Hi Dennis,
Okay, as I understand it (I have not enabled PPPoE and can only go on
what Mikrotik sales have emailed me), if you enable PPPoE on an interface -
everyone has to use PPPoE - you cannot have some customers statically
assigned, others DHCP'ing on the same gateway interface. As I see it, if
you are using PPPoE, you can assign IP's too customers automatically using
the functionality that PPP (authing to a radius server - or maybe from a
local pool?) provides. Thing is, if your customers type the IP address of
the external client in, it should show. E.g: Bob is on AP1 with IP
17.18.19.1 and Sally is on AP1 with IP 17.18.19.2 (Both public facing - Both
running XP). If, say Sally shares her hard disk, disables all firewalling,
and leaves herself wide open (*ahem*), then if Bob type \\17.18.19.2\ on his
PC (Start-->Run) then the contents of Sallys PC should appear, but the *key*
to this is the fact the traffic hits the PPPoE box, and a decision occurs
from there. The big advantage being that if the PPPoE box is combined with
routing (e.g. Mikrotik/BSD), it makes the decision to stuff the packet down
a local tunnel, or onto the internet (as standard IP traffic). This of
course preserves the 'bandwidth management' aspects, so all packets should
to the PPPoE box (from local clients) where they are inspected, shaped (e.g.
stuffed in a queue or dropped - bandwidth managed), and then stuffed down
either the internet pipe or re-wrapped in PPPoE and stuffed back down
another locally connect clients tunnel.
In theory this negates the problem with clients talking to each other
locally and sucking up all the 'air bandwidth' because they are shaped at
whatever they pay for, like *dSL and cable. In fact, it's an advantage if
they spend more time locally, less traffic hits your internet "fat-pipe".
One last advantage is the accounting abilities that PPPoE would appear to
provide. You can log all traffic on a 'per client' basis, which is
incredibly useful to see who's the heavyiest user, and plot possible areas
of congestions (i.e. 10 heavy users on one AP). - Oh and you could bill em
per/gb tx'd ;)
The problem I have, is that because I use don't use PPPoE (just
straightforward MAC --> Radius authing) I have to disable 'inter client
comm' to stop everyone sucking up my air bandwidth. And enabling would cause
chaos.
If anyone here uses PPPoE and can point out any errors in my understanding,
I'd be very grateful.
Kind Regards
Colin.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 3:49 AM
Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Inter Client Comms blocking?
> I'm using Mikrotik. I want the communcation between the PPPoE Clients to
be
> off unless I specify.. or maybe a PPPoE login or IP that any PPPoE Client
> can see.
>
> two things happen, intersite client communcations, like between offices,
and
> me being able to help them out on there machine remotly.
>
> But right now, each PPPoE client can't see the other
>
> Dennis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geo_p15sb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Inter Client Comms blocking?
>
>
> > Well with my Star-Os box, I leave it disabled, and like you say when I
> > need to connect to a remote on the same AP as my machine I simply enable
> it.
> > I'm sure with whatever you are using you can do the ame thing.
> > Hope that helps
> > George
> >
> >
> > Dennis Burgess wrote:
> > > The question I have, is how do I allow two PPPoE Connected clients to
> > > connect to each other.
> > >
> > > I would love to have the advantage of allowing people to send me
support
> > > requests and me take over the xp desktop!
> > >
> > > Dennis
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Mike Davis <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2003 6:07 PM
> > > *Subject:* RE: [smartBridges] Inter Client Comms blocking?
> > >
> > > I had it on for awhile with mikrotik AP. I turned it off and the
> > > traffic level decreased 10 fold. It has a real impact on ap load.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *The
Wirefree
> > > Network
> > > *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2003 6:42 PM
> > > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > *Subject:* RE: [smartBridges] Inter Client Comms blocking?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I personally think it is VERY bad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When I first opened up the network, I had interclient comm enabled
> > > (allowed). Next thing I know….I am getting complaints ALL over
the
> > > place about other network users downloading files off of their
hard
> > > drives.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When you allow the interclient comm., then NETBIOS traffic is seen
> > > by all. They can then map each other’s printers, shared folders,
> etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > VERY BAD if you are running a business.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > VERY GOOD if you are running a for fun personal network.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sully
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Sevak
> Avakians
> > > *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2003 3:21 PM
> > > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > *Subject:* Re: [smartBridges] Inter Client Comms blocking?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I let them do it. It hasn't had any adverse affects yet, but most
> > > of my customers don't know they can use it. Some of those who are
> > > savvy enough use it for games.
> > >
> > > Just let them do it. If they go through the Internet and back to
do
> > > the same thing, you'll still slow down the network, right? So you
> > > may as well let them do it from within so that at least it will
pass
> > > by faster. If they're swapping files, less time will be spent
> > > getting the file from computer A to computer B if it's on your
> > > network. If it goes throught the Internet, it still has to go
from
> > > A to B, but a longer route which will add more time to the
transfer.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 08:45, Colin Watson wrote:
> > >
> > > /I was wondering, how many of you enable inter-client access
> > > blocking on the access points? I've got some customers on the same
> > > AP who want to talk to each other, but the client blocking is
> > > disabled, so they can't. They are moaning over this as you'd
expect,
> > > but I'm not sure if I should disable it?. Just wondering how many
> > > others enabled/disabled this feature and what effect it's had?
> > >
> > > //Thanks
> > >
> > > //Colin./
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/27/2003
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/27/2003
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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
