right now everything is static (mgmt and public ip) we try to deploy SMs with NAT enabled but that's not possible half the time for one reason or another.
Once we move to powercode I want to use their zero touch config (dhcp option 66) to config the SM and then option 82 if the SM is bridged to give an ip to their router or our managed calix router. I'd prefer to not have to keep track of router MACs especially if the router is the customer's and not our calix. Powercode doesn't use RADIUS so I'd probably have to set that up on the side or something. Like I said I want to make this as automagic as possible and I'm wondering if anyone has already gone thru this so I don't have to reinvent the wheel. Powercode didn't have any ideas of how to accomplish this so maybe I'm blazing a trail on the cutting edge :-/ -Sean On Thursday, August 18, 2016, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote: > I assume you're doing bridge mode? Use RADIUS to assign the SM's > management IP. Then DHCP + Op 82 is used for the customer equipment. > > We just do static management IP on the SMs. Playing with NAT + DMZ on the > customer side. Traceroute and other ICMP responses don't work through NAT > mode, even with DMZ. And L2TP tunnels. I forget what else I tested on my SM > at home. So far I'm not too thrilled with it. > > On 8/18/2016 10:08 PM, Sean Heskett wrote: > > Hummmm that's the conclusion we were coming to also. > > I'm trying to find a way to make it all automagic but that seems not > possible :-/ > > -Sean > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jno...@lrcomm.com');>> wrote: > >> From how I understand it that is not possible unless you plan on managing >> via the public IP. >> >> Option 82, in its simplest form, just allows accounting via the SU mac >> address, along with what 'circuit' (AP) it came from. I think in your >> situation if you want to use powercode to hand out public addresses you >> will need a static management network for CPEs. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: >> >>> Thx joe, >>> >>> So if it sends the same 0a:00:3e MAC for the bridged device, how do you >>> get the dhcp server to send the management IP to the SM since that would be >>> the same MAC?? >>> >>> -Sean >>> >>> On Thursday, August 18, 2016, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Sean, >>>> >>>> No problem! >>>> >>>> Cambium 450/EPMP behave the same way I am pretty sure without looking >>>> at my notes. This post describes it perfectly and also has a raw dump of >>>> the dhcp request: http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/DHC >>>> P-Opt-82/td-p/39636 >>>> >>>> OPTION: 82 ( 29) Relay Agent Information >>>> Circuit-ID 0a:00:3e:XX:XX:XX #AP MAC >>>> Remote-ID 0a:00:3e:YY:YY:YY #SU Wireless MAC >>>> >>>> That means that even if the client is in bridge mode the only mac >>>> address you need to track is the subscriber unit. I do not know any >>>> powercode specific stuff but I am looking at implementing with DHCP ISC. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey joe, >>>>> >>>>> Yeah we are mocking it up in our lab right now. Mainly need to know >>>>> what MAC gets sent for all the different interfaces - management, NAT >>>>> enabled, bridged etc. >>>>> >>>>> Powercode will only let you add one IP and MAC per device. Since we >>>>> are in the process of importing all our data for the migration to PC I'd >>>>> like to set it all up now to be ready for option 82 in the future ;) >>>>> >>>>> Joe, do you mind if our network engineer Elijah contacts you off list?? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Sean >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, August 18, 2016, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I plan on implementing it with cambium both 450/epmp. Any specific >>>>>> questions? I learned a lot by taking a setting up a dhcp server with >>>>>> whatever verbose logging turned on and watching the requests. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 18, 2016 8:13 PM, "Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm almost certain someone does... But I'm not 100% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 18, 2016 8:51 PM, "Sean Heskett" <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Powercode said they had never done it and didn't know anyone who >>>>>>>> had. (I was kinda surprised at that response) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Figured I'd check to see if y'all had used it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Sean >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 18, 2016, Josh Luthman < >>>>>>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have you contacted Powercode about this or no? I figure they'd >>>>>>>>> know, their wisp is Canopy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>>>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>>>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>>>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 2016 8:35 PM, "Sean Heskett" <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We are in the process of migrating to powercode...it's not an >>>>>>>>>> easy task but I think it will be well worth it. Lots of details to >>>>>>>>>> figure >>>>>>>>>> out lol. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Sean >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 18, 2016, Tushar Patel <tpa...@ecpi.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You moved to powercode!!! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tushar >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > On Aug 18, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Hey gang, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Any experts out there have experience with DHCP option 82 + >>>>>>>>>>> Canopy + Powercode? If so can I pick your brain??? >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Sean >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
