customer radio to the AP. Ok. I am confused... PPPoe DHCP are for Resi Services... what are you exactly needing ? Since all of the pieces are already there in one form or another, it shouldn't be difficult to go the rest of the way. Rest of the way to what ? I thought we just established that all the pieces exist, and all it needs is the 'Glue'... 'integration' to put it together for one's specific network. Other than custom solutions that cost thousands of dollars, there's no way of doing what I want. ...Hehe.. It costs thousands, because it is worth 10's of Thousands integration is never cheap, never has been, nor it will ever be. You can hire very sharp Russian or Indian programer to do this for you, and it will be less expensive than the going rate but the decision you have to make is, what is your ROI going to be on it ? Remember the 80/20 Rule of Life... It applies here too :) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 Ethernet is not theirs. It's standardized by the Metro Ethernet Forum, so the standards have MEF numbers. MEF in turn largely cites IEEE specs from the 802 family, but assembles them, with its own touches, into its own packages. inline comments On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comfgoldst...@ionary.com 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 Engineering, and internal routing giving you the best of both worlds. Why its sometimes called Layer 2.5, as it creates tunnels inside your routed network, giving you fail over and multiple paths. With TE you can also reserve bandwidth etc. :) With some implementations of MPLS (TE required) and a whole lot of fiddling, you can build an MPLS network that does pretty much what Carrier Ethernet does, given enough skilled labor to keep it running. But Carrier Ethernet is a big new market, selling like crazy, and there are thus a lot of CE networks out there. (Cable companies and ILECs are both competing for it.) Also, when you leave the ISP world and deal with the big-money IT custoemrs, they have their own MPLS networks, and need something to run them over. CE makes a good substrate for MPLS. Carrier MPLS does not carry customer MPLS as naturally. In fact I think it would be fairly hard to configure that. I know of some real users facing that, where a local fiber network went in using MPLS as its basic service, thinking that a government with its own MPLS would be able to use it, when they're different MPLS domains. CE would be so much cleaner. Unlike RINA, where there's never a conflict about recursing a layer, TCP/IP protocols tend to be written with brittle interfaces to others that are expected to be above and below them. You can run MPLS tags inside a VPLS circuit. You would simply build a VPLS circuit on top of your MPLS network, the MPLS network is really the transport, the VPLS is your private layer2 network (or if you got VRF or BGP VPLS, you can run in layer3). Thus giving you the ability to run another MPLS network over your existing MPLS network. I am not disagreeing that CE could be cleaner, but I am not versed in all operations of CE, so its like comparing apples/oranges.The example that you used though was VLANs though. Yes, you can go through some hoops to stack things, when that's supported. (I'm not sure everyone who uses single-company MPLS would know how to do all of that though.) The most extreme case of unexpected recursion is VoIP, of course, where an entire stack's application payload is in turn potentially just a layer 1 telephone call pipe. Which, if good enough, might support a modem and another stack... (just kidding). But CE does it all a lot more easily and cheaply, if you're trying to light a fiber network. The customer can just plug the routers (with or without MPLS) in to the network (which can do its own tagging) and the EPL is just a point-to-point link. This btw is essentially the old TLS renamed. Yeah, I'd like Ethernet ports on RouterOS boxes to be that easy to use. I think I know how bridges could be set up between them with a network in between. I just don't know RouterOS well enough yet. So while you can argue the merits of MPLS vs. CE for a brand-new metro network, if you are looking for CPE to go onto an existing network, you don't put an MPLS box on a CE network, or vice-versa! I'm looking at a (different) real CE network going up now where there's an open question of what CPE to use. I see a market opening for a Routerboard-priced SFP box. But it doesn't matter if it costs $39, runs at 10 Gbps, washes windows and makes tea, if it doesn't mate with the network and its services. I just posted another question then, what features with CE specifically are you looking for in this box? Basically what's summed up in the MEF specs, and then I think the EPL (ptp) and EVPL (ptmp) options are more important than the LAN emulator option. I then want - tagging (of untagged traffic coming into an EVPL) - QinQ (carrying tagged traffic) - CIR and EIR support - Easy port configuration - Some OAM capability Note that in these two services, MAC address is basically treated as payload. No traditional bridging takes place. The VLAN tag is really a virtual circuit ID, but for some reason a lot of folks don't like that term. These networks typically end at a CPE that's a small switch (if shared) or router (which is part of the customer
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Simon Westlake Powercode.com (920) 351-1010 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
It does build a security, though. Security = 1/convenience*0.72 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com wrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Simon Westlake Powercode.com (920) 351-1010 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
What builds security? On 10/19/2012 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: It does build a security, though. Security = 1/convenience*0.72 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com mailto:si...@powercode.com wrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 tel:305%20663%205518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net mailto:sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Simon Westlake Powercode.com (920) 351-1010 tel:%28920%29%20351-1010 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Simon Westlake
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
The opposite of convenience and standardization. You do things your way, I do things my way, another guy does things his way - makes it hard to jump from network to network from a white hat or black hat perspective. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com wrote: What builds security? On 10/19/2012 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: It does build a security, though. Security = 1/convenience*0.72 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.comwrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 305%20663%205518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Simon Westlake Powercode.com (920) 351-1010 %28920%29%20351-1010 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Simon Westlake Powercode.com(920) 351-1010 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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
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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
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 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.comwrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Simon Westlake Powercode.com (920) 351-1010 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer** Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm” Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net – *Skype*: linktechs * **-- Create Wireless Coverage’s with *www.towercoverage.com* **– 900Mhz – LTE – 3G – 3.65 – TV Whitespace ** * ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
I pretty much say 'meh' to that. What it really means is that a smart person can probably quickly find a way to exploit your network because everyone is reinventing the wheel and making a lot of mistakes doing it. I get what you're saying but I don't agree that it is a good reason for lack of standardization. Imagine how nice it would be if you could just hook up an SM and have the following things happen: Customer plugs in any device and it just works (no calling you to have you help configure PPPoE, authorize their new MAC) Customer loops their network and it doesn't break stuff beyond the SM Customer can't do stuff beyond the SM even though it's not running NAT (e.g. ARP poisoning) Rate limiting, etc, is standardized in the SM This is a small subset what you get with a cable modem, and a cable modem is not a (at a high level) complicated or expensive device. On 10/19/2012 1:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: The opposite of convenience and standardization. You do things your way, I do things my way, another guy does things his way - makes it hard to jump from network to network from a white hat or black hat perspective. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com mailto:si...@powercode.com wrote: What builds security? On 10/19/2012 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: It does build a security, though. Security = 1/convenience*0.72 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com mailto:si...@powercode.com wrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 tel:305%20663%205518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net mailto:supp...@snappydsl.net On 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net mailto:sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:16:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers NAT at the at a couple of towers
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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. That's one scenario in which it happens. -- Simon Westlake Powercode.com (920) 351-1010 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
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 si...@powercode.com wrote: I pretty much say 'meh' to that. What it really means is that a smart person can probably quickly find a way to exploit your network because everyone is reinventing the wheel and making a lot of mistakes doing it. I get what you're saying but I don't agree that it is a good reason for lack of standardization. Imagine how nice it would be if you could just hook up an SM and have the following things happen: Customer plugs in any device and it just works (no calling you to have you help configure PPPoE, authorize their new MAC) Customer loops their network and it doesn't break stuff beyond the SM Customer can't do stuff beyond the SM even though it's not running NAT (e.g. ARP poisoning) Rate limiting, etc, is standardized in the SM This is a small subset what you get with a cable modem, and a cable modem is not a (at a high level) complicated or expensive device. On 10/19/2012 1:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: The opposite of convenience and standardization. You do things your way, I do things my way, another guy does things his way - makes it hard to jump from network to network from a white hat or black hat perspective. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.comwrote: What builds security? On 10/19/2012 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: It does build a security, though. Security = 1/convenience*0.72 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.comwrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 305%20663%205518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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 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 Stephens wrote: We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and assign a ip address
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Yeah.. that's the solution most WISPs are forced into. Would sure be nice to do it without NAT. On 10/19/2012 1:58 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 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 si...@powercode.com mailto:si...@powercode.com wrote: I pretty much say 'meh' to that. What it really means is that a smart person can probably quickly find a way to exploit your network because everyone is reinventing the wheel and making a lot of mistakes doing it. I get what you're saying but I don't agree that it is a good reason for lack of standardization. Imagine how nice it would be if you could just hook up an SM and have the following things happen: Customer plugs in any device and it just works (no calling you to have you help configure PPPoE, authorize their new MAC) Customer loops their network and it doesn't break stuff beyond the SM Customer can't do stuff beyond the SM even though it's not running NAT (e.g. ARP poisoning) Rate limiting, etc, is standardized in the SM This is a small subset what you get with a cable modem, and a cable modem is not a (at a high level) complicated or expensive device. On 10/19/2012 1:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: The opposite of convenience and standardization. You do things your way, I do things my way, another guy does things his way - makes it hard to jump from network to network from a white hat or black hat perspective. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com mailto:si...@powercode.com wrote: What builds security? On 10/19/2012 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: It does build a security, though. Security = 1/convenience*0.72 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com mailto:si...@powercode.com wrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 tel:305%20663%205518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net mailto:supp...@snappydsl.net On 10/12/2012 10:50
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
What we're (well, I am anyway) saying is that the way the WISP industry does it... is sub-optimal. 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. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com wrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Simon Westlake Powercode.com (920) 351-1010 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition ” Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 si...@powercode.com wrote: I pretty much say 'meh' to that. What it really means is that a smart person can probably quickly find a way to exploit your network because everyone is reinventing the wheel and making a lot of mistakes doing it. I get what you're saying but I don't agree that it is a good reason for lack of standardization. Imagine how nice it would be if you could just hook up an SM and have the following things happen: Customer plugs in any device and it just works (no calling you to have you help configure PPPoE, authorize their new MAC) Customer loops their network and it doesn't break stuff beyond the SM Customer can't do stuff beyond the SM even though it's not running NAT (e.g. ARP poisoning) Rate limiting, etc, is standardized in the SM This is a small subset what you get with a cable modem, and a cable modem is not a (at a high level) complicated or expensive device. On 10/19/2012 1:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: The opposite of convenience and standardization. You do things your way, I do things my way, another guy does things his way - makes it hard to jump from network to network from a white hat or black hat perspective. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com wrote: What builds security? On 10/19/2012 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: It does build a security, though. Security = 1/convenience*0.72 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com wrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:16:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
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 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
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
I guess not. ;-) 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 bandwidth shaping or you have to mess with knowing their router's MAC address. Either it doesn't do what it should or there is too much human intervention. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 have the CPE in router mode handing out the other end of the /30, but this wastes 2 public IPs for each customer which is wasteful, it will also require each CPE to be provisioned individually to each customer and routing to be done to each CPE. On 10/19/2012 04:40 PM, Butch Evans wrote: 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. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
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 bandwidth shaping or you have to mess with knowing their router's MAC address. On your trusty cisco: ! bba-group pppoe global tag ppp-max-payload minimum 1508 maximum 1530 ! ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
i will respectfully disagree..WISP Industry is rather a broad Term... How one provider (WISP or otherwise) sets up their Service DMARC / Delivery of the Service is totally dependent on the WISP and to Whom they are delivering the Service to. If you are saying what you are saying in the context of a Residential Service Provider, there is plenty of proven options on how to define that handoff... If you are talking about Business service providers then the answer can be very different. While this conversation is very interesting, I am thinking about how this applies to us We are not delivering Residential Service, and for businesses we do an Ethernet Hand-off, sometimes it is directly off the UBNT Radio, other times we install a Mikrotik Router as the Dmarc. Doing this gives us the the ultimate flexibility to mix and match service for the Customer, even in cases where they are wanting to have L2 Transport and not internet access.. We use EoIP tunnels to accomplish that for them. While it is nice to have an automated system, but keep in mind that automated system and Flexibility are polar opposites. In my Opinion WISP's are specialty providers, and as such have to offer Flexibility... In case of Residential Service ... There are existing documented ways of creating a Walled Garden, and letting the users Register, Cable Industry uses this approach for authenticating the Modems and matching them to a Subscriber Account.. However, I believe that what Fred is talking about is not something that applies fully to Residential Service (Remember all Resi BroadBand is classified as best effort, and there is a good reason for it...) While I can understand Fred asking about CE (Carrier Ethernet) showing up in WISP's networks, I am still puzzled as to the need of CE in Radios or Routers... Mikrotiks are routers, and very flexible tools There is nothing stopping anyone today to deploy these in combination with CE switches... The question of the day then becomes, is the problem the WISP's face, have to do with the equipment they are using (not having these functionality), or is the problem the WISP, building their network in a Layered approach so that the Common Denominators (of functionality) can be used as a mass provisioning tool I personally think that most WISP's want their Radios / devices to do everything in the world for them, and do it extremely well, and do it for a very in-expensive cost. which of course is not reality. Customer Provisioning and Customer management are 'Systems' and not a device or protocol ATT / Comcast / Verizon, have the CPE mfg. write special firmware for them to auto provision the devices, WISP's can accomplish the same or similar using a Systems approach. 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 10/19/2012 4:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: What we're (well, I am anyway) saying is that the way the WISP industry does it... is sub-optimal. 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. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com wrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 too many hands involved to do that for residential at this time. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Wish we could unsubscribe from certain, never ending threads. On Oct 19, 2012 5:52 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: i will respectfully disagree..WISP Industry is rather a broad Term... How one provider (WISP or otherwise) sets up their Service DMARC / Delivery of the Service is totally dependent on the WISP and to Whom they are delivering the Service to. If you are saying what you are saying in the context of a Residential Service Provider, there is plenty of proven options on how to define that handoff... If you are talking about Business service providers then the answer can be very different. While this conversation is very interesting, I am thinking about how this applies to us We are not delivering Residential Service, and for businesses we do an Ethernet Hand-off, sometimes it is directly off the UBNT Radio, other times we install a Mikrotik Router as the Dmarc. Doing this gives us the the ultimate flexibility to mix and match service for the Customer, even in cases where they are wanting to have L2 Transport and not internet access.. We use EoIP tunnels to accomplish that for them. While it is nice to have an automated system, but keep in mind that automated system and Flexibility are polar opposites. In my Opinion WISP's are specialty providers, and as such have to offer Flexibility... In case of Residential Service ... There are existing documented ways of creating a Walled Garden, and letting the users Register, Cable Industry uses this approach for authenticating the Modems and matching them to a Subscriber Account.. However, I believe that what Fred is talking about is not something that applies fully to Residential Service (Remember all Resi BroadBand is classified as best effort, and there is a good reason for it...) While I can understand Fred asking about CE (Carrier Ethernet) showing up in WISP's networks, I am still puzzled as to the need of CE in Radios or Routers... Mikrotiks are routers, and very flexible tools There is nothing stopping anyone today to deploy these in combination with CE switches... The question of the day then becomes, is the problem the WISP's face, have to do with the equipment they are using (not having these functionality), or is the problem the WISP, building their network in a Layered approach so that the Common Denominators (of functionality) can be used as a mass provisioning tool I personally think that most WISP's want their Radios / devices to do everything in the world for them, and do it extremely well, and do it for a very in-expensive cost. which of course is not reality. Customer Provisioning and Customer management are 'Systems' and not a device or protocol ATT / Comcast / Verizon, have the CPE mfg. write special firmware for them to auto provision the devices, WISP's can accomplish the same or similar using a Systems approach. 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 10/19/2012 4:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: What we're (well, I am anyway) saying is that the way the WISP industry does it... is sub-optimal. 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. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com wrote: Mike, 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. It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the grand scheme of things. On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Sorry bro. hit the delete key. 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 10/19/2012 6:54 PM, Zach Mann wrote: Wish we could unsubscribe from certain, never ending threads. On Oct 19, 2012 5:52 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: i will respectfully disagree..WISP Industry is rather a broad Term... How one provider (WISP or otherwise) sets up their Service DMARC / Delivery of the Service is totally dependent on the WISP and to Whom they are delivering the Service to. If you are saying what you are saying in the context of a Residential Service Provider, there is plenty of proven options on how to define that handoff... If you are talking about Business service providers then the answer can be very different. While this conversation is very interesting, I am thinking about how this applies to us We are not delivering Residential Service, and for businesses we do an Ethernet Hand-off, sometimes it is directly off the UBNT Radio, other times we install a Mikrotik Router as the Dmarc. Doing this gives us the the ultimate flexibility to mix and match service for the Customer, even in cases where they are wanting to have L2 Transport and not internet access.. We use EoIP tunnels to accomplish that for them. While it is nice to have an automated system, but keep in mind that automated system and Flexibility are polar opposites. In my Opinion WISP's are specialty providers, and as such have to offer Flexibility... In case of Residential Service ... There are existing documented ways of creating a Walled Garden, and letting the users Register, Cable Industry uses this approach for authenticating the Modems and matching them to a Subscriber Account.. However, I believe that what Fred is talking about is not something that applies fully to Residential Service (Remember all Resi BroadBand is classified as best effort, and there is a good reason for it...) While I can understand Fred asking about CE (Carrier Ethernet) showing up in WISP's networks, I am still puzzled as to the need of CE in Radios or Routers... Mikrotiks are routers, and very flexible tools There is nothing stopping anyone today to deploy these in combination with CE switches... The question of the day then becomes, is the problem the WISP's face, have to do with the equipment they are using (not having these functionality), or is the problem the WISP, building their network in a Layered approach so that the Common Denominators (of functionality) can be used as a mass provisioning tool I personally think that most WISP's want their Radios / devices to do everything in the world for them, and do it extremely well, and do it for a very in-expensive cost. which of course is not reality. Customer Provisioning and Customer management are 'Systems' and not a device or protocol ATT / Comcast / Verizon, have the CPE mfg. write special firmware for them to auto provision the devices, WISP's can accomplish the same or similar using a Systems approach. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 tel:305%20663%205518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 10/19/2012 4:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: What we're (well, I am anyway) saying is that the way the WISP industry does it... is sub-optimal. 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. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.com mailto:gmsm...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org 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 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Simon Westlake si...@powercode.com mailto:si...@powercode.com wrote: Mike, I completely agree and I think it is a goal the WISP industry needs to work towards - the provisioning of CPE is still
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 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
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
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 your routed network, giving you fail over and multiple paths. With TE you can also reserve bandwidth etc. :) On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.comwrote: At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: * Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 (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 I can't speak to Ubiquiti but Mikrotik RouterOS certainly supports MPLS and VPLS (and LDP and OSPF and BGP). The design you describe is exactly what the majority of the world is using MPLS VPNs for -- utilizing, of course, LDP and BGP (and occasionally OSPF between CE and PE). Unless I'm missing something... You're missing something. I was specifically asking about Carrier Ethernet. It's a protocol. MPLS is a different protocol which, in the marketplace, largely competes with CE. I know RouterOS supports MPLS. But CE is different. Disregarding that CE is much more multi-protocol in support than MultiProtocol Label Switching, whose multi protocols are, in general, IP and IP, CE semantics include explicit CIR and EIR support, along with CBS and EBS (burst size) specification, on a per-virtual-circuit basis. MPLS does not have CIR semantics; it just assigns relative priorities, and is thus fiddly when offered traffic varies. At large volumes (once you get past RouterOS into carrier-class products), CE is generally cheaper per bit than MPLS, at least if you don't buy Cisco, which pretty much owns MPLS (it's their creation). Hamburgers are not chicken, even if both are often served for lunch. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer** Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm” Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net – *Skype*: linktechs * **-- Create Wireless Coverage’s with *www.towercoverage.com* **– 900Mhz – LTE – 3G – 3.65 – TV Whitespace **5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop -- July 23rd 2012 – St. Louis, MO, USAhttp://www.wlan1.com/RouterOS_Training_p/5d-stl-training-july2012.htm 5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop – Oct 8th 2012 – St. Louis, MO, USAhttp://www.wlan1.com/RouterOS_Training_p/5d-stl-training-oct2012.htm * ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
There are several things you can do to alleviate issues. Greg Osborn is right. Most customers don't know a difference. We do several tricks on various networks. 1.We do 1:MANY nats at every POP. This way only those customers at that site are natted out a Public. This way the entire network does not go through a single public IP. 2.We do run the UBNT radios in router mode. However, everyone goes out the door with the DMZ enabled with a specific IP on the lag side. If we have a customer call and request a public for whatever reason it's a simple process. We change the IP in billing, they reboot, PPPoE assigns the public. All they have to do is statically set their router/PC ip to the IP which is in the DMZ. This works for 98% of customers. Justin From: Arthur Stephens arthur.steph...@ptera.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:46 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [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 be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 called Layer 2.5, as it creates tunnels inside your routed network, giving you fail over and multiple paths. With TE you can also reserve bandwidth etc. :) With some implementations of MPLS (TE required) and a whole lot of fiddling, you can build an MPLS network that does pretty much what Carrier Ethernet does, given enough skilled labor to keep it running. But Carrier Ethernet is a big new market, selling like crazy, and there are thus a lot of CE networks out there. (Cable companies and ILECs are both competing for it.) Also, when you leave the ISP world and deal with the big-money IT custoemrs, they have their own MPLS networks, and need something to run them over. CE makes a good substrate for MPLS. Carrier MPLS does not carry customer MPLS as naturally. In fact I think it would be fairly hard to configure that. I know of some real users facing that, where a local fiber network went in using MPLS as its basic service, thinking that a government with its own MPLS would be able to use it, when they're different MPLS domains. CE would be so much cleaner. Unlike RINA, where there's never a conflict about recursing a layer, TCP/IP protocols tend to be written with brittle interfaces to others that are expected to be above and below them. So while you can argue the merits of MPLS vs. CE for a brand-new metro network, if you are looking for CPE to go onto an existing network, you don't put an MPLS box on a CE network, or vice-versa! I'm looking at a (different) real CE network going up now where there's an open question of what CPE to use. I see a market opening for a Routerboard-priced SFP box. But it doesn't matter if it costs $39, runs at 10 Gbps, washes windows and makes tea, if it doesn't mate with the network and its services. On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comfgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: * Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comfgoldst...@ionary.com 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 (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 I can't speak to Ubiquiti but Mikrotik RouterOS certainly supports MPLS and VPLS (and LDP and OSPF and BGP). The design you describe is exactly what the majority of the world is using MPLS VPNs for -- utilizing, of course, LDP and BGP (and occasionally OSPF between CE and PE). Unless I'm missing something... You're missing something. I was specifically asking about Carrier Ethernet. It's a protocol. MPLS is a different protocol which, in the marketplace, largely competes with CE. I know RouterOS supports MPLS. But CE is different. Disregarding that CE is much more multi-protocol in support than MultiProtocol Label Switching, whose multi protocols are, in general, IP and IP, CE semantics include explicit CIR and EIR support, along with CBS and EBS (burst size) specification, on a per-virtual-circuit basis. MPLS does not have CIR semantics; it just assigns relative priorities, and is thus fiddly when offered traffic varies. At large volumes (once you get past RouterOS into carrier-class products), CE is generally cheaper per bit than MPLS, at least if you don't buy Cisco, which pretty much owns MPLS (it's their creation). Hamburgers are not chicken, even if both are often served for lunch. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at http://ionary.comionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/http://www.ionary.com/ tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701+1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list mailto:Wireless@wispa.orgWireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htmLearn RouterOS- Second Edition Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net/http://www.linktechs.net Skype: linktechs -- Create Wireless Coverage's with http://www.towercoverage.com/www.towercoverage.com 900Mhz LTE 3G 3.65 TV Whitespace
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Fred is a very smart guy and generally plays with the big boy versions of what we do. I'd be careful disagreeing with him. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 internal routing giving you the best of both worlds. Why its sometimes called Layer 2.5, as it creates tunnels inside your routed network, giving you fail over and multiple paths. With TE you can also reserve bandwidth etc. :) On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: * Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 (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 I can't speak to Ubiquiti but Mikrotik RouterOS certainly supports MPLS and VPLS (and LDP and OSPF and BGP). The design you describe is exactly what the majority of the world is using MPLS VPNs for -- utilizing, of course, LDP and BGP (and occasionally OSPF between CE and PE). Unless I'm missing something... You're missing something. I was specifically asking about Carrier Ethernet. It's a protocol. MPLS is a different protocol which, in the marketplace, largely competes with CE. I know RouterOS supports MPLS. But CE is different. Disregarding that CE is much more multi-protocol in support than MultiProtocol Label Switching, whose multi protocols are, in general, IP and IP, CE semantics include explicit CIR and EIR support, along with CBS and EBS (burst size) specification, on a per-virtual-circuit basis. MPLS does not have CIR semantics; it just assigns relative priorities, and is thus fiddly when offered traffic varies. At large volumes (once you get past RouterOS into carrier-class products), CE is generally cheaper per bit than MPLS, at least if you don't buy Cisco, which pretty much owns MPLS (it's their creation). Hamburgers are not chicken, even if both are often served for lunch. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition ” Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office : 314-735-0270 Website : http://www.linktechs.net – Skype : linktechs -- Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com – 900Mhz – LTE – 3G – 3.65 – TV Whitespace 5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop -- July 23 rd 2012 – St. Louis, MO, USA 5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop – Oct 8 th 2012 – St. Louis, MO, USA ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Dennis is also very smart... This is a great discussion...not just about agreement or disagreement..it is more about comparison of different technologies, both theoretical and practice... Most WISP networks are rather simple and smaller when compared to the carrier world. I believe there are some good operational lessons on both types of network. Faisal On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Fred is a very smart guy and generally plays with the big boy versions of what we do. I'd be careful disagreeing with him. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 internal routing giving you the best of both worlds. Why its sometimes called Layer 2.5, as it creates tunnels inside your routed network, giving you fail over and multiple paths. With TE you can also reserve bandwidth etc. :) On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: * Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 (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 I can't speak to Ubiquiti but Mikrotik RouterOS certainly supports MPLS and VPLS (and LDP and OSPF and BGP). The design you describe is exactly what the majority of the world is using MPLS VPNs for -- utilizing, of course, LDP and BGP (and occasionally OSPF between CE and PE). Unless I'm missing something... You're missing something. I was specifically asking about Carrier Ethernet. It's a protocol. MPLS is a different protocol which, in the marketplace, largely competes with CE. I know RouterOS supports MPLS. But CE is different. Disregarding that CE is much more multi-protocol in support than MultiProtocol Label Switching, whose multi protocols are, in general, IP and IP, CE semantics include explicit CIR and EIR support, along with CBS and EBS (burst size) specification, on a per-virtual-circuit basis. MPLS does not have CIR semantics; it just assigns relative priorities, and is thus fiddly when offered traffic varies. At large volumes (once you get past RouterOS into carrier-class products), CE is generally cheaper per bit than MPLS, at least if you don't buy Cisco, which pretty much owns MPLS (it's their creation). Hamburgers are not chicken, even if both are often served for lunch. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition ” Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office : 314-735-0270 Website : http://www.linktechs.net – Skype : linktechs -- Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com – 900Mhz – LTE – 3G – 3.65 – TV Whitespace 5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop -- July 23 rd 2012 – St. Louis, MO, USA 5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop – Oct 8 th 2012 – St. Louis, MO, USA ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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! :) On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: Dennis is also very smart... This is a great discussion...not just about agreement or disagreement..it is more about comparison of different technologies, both theoretical and practice... Most WISP networks are rather simple and smaller when compared to the carrier world. I believe there are some good operational lessons on both types of network. Faisal On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Fred is a very smart guy and generally plays with the big boy versions of what we do. I'd be careful disagreeing with him. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 internal routing giving you the best of both worlds. Why its sometimes called Layer 2.5, as it creates tunnels inside your routed network, giving you fail over and multiple paths. With TE you can also reserve bandwidth etc. :) On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: * Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 (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 I can't speak to Ubiquiti but Mikrotik RouterOS certainly supports MPLS and VPLS (and LDP and OSPF and BGP). The design you describe is exactly what the majority of the world is using MPLS VPNs for -- utilizing, of course, LDP and BGP (and occasionally OSPF between CE and PE). Unless I'm missing something... You're missing something. I was specifically asking about Carrier Ethernet. It's a protocol. MPLS is a different protocol which, in the marketplace, largely competes with CE. I know RouterOS supports MPLS. But CE is different. Disregarding that CE is much more multi-protocol in support than MultiProtocol Label Switching, whose multi protocols are, in general, IP and IP, CE semantics include explicit CIR and EIR support, along with CBS and EBS (burst size) specification, on a per-virtual-circuit basis. MPLS does not have CIR semantics; it just assigns relative priorities, and is thus fiddly when offered traffic varies. At large volumes (once you get past RouterOS into carrier-class products), CE is generally cheaper per bit than MPLS, at least if you don't buy Cisco, which pretty much owns MPLS (it's their creation). Hamburgers are not chicken, even if both are often served for lunch. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition ” Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office : 314-735-0270 Website : http://www.linktechs.net – Skype : linktechs -- Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com – 900Mhz – LTE – 3G – 3.65 – TV Whitespace 5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop -- July 23 rd 2012 – St. Louis, MO, USA 5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop – Oct 8 th 2012 – St. Louis, MO, USA ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer** Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm” Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
inline comments On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.comwrote: 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 called Layer 2.5, as it creates tunnels inside your routed network, giving you fail over and multiple paths. With TE you can also reserve bandwidth etc. :) With some implementations of MPLS (TE required) and a whole lot of fiddling, you can build an MPLS network that does pretty much what Carrier Ethernet does, given enough skilled labor to keep it running. But Carrier Ethernet is a big new market, selling like crazy, and there are thus a lot of CE networks out there. (Cable companies and ILECs are both competing for it.) Also, when you leave the ISP world and deal with the big-money IT custoemrs, they have their own MPLS networks, and need something to run them over. CE makes a good substrate for MPLS. Carrier MPLS does not carry customer MPLS as naturally. In fact I think it would be fairly hard to configure that. I know of some real users facing that, where a local fiber network went in using MPLS as its basic service, thinking that a government with its own MPLS would be able to use it, when they're different MPLS domains. CE would be so much cleaner. Unlike RINA, where there's never a conflict about recursing a layer, TCP/IP protocols tend to be written with brittle interfaces to others that are expected to be above and below them. You can run MPLS tags inside a VPLS circuit. You would simply build a VPLS circuit on top of your MPLS network, the MPLS network is really the transport, the VPLS is your private layer2 network (or if you got VRF or BGP VPLS, you can run in layer3). Thus giving you the ability to run another MPLS network over your existing MPLS network. I am not disagreeing that CE could be cleaner, but I am not versed in all operations of CE, so its like comparing apples/oranges.The example that you used though was VLANs though. So while you can argue the merits of MPLS vs. CE for a brand-new metro network, if you are looking for CPE to go onto an existing network, you don't put an MPLS box on a CE network, or vice-versa! I'm looking at a (different) real CE network going up now where there's an open question of what CPE to use. I see a market opening for a Routerboard-priced SFP box. But it doesn't matter if it costs $39, runs at 10 Gbps, washes windows and makes tea, if it doesn't mate with the network and its services. I just posted another question then, what features with CE specifically are you looking for in this box? On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: * Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 (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 I can't speak to Ubiquiti but Mikrotik RouterOS certainly supports MPLS and VPLS (and LDP and OSPF and BGP). The design you describe is exactly what the majority of the world is using MPLS VPNs for -- utilizing, of course, LDP and BGP (and occasionally OSPF between CE and PE). Unless I'm missing something... You're missing something. I was specifically asking about Carrier Ethernet. It's a protocol. MPLS is a different protocol which, in the marketplace, largely competes with CE. I know RouterOS supports MPLS. But CE is different. Disregarding that CE is much more multi-protocol in support than MultiProtocol Label Switching, whose multi protocols are, in general, IP and IP, CE semantics include explicit CIR and EIR support, along with CBS and EBS (burst size) specification, on a per-virtual-circuit basis. MPLS does not have CIR semantics; it just assigns relative priorities, and is thus fiddly when offered traffic varies. At large volumes (once you get past RouterOS into carrier-class products), CE is generally cheaper per bit than MPLS, at least if you don't buy Cisco, which pretty much owns MPLS (it's their creation). Hamburgers are not chicken, even if both are often served for lunch. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
* Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 (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 I can't speak to Ubiquiti but Mikrotik RouterOS certainly supports MPLS and VPLS (and LDP and OSPF and BGP). The design you describe is exactly what the majority of the world is using MPLS VPNs for -- utilizing, of course, LDP and BGP (and occasionally OSPF between CE and PE). Unless I'm missing something... -- Jeremy L. Gaddis e: jer...@as54225.net Network Engineer m: +1.812.865.0581 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: * Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 (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 I can't speak to Ubiquiti but Mikrotik RouterOS certainly supports MPLS and VPLS (and LDP and OSPF and BGP). The design you describe is exactly what the majority of the world is using MPLS VPNs for -- utilizing, of course, LDP and BGP (and occasionally OSPF between CE and PE). Unless I'm missing something... You're missing something. I was specifically asking about Carrier Ethernet. It's a protocol. MPLS is a different protocol which, in the marketplace, largely competes with CE. I know RouterOS supports MPLS. But CE is different. Disregarding that CE is much more multi-protocol in support than MultiProtocol Label Switching, whose multi protocols are, in general, IP and IP, CE semantics include explicit CIR and EIR support, along with CBS and EBS (burst size) specification, on a per-virtual-circuit basis. MPLS does not have CIR semantics; it just assigns relative priorities, and is thus fiddly when offered traffic varies. At large volumes (once you get past RouterOS into carrier-class products), CE is generally cheaper per bit than MPLS, at least if you don't buy Cisco, which pretty much owns MPLS (it's their creation). Hamburgers are not chicken, even if both are often served for lunch. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
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 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 10/12/2012 10:47 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: fai...@snappydsl.net, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 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 a documentation problem, that they never wrote down how to do it. 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 own port. AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges. This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are bridged) But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup, just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans... What am I missing ? If you're doing routing, how do you also do VLANs? The VLAN is at a layer below IP, and (this is a key requirement) the IP layer must be totally invisible to the box (RouterOS, EdgeOS, etc.), and it might not even be an IP packet inside that VLAN. If it is still IP, the address space belongs to the client, not the ISP. The Ethernet layer may require some kind of route-determination protocol. Since it's not a real LAN, STP doesn't really hack it; perhaps (in RouterOS) HWMP+ can do it. This protocol varies among CE switches. If it's an edge (CPE) switch, though, it doesn't need to participate in route-determination. On 10/12/2012 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. 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. Yes, that's what I'm thinking. They never documented how to put those pieces together, though they might work. And Switched Ethernet would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and Webfig. I'm from the old school, where the definition of bug is an undocumented feature, and where software was written to conform to the documentation, not the other way around. 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
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 currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The 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 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 fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List 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 opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. 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 RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
How would you have an untagged VLAN? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. 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 RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. 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 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 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 would be double
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
What most people are thinking of when they are thinking of a switch is something that applies to the enterprise and lower markets. The carrier level switches introduce a whole suite of features designed for the provisioning and deployment of services to others. Many times some of those features can be found in enterprise and lower switches, but they're not as well laid out and cohesive as a carrier switch. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, 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 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 10/12/2012 10:47 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: fai...@snappydsl.net, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 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 a documentation problem, that they never wrote down how to do it. 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 own port. AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges. This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are bridged) But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup, just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans... What am I missing ? If you're doing routing, how do you also do VLANs? The VLAN is at a layer below IP, and (this is a key requirement) the IP layer must be totally invisible to the box (RouterOS, EdgeOS, etc.), and it might not even be an IP packet inside that VLAN. If it is still IP, the address space belongs to the client, not the ISP. The Ethernet layer may require some kind of route-determination protocol. Since it's not a real LAN, STP doesn't really hack it; perhaps (in RouterOS) HWMP+ can do it. This protocol varies among CE switches. If it's an edge (CPE) switch, though, it doesn't need to participate in route-determination. On 10/12/2012 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. 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. Yes, that's what I'm thinking. They never documented how to put those pieces together, though they might work. And Switched Ethernet would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and Webfig. I'm from the old school, where the definition of bug is an undocumented feature, and where software was written to conform to the documentation, not the other way around. It is there and can be done in a number of different ways (bridged OR switched
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Standard Ethernet without the VLAN tag. One example is to support devices that do and do not support VLANs on a given network segment. Let's say in a given area, I have a dumb switch that just passes whatever frames it receives. Off of that I have a PC which requires the Ethernet to be in untagged form and a UniFi where I have local traffic untagged and additional SSIDs running on additional VLANs. A real switch has no problem with this, but the 250GS cannot have both tagged and untagged VLANs on the same interface (that serves the dumb switch referenced above). That is a limitation of the Atheros chips they are using. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:10:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers How would you have an untagged VLAN? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. 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 RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
That's painfully stupid. What a worthless device. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: Standard Ethernet without the VLAN tag. One example is to support devices that do and do not support VLANs on a given network segment. Let's say in a given area, I have a dumb switch that just passes whatever frames it receives. Off of that I have a PC which requires the Ethernet to be in untagged form and a UniFi where I have local traffic untagged and additional SSIDs running on additional VLANs. A real switch has no problem with this, but the 250GS cannot have both tagged and untagged VLANs on the same interface (that serves the dumb switch referenced above). That is a limitation of the Atheros chips they are using. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:10:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers How would you have an untagged VLAN? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. 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 RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
If I have multiple UniFis or PCs, I would need to use multiple ports on the 250GS going to multiple dumb switches, one that is the untagged VLAN for the PCs and the other with the UniFis, only I would have to use an additional VLAN to transport the local traffic from the UniFi to the 250GS, where I can drop the tag when it leaves. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:20:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers That's painfully stupid. What a worthless device. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Standard Ethernet without the VLAN tag. One example is to support devices that do and do not support VLANs on a given network segment. Let's say in a given area, I have a dumb switch that just passes whatever frames it receives. Off of that I have a PC which requires the Ethernet to be in untagged form and a UniFi where I have local traffic untagged and additional SSIDs running on additional VLANs. A real switch has no problem with this, but the 250GS cannot have both tagged and untagged VLANs on the same interface (that serves the dumb switch referenced above). That is a limitation of the Atheros chips they are using. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:10:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers How would you have an untagged VLAN? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. 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 RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. It is allowing only the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and the VLAN is invisible to everyone else. Which is really virtual circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID. In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside. What goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users. So it's secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD. This is different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere. One type of MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with 2 ports and broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL would not know a broadcast frame from anything else, since they just pass the MAC addresses transparently. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com 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 circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. It is allowing only the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and the VLAN is invisible to everyone else. Which is really virtual circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID. In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside. What goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users. So it's secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD. This is different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere. One type of MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with 2 ports and broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL would not know a broadcast frame from anything else, since they just pass the MAC addresses transparently. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. It's a trade off. The switching chips were designed for home gateways, and that's why they cost X (both volume and price issues), Mikrotik did a good job of getting that functionality available to do wire-rate filtering with sub-$100 devices. What was a good decision for RB4xx/7xx/8xx series might not be the case for RB1xxx series, which have more ports and usage requirements. Rubens ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
...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 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: 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 tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com 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 circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. It is allowing only the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and the VLAN is invisible to everyone else. Which is really virtual circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID. In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside. What goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users. So it's secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD. This is different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere. One type of MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with 2 ports and broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL would not know a broadcast frame from anything else, since they just pass the MAC addresses transparently. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
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 fai...@snappydsl.net 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 smile... now how many folks know what an Apple Newton was ? 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 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: 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 tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com 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 circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. It is allowing only the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and the VLAN is invisible to everyone else. Which is really virtual circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID. In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside. What goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users. So it's secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD. This is different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere. One type of MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with 2 ports and broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL would not know a broadcast frame from anything else, since they just pass the MAC addresses transparently. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Yep, the terminology is confusing. I'm talking about Metro-E (a/k/a Carrier Ethernet), which is switching and uses the VLAN tag, but sure isn't LAN switching. The confusion is that the original 1980s Orange Hose Ethernet was a broadcast-topology LAN, and the original bridges were designed to be transparent. So by the 1990s orange hose was gone, and all Ethernet was switched, but it was switched using the bridge construct. And this still works fine for LANs and the home application. They don't need isolation. I see a lot of confusion between these two worlds in the wireline/IT world too. Data centers use big managed switches that are still LAN-model, or use VLANs with limited isolation. They rarely deal with QoS. But when you hit the WAN space, the Carrier Ethernet construct makes more sense, generally to provide a 2-point pipe between routers, or a fan-in. The ILECs are selling these things like crazy. What's frustrating is that there are differences between each carriers' offerings; they don't have an easy apples-to-apples comparison. Some of this is policy (do they want to sell CIR and EIR separately?) and some of this is hardware limitations (VZ-Core's Fujitsu 4500s can't do EVPL, so they map EPLs onto SONET VCGs). The Metro Ethernet Forum wrote its standards using constructs adapted from earlier switches, based of course on what vendors were building. So the VLAN tag is used as the VCI, even though it's too small. And a lot of switches can do both the CE and LAN application, depending on how they're configured. (Extreme comes to mind.) Throw in the term layer 3 switching and you realize that we're a bit short of unique nouns in our vocabulary! Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? I would not expect a large-scale Metro-E/Carrier-E network to be built using MT or UBNT in the middle. But a WISP or small ISP might want to provide some isolated Ethernet pipes between a customers' locations -- think of schools in a district, for instance, or some other operation that has internal networking, uses its own private address space, and wants to maintain one firewall, hanging other sites behind it. That's one application. Another is the CPE: The RB2011 with the SFP slot looks like a potential CPE for a building that has one fiber drop feeding multiple networks. The application that comes to mind is a state office building with offices for motor vehicles, social services, and taxation in it -- each has its own isolated network, but why not share fiber? Ciena-class boxes are typically used for that, at a much higher price. (I ran into this while doing a procurement cycle for a state network.) One other way to look at the difference: The usual ISP view is that there is one global public IP address space, and NAT is the exception used at the customer location. The enterprise-IT view is that everybody has their own private IP network, and the public Internet is that dangerous space on the other side of a firewall. Where you stand on that influences the design of the network and switches. Thanks for the interesting discussion! 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.) TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. It is allowing only the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and the VLAN is invisible to everyone else. Which is really virtual circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID. In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside. What goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that port, is totally and completely
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Lol... startac is my phone, newton is my ipad Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 -Original Message- 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 his Motorola Startac... Sent from my iPhone On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net 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 smile... now how many folks know what an Apple Newton was ? 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 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: 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 tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com 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 circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. It is allowing only the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and the VLAN is invisible to everyone else. Which is really virtual circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID. In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside. What goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users. So it's secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD. This is different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere. One type of MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with 2 ports and broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL would not know a broadcast frame from anything else, since they just pass the MAC addresses transparently. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
You're all a bunch of young whippersnappers with all that newfangled gear. At 10/13/2012 12:34 PM, you wrote: Lol... startac is my phone, newton is my ipad Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 -Original Message- 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 his Motorola Startac... Sent from my iPhone On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net 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 smile... now how many folks know what an Apple Newton was ? 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 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: 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 tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com 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 circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. It is allowing only the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and the VLAN is invisible to everyone else. Which is really virtual circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID. In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside. What goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users. So it's secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD. This is different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere. One type of MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with 2 ports and broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL would not know a broadcast frame from anything else, since they just pass the MAC addresses transparently. Sent from my PDP-11 via DECWRL Mail-11 to TCP/IP gateway ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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
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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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
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 even if it's a little inefficient, it may still be cost-effective for some traffic levels. 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. At 10/13/2012 03:58 PM, Butch Evans wrote: 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. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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. If you were feeling ambitious you could roll custom Ubnt firmware that includes OAM features using dot1ag-utils. Speaking to the earlier discussion, While it has overhead I've seen people use EoIP on Mikrotik to implement pseudo EPL services. L2 over L3 over L2 may offend sensibilities but it works well enough. I've also seen carriers using older Cisco gear to connect up customers to non-MEF switches (Cisco 3550 is still used all over the place) and do L2PT and QinQ to carry traffic towards the core where you have devices capable of doing pseudowires. My point here is that there are ways to achieve the goal of providing L2 transport services over wireless, fiber, carrier pigeon with current small carrier equipment. Mikrotik Ubiquiti aren't targeting the kinds of customers that demand the formal MEF features and I wouldn't expect them to change. On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: 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.) ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Actually, NIB they're $1800 - $5k or more. Used, under $200 shipped with warranty. 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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:44:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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
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 here. The advantages of this type of design include scaleability, performance and reduced opex. DSJ Dustin Jurman C.E.O Rapid Systems Corporation 1211 North Westshore BLVD suite 711 Tampa, Fl 33607 Building Better Infrastructure On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.commailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comhttp://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.nethttp://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.comhttp://ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Not to add an advertisement but Level 2 networking is one of the topics that we plan to hit on at WISPAPOLOOZA in the Technical Knowledge Exchange at 4:00 on Thursday the 25th. That is one of the point Gino wanted to bring up. I will be moderating so if someone has other important Technical questions that might be a good session or the Technical Round table Tuesday evening from 7:45 till we go to bed. Hope to see you all there. Steve Barnes General Manager PCS-WIN / RC-WiFihttp://www.rcwifi.com/ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 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 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 here. The advantages of this type of design include scaleability, performance and reduced opex. DSJ Dustin Jurman C.E.O Rapid Systems Corporation 1211 North Westshore BLVD suite 711 Tampa, Fl 33607 Building Better Infrastructure On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.commailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comhttp://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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-framed Frame Relay, rather than as Ethernet that hoary old LAN. So it's virtual circuit switching (the two terms are complementary, not contradictory). Each link between a pair of routers is a VLAN, which is a two-point virtual circuit. The term VLAN is a bit inappropriate nowadays, and the 12-bit size of the tag is inadequate for large networks, but that's what we get when recycling a mass-produced product. (Apparently ATT ran out of tags on some of their switches.) The tag btw is solved by Q-in-Q nesting of tags, though most of the time it's a subscriber tag nested inside a provider tag. 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. TD On 10/11/2012 06:35 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 Radios as routers
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. 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. Yes, that's what I'm thinking. They never documented how to put those pieces together, though they might work. And Switched Ethernet would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and Webfig. I'm from the old school, where the definition of bug is an undocumented feature, and where software was written to conform to the documentation, not the other way around. 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. Find me an MEF switch for only 200% of the price of an equivalent Routerboard! (I suppose the new UBNT EdgeMAX will also fit that test.) Most of the $1000 Ethernet switches are pure LAN bridges, not MEF 9/14. They use the same frame format but utterly different semantics. Plus a RouterOS box might allow a mix of the two, routing in one network and switching for everyone. 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. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 own port. AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges. This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are bridged) But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup, just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans... What am I missing ? 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 10/12/2012 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. 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. Yes, that's what I'm thinking. They never documented how to put those pieces together, though they might work. And Switched Ethernet would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and Webfig. I'm from the old school, where the definition of bug is an undocumented feature, and where software was written to conform to the documentation, not the other way around. 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. Find me an MEF switch for only 200% of the price of an equivalent Routerboard! (I suppose the new UBNT EdgeMAX will also fit that test.) Most of the $1000 Ethernet switches are pure LAN bridges, not MEF 9/14. They use the same frame format but utterly different semantics. Plus a RouterOS box might allow a mix of the two, routing in one network and switching for everyone. 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. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
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 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 a documentation problem, that they never wrote down how to do it. 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 own port. AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges. This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are bridged) But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup, just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans... What am I missing ? If you're doing routing, how do you also do VLANs? The VLAN is at a layer below IP, and (this is a key requirement) the IP layer must be totally invisible to the box (RouterOS, EdgeOS, etc.), and it might not even be an IP packet inside that VLAN. If it is still IP, the address space belongs to the client, not the ISP. The Ethernet layer may require some kind of route-determination protocol. Since it's not a real LAN, STP doesn't really hack it; perhaps (in RouterOS) HWMP+ can do it. This protocol varies among CE switches. If it's an edge (CPE) switch, though, it doesn't need to participate in route-determination. On 10/12/2012 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. 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. Yes, that's what I'm thinking. They never documented how to put those pieces together, though they might work. And Switched Ethernet would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and Webfig. I'm from the old school, where the definition of bug is an undocumented feature, and where software was written to conform to the documentation, not the other way around. 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. Find me an MEF switch for only 200% of the price of an equivalent Routerboard! (I suppose the new UBNT EdgeMAX will also fit that test.) Most of the $1000 Ethernet switches are pure LAN bridges, not MEF 9/14. They use the same frame format but utterly different semantics. Plus a RouterOS box might allow a mix of the two, routing in one network and switching for everyone. 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. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephens arthur.steph...@ptera.net 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? It matters. NAT 44 or NAT 444 or NAT are detrimental to applications that are not just browsing the web, as the user usually loses UPnP features that a single NAT can provide. What I liked doing was having the benefits of both by filtering at L2 to only packets going to gateway and to required broadcast addresses All other junk was filtered by the Ubiquiti radio. No double nat, no routing. Best of both worlds. Rubens ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 don't know how to do it, not that it can or cannot be done. It may be a documentation problem, that they never wrote down how to do it. Understood, we are discussing this further, because I think both of us will come out learning something. :) 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 own port. AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges. This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are bridged) But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup, just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans... What am I missing ? If you're doing routing, how do you also do VLANs? Mikrotik's can act like a Layer3 Switch. If you wanted to Route, you can assign an IP address to the Vlan or the Ethernet Port and route IP. If you wanted to pass only Vlan's, then you simple define the Vlan's and 'bridge them' (kind of like how the Cisco Routers do it). If you wanted to use the vlan switch function built into the chip set, then I believe it is a bit harder to route. The VLAN is at a layer below IP, and (this is a key requirement) the IP layer must be totally invisible to the box (RouterOS, EdgeOS, etc.), and it might not even be an IP packet inside that VLAN. If it is still IP, the address space belongs to the client, not the ISP. Correct, so today, since the MT's are vlan aware devices... So if you put an MT on each side of the Wireless Connection (Ubnt/WDS), then effectively they look like they are two MT's connection via Ethernet cable (smaller bandwidth of course)... or You can pass tagged Vlans over the the Ubnt Radio , and have it deal with Vlans...(new firmware is Vlan Aware). The Ethernet layer may require some kind of route-determination protocol. You are loosing me here... ?? Pls explain further. Since it's not a real LAN, STP doesn't really hack it; perhaps (in RouterOS) HWMP+ can do it. This protocol varies among CE switches. If it's an edge (CPE) switch, though, it doesn't need to participate in route-determination. On 10/12/2012 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. 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. Yes, that's what I'm thinking. They never documented how to put those pieces together, though they might work. And Switched Ethernet would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and Webfig. I'm from the old school, where the definition of bug is an undocumented feature, and where software was written to conform to the documentation, not the other way around. 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 switch and MT. This is not an intelligent method (the switching system not the people talking about this), as there can only be STP or other non-standard protocols to handle fail over. The example is that if you have 5 switches in-line, you are simply ONLY allowing say vlan999 to tag ingress on port 22 on switch 1, then only flow though tagged on the trunk ports between switches, then finally only having one egress non-tagged port at switch 5 port 22.. Hence a sort of circuit.. This works great on large bandwidth wired applications, but going over anything wireless for the most part poses an issue. The trunks are still seeing all broadcast traffic from all devices, maybe its not going as far and yes you can control it a bit more, but in the end, a packet storm on one VLAN will take down the wireless connection and all trunks on a backhaul radio. Simply because the UBNT or whatever radio you are using can't handle 100,000 pps. The switches, in hardware, can handle millions, making this situation not a major issue as we have plenty of hardware to handle those instances and with several mitigation systems built into these switches, you can further handle said traffic. Not saying this method does not work, simply has its own gotchas just like anything else. The limitations is really in the fail over it don't care what kind of packets or even if the packets are needed to traverse the network, hence more traffic than needed, but its better than one large bridge. Building rings that have disabled ports can help, but still don't intelligently route around issues, as routing would do.But to the topic, yes, MT can ingress non-vlan tagged traffic and send it out as tagged traffic, and yes bridging is how that is done (mt is more switching than bridging in those aspects) and it also can be done with some of there hardware switch chips. As for the topic at hand, never let your customer access your layer2 network, it will end up coming back to bite you. Hence, route your CPE, if the client wants a public, you route though the CPE as a router, if the client is a home user and don't want/need inbound access, give them a public on the CPE, and NAT a private. As far as their router inside, it should be setup to be a swtich with a AP, makes it simple, else, double-nat will not affect web/email applications Dennis On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net wrote: 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: fai...@snappydsl.net, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 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 a documentation problem, that they never wrote down how to do it. 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 own port. AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges. This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are bridged) But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup, just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans... What am I missing ? If you're doing routing, how do you also do VLANs? The VLAN is at a layer below IP, and (this is a key requirement) the IP layer must be totally invisible to the box (RouterOS, EdgeOS, etc.), and it might not even be an IP packet inside that VLAN. If it is still IP, the address space belongs to the client, not the ISP. The Ethernet layer may require some kind of route-determination protocol. Since it's not a real LAN, STP doesn't really hack it; perhaps (in RouterOS) HWMP+ can do it. This protocol varies among CE switches. If it's an edge (CPE) switch, though, it doesn't need to participate in route-determination. On 10/12/2012 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. 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. Yes, that's what I'm thinking. They never documented how to put those pieces together, though they might work. And Switched Ethernet would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and Webfig. I'm from the old school, where the definition of bug is an undocumented feature, and where software was written to conform to the documentation, not the other way around. 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. Find me an MEF switch for only 200% of the price of an equivalent Routerboard! (I suppose the new UBNT EdgeMAX will also fit that test.) Most of the $1000 Ethernet switches are pure LAN bridges, not MEF 9/14. They use the same frame format but utterly different semantics. Plus a RouterOS box might allow a mix
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. An ISP doing NAT is just silly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 10/11/2012 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 one-company IP networks don't realize how big the enterprise network market is, now largely moving to Carrier Ethernet as a cheaper substitute for leased lines, which are grotesquely overpriced in much of the US (if you're not in a major data center). And there is opportunity for wireless here too, though nowadays it's mostly done via dedicated point-to-point radios, not shared networks. At 10/12/2012 10:10 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote: 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 switch and MT. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. It is allowing only the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and the VLAN is invisible to everyone else. Which is really virtual circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID. In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside. What goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users. So it's secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD. This is different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere. One type of MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with 2 ports and broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL would not know a broadcast frame from anything else, since they just pass the MAC addresses transparently. This is not an intelligent method (the switching system not the people talking about this), as there can only be STP or other non-standard protocols to handle fail over. The example is that if you have 5 switches in-line, you are simply ONLY allowing say vlan999 to tag ingress on port 22 on switch 1, then only flow though tagged on the trunk ports between switches, then finally only having one egress non-tagged port at switch 5 port 22.. Hence a sort of circuit.. Almost everything, including the RB951-2n, supports RSTP as well as STP, but yes beyond that the intelligence is non-standard. Cisco, for instance, has a fairly elaborate routing (in the literal sense, not IP) protocol for optimizing every path. Of course you don't see many multi-vendor CE networks... the edges can be different though. This works great on large bandwidth wired applications, but going over anything wireless for the most part poses an issue. The trunks are still seeing all broadcast traffic from all devices, maybe its not going as far and yes you can control it a bit more, but in the end, a packet storm on one VLAN will take down the wireless connection and all trunks on a backhaul radio. The idea is that there are no broadcast packets. You configure devices that use the network to think of it as point-to-point circuits. Broadcasts only go to the opposite end of that EPL (2-point) or EVPL (point-to-multipoint). I'm ignoring the EP-LAN case since that's not relevant here. Also, traffic levels on each EPL (VLAN) are limited by the three-color traffic classifier (CIR+EIR). So you cap each user at the ingress, and optionally assign a CIR to a smaller amount, for applications like VoIP. However, typical unlicensed radio links aren't as predictable as fiber so the commitment isn't the same. Simply because the UBNT or whatever radio you are using can't handle 100,000 pps. The switches, in hardware, can handle millions, making this situation not a major issue as we have plenty of hardware to handle those instances and with several mitigation systems built into these switches, you can further handle said traffic. Not saying this method does not work, simply has its own gotchas just like anything else. I wonder if that hardware handles the VLANs with the QoS (CIR/CBS, EIR/EBS) features. Otherwise it could still be done in software, but not at the same speed. I'd still expect, for example, an LTI box to be able to do it fast enough to keep up with a Ubiquiti 5GHz radio. (AirFiber might be a bit trickier.) The limitations is really in the fail over it don't care what kind of packets or even if the packets are needed to traverse the network, hence more traffic than needed, but its better than one large bridge. Building rings that have disabled ports can help, but still don't intelligently route around issues, as routing would do.But to the topic, yes, MT can ingress non-vlan tagged traffic and send it out as tagged traffic, and yes
[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 be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Very few customers know any difference. On 10/11/2012 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephens wrote: We currently use Ubiquitiradios in bridge mode and assign a ip address to the customers router. He have heard other wisp are using theUbiquitiradio 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 not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - "This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company." ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 PM, Greg Osborn gregwosb...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 have 27 computers), protects the wireless side from broadcast traffic and rouge DHCP (yes you can also just filter for that). We have port forwards in our default config for access to the router, voip ATA, etc. Overall it has worked very well, especially now that ubnt has uPnP available which is required for XBox to work properly. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephens arthur.steph...@ptera.net 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
All my customers are natted at the CPE unless they have Static IP. Actually we Nat at the AP as well. So they are triple Natted and I have lots of customers doing VPN's and every form of video and music and have never had one problem. Pro's: Customer can plug PC right into POE or switch and don't need a Router. No worry if customer plugs router in backward of getting their DHCP on our AP Customer has another level of security (yes its poor) Con's: Some items such as XBOX don't like it. I can't remote login to their Router to see what they have done wrong. Steve Barnes General Manager PCS-WIN / RC-WiFihttp://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 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 not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 there is a problem, we will set the radio in bridge mode and give them a static IP, but the only place we ever do that is if they have a higher end router and need to be able to run VPNs. If they want to manage their own port forwarding and such, we just DMZ the radio (be sure you uncheck the DMZ management ports) and forward all the traffic to a static 192.168.100.x which is what they statically set their router to. We use to be all bridged with CB3s back in the day, and I have no desire what so ever to go back. On 10/11/2012 02:46 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 Ubiquitiradios in bridge mode and assign a ip address to the customers router. He have heard other wisp are using theUbiquitiradio 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 not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - "This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company." ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/supporthttp://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list mailto:Wireless@wispa.orgWireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.comwww.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified http://www.nwwnet.netwww.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list mailto:Wireless@wispa.orgWireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
I do wish they made it a bit more carrier in that regard. I use PPPoE because I can control everything that way, but it sure would be nice to use something to control all of that business, then let their device manage IPs... just like cable. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 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 is becoming standard wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at layer 2. Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage. The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing ISDN bridges and discovered how you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.) Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be interesting to set up. 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 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 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 would be double natted when they hook up their routers? Or does it not matter from the customer experience? Thanks -- Arthur Stephens Senior Sales Technician Ptera Wireless Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
