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
