I use OSPF on my network. I send a /25 to each tower which I then break up into /27 per AP. I then give static IPs to each customer and only run DHCP for management networks.
I used use a /24 that was open to each tower, but the bridge table almost completely consumed the RAM in the CPEs causing very slow speed issues. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield > On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net> wrote: > > OSPF works if you have a truly geographically diverse ring redundancy path. > > Barring that it does little for the situation. > > I prefer nearness in redundancy which multiple providers, which lends itself > to /24 or larger public IP space and BGP type protocol. > > > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:31 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers > > OSPF > > On April 16, 2015 1:46:50 PM AKDT, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net> > wrote: > Which isn’t really good for redundancy on fixed IP assignments (whether they > be DHCP or PPPoE) because a break in the traffic near the site would require > a redundant connection near the site to carry the minimal /24 or larger > public block. > > > Or you resort to temporary NAT, or re-assignment. > > > > > > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:28 AM > To: af > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers > > > Terminating PPPoE at the tower doesn't really give you much advantage over > DHCP as far as using limited IP space more efficiently though, you're still > going to have to assign a subnet to each tower, more or less the same as you > would with DHCP. if the goal is to use limited IP space more efficiently, > you really need to centralize PPPoE so you can use the same IP pool for > everything. > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > Just enable the PPPoE server on the routers already at your towers. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > From: "Eric Muehleisen" <ericm...@gmail.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:06:36 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers > > PPPoE auth is broadcast. This will require a L2 path back to you PPPoE server > (BRAS). This is a deal breaker for many. Overhead is minimal. There will be a > some broadcast chatter on your L2 subnet. This can be filtered a number of > ways and usually not a concern. > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:05 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm > <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > pppoe has been discussed quite often as a solution for limited IP space. > Could someone give a breakdown of the required components from the edge of > the network to the customer and the required topology? > My understanding, which is probably wrong, is a client on the network > connects, the device gets an IP, normally DHCP that can communicate all the > way back to the pppoe server (what exactly is this) > The credentials are provided and a pppoe session is established, all traffic > flows through the pppoe tunnel and exits at the edge of the network > the tunnel is essentially a vpn tunnel? there are overheads that need to be > accounted for? > Where is the public IP actually at? is it assigned as essentially a /32 at > the customer end of the tunnel? > > > How does the client device know where the pppoe server is, is this provided > in the DHCP response? > > > I know my understanding of this is probably totally way off, but I would love > to know more, accurately > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) > <li...@packetflux.com> wrote: > Which is why we played with it. In the end, it seemed that the amount of > support hassles with pppoe wasn't worth the hassle. But, this was a while > ago and pppoe has grown up a lot, so my opinion is probably not valid anymore. > > On Apr 15, 2015 5:27 AM, "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > There are reasons to have PPPoE other than IP address assignment. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <li...@packetflux.com> > To: "af" <af@afmug.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:02:50 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing public routed IPs to customers > > > > (WISP HAT ON) > > We have a subnet (or a couple of subnets, as sites have grown) at each tower, > and an public IP statically assigned to each customer. The radio gets a > managment address out of 172.[16-31].x.x which corresponds to the public IP > address. > > No DHCP anywhere, no PPPoE. > > But again, we have an /18 and a /19 assigned to us from back before NAT > really existed and DHCP implementations from the early '90's kinda sucked. > We've played with PPPoE and DHCP, but kinda have been spoiled by the > simplicity and reliability of a statically numbered network. > > -forrest > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@spitwspots.com> wrote: > For those of you currently providing public/routed ips to customers? What is > your topology like and delivery method? > > Looking at doing a few things, have considered a few options, and wanted to > look out there and see what other people are doing. > > Thanks > > -- > Josh Reynolds > CIO, SPITwSPOTS > www.spitwspots.com > > > > > -- > Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. > Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 > forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com > > > > > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
