Amen & Amen Well said and I must confess - - way shorter than my previous post :-)
Mac -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russ Kreigh Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 1:03 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Routed vs bridged (again)... Importance: Low I can't believe I am getting involved in this... First, routing is not bad, or the best solution. Bridging is not bad, or the best solution. Network DESIGN is the solution. A hybrid network DESIGNED by a competent network person will outperform a pure bridged network or a pure routed network any day. PERIOD. I am not going to go into the technical aspects of why routing versus bridging is good, and bad. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish, what your customers are trying to accomplish, your market, your competion, what equipment you are using, your budget, your staff's experience, failover protection, outage isolation, QoS, Security, Mail, SLA requirements and about 100 other factors. Let me say this, I administer about 70 routing devices, ranging from Cisco 7206 routers, Cisco Catalyst L3 switches, down to Mikrotik 532's. I also manage some pretty HUGE bridged segments on our network. I've seen routed networks be brought to their knees, I've seen bridged network do the same. The difference in our case is that we DESIGNED the network. We also have several dozen VLAN's on our network -- there is a misconception that using VLANs means you are bridging - well, no. Its hybrid, and in the end, it is ultimatly routing. And again, public IPs versus Private IPs to a customer is a whole different story, we have both on our network - it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. There is no need to give a /30 to every customer, there are other more efficent ways of doing this. With a /30 your using up 4 addresses, 1-Network Address 1-Router Address 1-Customer Address and 1-Broadcast address. There is an argument that bridging is easy, yeah, until something goes wrong. There is an argument that routing is easy -- until something goes wrong. Many of you are die-hard routing people, many of your are die-hard bridgers. That's fine -- but stay away from my network :-) So, in case you missed the point of this email NETWORK DESIGN is the best solution. Thanks, Russ Kreigh Network Engineer OnlyInternet.Net Broadband & Wireless Supernova Technologies Office: (800) 363-0989 Direct: (260) 827-2486 Fax: (260) 824-9624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oibw.net -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 12:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routed vs bridged (again)... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 10:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Routed vs bridged (again)... > On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > >>It's a very high cost. Why does every residential user need to tie up 3 >>ip addys? How long can we keep handing them out like that before we run >>into trouble again? There is only so much nat that we're gonna get away >>with. > > I give up...why does a residential user need 3 ips? I never suggested > that they did. And I guess I don't understand what nat has to do with any > of it. OK, what's the minimum number of ip addys that a routed customer HAS to use? I thought it was three. Is it really two or four instead? Either way, it's a waste of ip addresses. NAT matters because it's the only way many of us would ever get enough ip addys for every customer AND every device on the network. For customers that increasinly need two way communications NAT isn't a good option. Then there's the CALEA crap. How in the world is a person going to track EVERY packet in his network? And those doing NAT may well have to as ALL customers behind a nat'd address show up as the one public addy. That's not gonna help anyone find that Kiddie porn freak. So what will we have to do to comply? Don't know for sure yet, but I certinly think that it'll be much easier to deal with the issue if every customer has a public ip. > >>>No...not a requirement. It's just a more scalable solution. >> >>There are nearly 4000 (unfortunately not all mine :-) 100meg customers on >>that network. > > I don't want to argue this point, because I just don't have enough > information about the network. I seriously doubt, though, that all those > customers are all on a single /20 network (which would support 4096 > hosts). Even worse, if there are routers there, too, it may need a /19 > (which would accomodate over 8000 customers). If they are not, take my > word for it...they are routed. They are routed to the world at the isp. But they are NOT routed within the network. They are vlan'd. Some isp's may have multiple vlans or some such thing, but I'd be surprised at that. > >>I'm just saying that it's far less important than it used to be. > > With the proliferation of worms being what it is, and most of them > spreading by broadcast to the local network? You must be kidding... Nope. We block client to client communications at the ap (and hopefully soon at the switch). The worms can only get sideways on my network by going through the router, which under your theory will block them. Also, we require all customers have a firewall and antivirus. In theory we actually have several levels of protection in place against just such problems. OK, I've had enough fun poking at the religious right on the routed vs. bridged debate. The reality of the situation (as with so many things in life) is that both are used and both do a better job if used in the right places. Right tool for the right job. And EVERYONE's job is a different one. The isp has to be able to make smart choices for his network. Talk about all or nothing in either direction isn't really helpful in my mind. How's that? marlon > > -- > Butch Evans > Network Engineering and Security Consulting > 573-276-2879 > http://www.butchevans.com/ > Mikrotik Certified Consultant > (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
