AHHH okay I was wondering about that so then how would that lay out. This is what I have right now nothing is natted straight tur to the net. We go from the noc up to our main tower and that has 2 APPO's one feeding north and the other feeding south customers. I am thinking maybe two routers there?
Than I have also feeding off those towers two more remote access points in which I think I should add 1 router at each of those locations? so I give each router a public IP from my class C and do I have to go in an manually configure them to router correct or is it like RIP it discovers the best route our to the net on its own? will I have any problems with port mapping or will it be straight thru I wont have to worry about opening up certain ports like when I do natting? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Summers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 3:17 PM Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Length out of range numbers If you are dealing with all public IPs then set the little cheapo router to be a router instead of a gateway. That disables NAT and it will route instead. Kevin Summers KISTech Internet Services Inc. www.kistech.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Blazen Wireless > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Length out of range numbers > > > Here is a question I was kicking around in my head last night > > If I router everything say at the tower. Could I essentially take > a firewall > / router from best buy configure its wan port to a public IP say of > 66.80.xxx.1 and the gate way of another public IP of my class C sat > 66.80.xxx.254 (my t 1 router) > > This would seem to work for getting bandwidth to the tower NOW here is the > question, can I take another set of public IPS from the same subnet as my > class C 66.80.xxx.xxx and configure it on the SAME router only on the LAN > side and have my clients use the same IPs they have already. > > Now if I wanted to pass the bandwidth on to my other towers and route them > how would I do it if the above example worked? > > add another router give it another public IP on the wan side (one from the > group of public from the main LAN side router?) then more publics from my > block on the LAN side? > > But then I run into the problem I think of the users are going to > show up on > the net as one single IP? ARGHHH what a pain! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Wirefree Network" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 1:12 PM > Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Length out of range numbers > > > HUBS are BAD!! Bad I say....BAD, BAD, BAD!! Hubs are for cheapos who > cant afford freaking switches. > > Come on now MARTIN...get with it!! You know better than that. > Hahahaha! > > BTW...this is exactly why I keep telling everyone to install ROUTERS > behind EVERY install. There is NO need to transmit everyone's internal > traffic out on the wireless side if it doesn't need to be there!! > > Routers on the Ethernet side of all my clients completely eliminated > collisions/errors! > > Some may say, "I don't want to add the cost of a router." But I say, > "What is your time worth?" You will spend MORE time troubleshooting, > and your clients will spend more time complaining, if you don't!! > > My 2 cents... > > Sully > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colin Watson > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Length out of range numbers > > Just out of interest, have you ensured none of your customers are > connecting > there airbridges through hubs? Thing is, I've seen this, if a client > connects an Airbridge to a hub (which he/she can do and it will work > because > it fowards ~64? MAC's under it's own), then assuming they start copying > data > to the PC across the hall, you suddenly find the network will lock solid > - > especially as you appear to have no router between your canopy backhaul > and > access points. It's all because hubs, being passive or active repeaters, > just see an electrical signal and amplify it, spitting it out through > all > ports. As the traffic is not destined for any node on the AP, it just > gets > forwarded until it hits the nearest broadcast segementation wall, > normally > your router (A tcpdump of your switches traffic may allude to the > answer). > If I were you, I'd lay out my network something like this (apologies if > you > already have something similar and I have misread your posts): > > To Another Tower (Same > config as below) > | > APPO ---- SWITCH <-----> ROUTER (FreeBSD we use) <--------> CANOPY > <====VPN (Optional) =====> CANOPY <------> ROUTER <-------> Internet > | | > | > APPO ------ To Another Tower (Same config as > above) > SWITCH ---- Administrative Subnet (Mail/DNS etc) > > The advantages to this model are complete broadcast storm proofing from > other towers (I'm assuming you have more then one?), easy scalability, > and > advantages Routing protocols bring - i.e. link redundency. The > disadvantages > are you need to segment your network logically, allocating a different > subnet for each tower (This is okay if you are NAT'ing as your gonna > have > the whole 10.x.y.z, 192.168.x.y, 172.Something.x.y ranges at your > disposal). > If it's public facing IP's your using you'd need to plan perhaps more > conserviatly (/25 (127) address into blocks of - 32 address per subnet > (30 > usable, /27) maybe?). Another area you might explore is VLAN's, my > experience with these is fairly low, but it is possible I believe to > segment > your network work at Layer 2 (The MAC layer - which switches operate on, > and > broadcast storms tend to occur) logically by VLAN grouping - so you > wouldn't > need to split your subnets. Anyway just some ideas, hope they are > helpful. > > Kind Regards > > Colin. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Blazen Wireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 8:00 PM > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Length out of range numbers > > > > Not me I get one user downloading a file or something at say > 100-500kbps > and > > it ties up that one APPO and affects the WHOLE network so no one can > ping > or > > surf very well on another leg of e switch? seems kind of ODD to me.. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:07 PM > > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Length out of range numbers > > > > > > I have over 30 customers each on two APPOs which seem to handle it > just > > fine (that is, when the APPO is still running.) The only problem I > have > > seen is sometimes the APPO just stops, and the blue light starts > blinking > > steadily off and on, off and on, and I'm unable to log into the device > any > > further, even through the wire. But I've gotten to the point when that > > happens I put up another one. (Tired of troubleshooting them.) The > only > > problem is reassociating everyone (Not all of my customers have the > > roaming option.) > > > > Anyhow, they seem to handle at least 30 users without problem. > > > > Sam > > > > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, > > Blazen Wireless wrote: > > > > > the APPO goes into a D-link switch with another APPO and a canopy > radio > > > which is set to 10 1/2 duplex. The canopy is flawless and has no > errors > at > > > all! its always the APPO that comes back with errors? I see dingle > defer > > > errors and an occasion CTS error I tried swapping the switch to a 10 > meg > > hub > > > and it made no difference I just think the APPOs cant handle the > load of > 9 > > > customers on all the time it just craps out.. > > > > > > Each customer that I add on seems to make the system ore and more > > unstable! > > > I was under the impression these radios would handle a lot of > clients > > radios > > > talking to it but I guess now. I am going to have to go with > something > > > else.. > > > > > > > > > The XO is way out of range, I have all the bandwidth and access > control > I > > > need at the NOC no need for it in the radio.. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Lars Gaarden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 11:22 AM > > > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Length out of range numbers > > > > > > > > > Blazen Wireless wrote: > > > > > > > What exactly is controlling this number is this > > > > good or bad? I assume bad I rebooted the appo > > > > yesterday and am seeing these since about 12pm > > > > PT yesterday to the tune of about 23,500? > > > > > > LengthOutOfRangeRx is one of the ethernet counters. > > > > > > According to Cisco, the meaning is: > > > > > > "Length out of range > > > Incremented for each frame received where the 802.3 > > > length field in the packet did not match the number > > > of bytes actually received." > > > > > > What is connected to the aPPO on the ethernet side? > > > Do you see any other ethernet error counters that are > > > unusually high? (CRC, False carrier, Under/Oversize) > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > > smartBridges <yournickname> > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > > smartBridges) > > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > > > > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > smartBridges <yournickname> > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > smartBridges) > > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > > > > > > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > smartBridges <yournickname> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > smartBridges) > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > smartBridges <yournickname> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > smartBridges) > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > smartBridges <yournickname> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type > unsubscribe smartBridges) > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
