Only speculating here- but I believe that the APs need reliable sub-100 ms connectivity to operate reliably. We have controllers out at the end of T1s in DC and NYC (we're in Syracuse), and we do OK, though not using HREAP (did consider it, but didn't seem worth it for us for a few reasons)with around 7 APs at the end of each T1. As for DSL/Cable modem- as goofy as LWAPP and the controllers can be with each new and wondrous code version, along with the variability of the likes of DSL, I'd be extremely hesitant about trying this over someone else's link. And the NAT/SOHO quality router in the mix just smells funny. Seems like you may get the basic connectivity to go (maybe, not sure if you'd need port forwarding or the like in the Linksys for LWAPP ports) but the reliability would be suspect.
But- would be interesting to run it by one of Cisco's more knowledgeable wireless SE's for their take. Lee Badman -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Lee Weers Sent: Mon 9/8/2008 5:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] H-REAP and NAT to Cisco 4400 controllers Is there anyone using H-REAP to extend their wireless network? We have some students and employees that are in houses that are serviced currently by DSL or cable modems. Our controllers currently have a private ip address. Is it possible to set an ap to use H-REAP and then nat the controllers for it to then talk too? How reliable is this? The equipment in the houses consist of a Linksys router and maybe a unmanaged switch. Thank you, Lee Weers Assistant Director for Network Services Central College IT Services (641) 628-7675 ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
