Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7
Lanham, I have used about everything as CPE's (including tranzeo's), but the 133 and 411 boards perform so much better for us. The Mikrotik boards also do a better job when the signal drops pretty low. We just started using the 411's, about 20-30 clients out there now; but they might be as fast as the 333 boards. Very impressed with the price/performance. Eric Lanham Rattan wrote: That's why I use Tranzeo's for clients. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Barber > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:26 AM > To: Mikrotik discussions > Subject: Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7 > > > For allowing the customer to have the IP in their equipment > versus the radio, is using straight WDS bridge mode still the best way? > > Problem with that, is if you change channels.. you need to sign > into every client radio and move them first. > > -Keith- > > > - Original Message - > From: Butch Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wed, 4/23/2008 10:07pm > To: Mikrotik discussions > Subject: Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7 > > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Terri Kelley wrote: > > >Anyone had trouble with client to ap same version? I have heard > >rumors that they wouldn't associate or pass traffic. > > While I have only one customer using 3.7 on both client and AP (that > I know of), I have not seen this issue. Perhaps others have. > > >Also, anyone seen any problems with 3.x ap and a 2.9 client? I want > >to start upgrading to take advantage of the pseudobridge. > > Well, I have not seen any issues here, either, but I can't think of > anyone off hand that is doing this. As for the "advantage" in > pseudobridge, the biggest REAL advantage is to find a way to build > the network without it. I can't think of one GOOD reason to use > this. Perhaps there are reasons...I just can't think of any. > > -- > > *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * > *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS* > *573-276-2879*ImageStream * > *http://www.butchevans.com/*StarOS and MORE * > *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Wired or Wireless Networks* > > ___ > Mikrotik mailing list > Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com > http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik > > ___ > Mikrotik mailing list > Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com > http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik ___ Mikrotik mailing list Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik
Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7
Butch, I thought that pseudobridge had better performance in p-t-multipoint. On the Mikrotik forum, I noticed alot of complaining about WDS performance dropping when you get over 5 or 6 WDS sessions on an AP. Is this true? Eric // Butch Evans wrote: On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Keith Barber wrote: For allowing the customer to have the IP in their equipment versus the radio, is using straight WDS bridge mode still the best way? WDS is better than "psuedobridge". After all, if you can create a "real" bridge, isn't that better than a "sort of" (psuedo) bridge? There are other options, but if you need to create a bridge over wireless, WDS is the lowest overhead option. Problem with that, is if you change channels.. you need to sign into every client radio and move them first. Couple of things to remember. First, you don't have to run WDS at every client just because one (or more) on an AP is running WDS. Secondly, if you use mode "station-wds", the client will follow frequency changes just like "normal" clients.
Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Eric Sooter wrote: I thought that pseudobridge had better performance in p-t-multipoint. On the Mikrotik forum, I noticed alot of complaining about WDS performance dropping when you get over 5 or 6 WDS sessions on an AP. Is this true? Let's say that you have an AP with 10 client devices connected. If these 10 are all running with station-wds, then you will have some performance hit for that. If you only need station-wds on 2 of them, then you will not suffer noticably. Alternatively, you can run all 10 with pseudobridge and performance will not suffer. HOWEVER, because of the way 802.11 functions, you will have other issues. Let me give a specific scenario. You have a customer that needs the public IP on their own gear (so they can control the port forwarding or whatever). You can build that customer's radio connection in one of 3 ways (more, actually, but for this example, we'll just discuss the 3 main ways). 1. You can assign an IP to the radio card on their MT radio and route their subnet via that IP. This will cost nothing in terms of performance of the AP, and the customer's IP will be 100% reachable. 2. You can set the MT radio in station-wds mode and assign their public IP on their equipment (the gateway IP would be on your AP). This will only cause a performance hit if you have to do this for more than about 7-10 customers. This performance hit will not be dramatic, even with 10-15 customers, unless the AP is already pretty loaded. 3. You can use pseudobridge. Like #2, you would assign the customer's public IP to their equipment and their gateway IP would be assigned to your AP. When the customer generates traffic toward the Internet, your AP would find their MAC address to be that of the radio card on their MT running pseudobridge. All traffic generated by the customer would be properly delivered. However, if the customer's equipment has not sent any packets for a bit, then you will have a problem because when the AP (which considers their IP to be available local) cannot determine their MAC address with an ARP broadcast. SO..the customer can send traffic to the internet with no problems, but if a connection is initiated from the internet side, and their device has been quiet for some time, that connection will fail. This is due to the reality of how 802.11 was defined and the way that pseudobridge "fools" the network into thinking the end user IP actually exists on the wireless network. I can't cover this in enough detail to make it clear WHY this is true, because I'm short on time, but if there is enough interest, I can try to provide some information later. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Wired or Wireless Networks*
Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7
Question about the station-wds performance hit. I have an AP (RB600) with about 40 clients and 3 full wds links at the moment. We are looking at providing the customer with their IP on their own equipment. Station-wds was looking like the answer. If all 40 of those clients were in station-wds, meaning there are now 43 wds links on the AP, is the AP going to choke? -Keith- - Original Message - From: Butch Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wed, 4/30/2008 1:51pm To: Mikrotik discussions Subject: Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7 On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Eric Sooter wrote: >I thought that pseudobridge had better performance in >p-t-multipoint. On the Mikrotik forum, I noticed alot of >complaining about WDS performance dropping when you get over 5 or 6 >WDS sessions on an AP. Is this true? Let's say that you have an AP with 10 client devices connected. If these 10 are all running with station-wds, then you will have some performance hit for that. If you only need station-wds on 2 of them, then you will not suffer noticably. Alternatively, you can run all 10 with pseudobridge and performance will not suffer. HOWEVER, because of the way 802.11 functions, you will have other issues. Let me give a specific scenario. You have a customer that needs the public IP on their own gear (so they can control the port forwarding or whatever). You can build that customer's radio connection in one of 3 ways (more, actually, but for this example, we'll just discuss the 3 main ways). 1. You can assign an IP to the radio card on their MT radio and route their subnet via that IP. This will cost nothing in terms of performance of the AP, and the customer's IP will be 100% reachable. 2. You can set the MT radio in station-wds mode and assign their public IP on their equipment (the gateway IP would be on your AP). This will only cause a performance hit if you have to do this for more than about 7-10 customers. This performance hit will not be dramatic, even with 10-15 customers, unless the AP is already pretty loaded. 3. You can use pseudobridge. Like #2, you would assign the customer's public IP to their equipment and their gateway IP would be assigned to your AP. When the customer generates traffic toward the Internet, your AP would find their MAC address to be that of the radio card on their MT running pseudobridge. All traffic generated by the customer would be properly delivered. However, if the customer's equipment has not sent any packets for a bit, then you will have a problem because when the AP (which considers their IP to be available local) cannot determine their MAC address with an ARP broadcast. SO..the customer can send traffic to the internet with no problems, but if a connection is initiated from the internet side, and their device has been quiet for some time, that connection will fail. This is due to the reality of how 802.11 was defined and the way that pseudobridge "fools" the network into thinking the end user IP actually exists on the wireless network. I can't cover this in enough detail to make it clear WHY this is true, because I'm short on time, but if there is enough interest, I can try to provide some information later. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879*ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/*StarOS and MORE * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Wired or Wireless Networks* ___ Mikrotik mailing list Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik
Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Keith Barber wrote: >I have an AP (RB600) with about 40 clients and 3 full wds links at >the moment. We are looking at providing the customer with their IP >on their own equipment. Station-wds was looking like the answer. >If all 40 of those clients were in station-wds, meaning there are >now 43 wds links on the AP, is the AP going to choke? The AP would not like 43 station-wds clients. However, that is not needed. Let me explain a bit. To run wds, you need to set up the AP for WDS. Then, you set ONLY those clients that need WDS as station-wds. Other clients can be running as "normal" clients (station mode if you are running MT clients). In this scenario, the AP will not have a problem. FWIW, you can run pseudobridge clients (trango, MT and others) on the same network that you run station-wds clients on. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Wired or Wireless Networks*
Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7
Right, which we'll have a fair split of customer's that don't have publics running in plain station mode. But in some of the business districts about 90% of those clients are going to be putting the public IP into their equipment, with the ap as the gateway, so we don't have to do any NATing above their router. -Keith- - Original Message - From: Butch Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wed, 4/30/2008 3:12pm To: Mikrotik discussions Subject: Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7 On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Keith Barber wrote: >I have an AP (RB600) with about 40 clients and 3 full wds links at >the moment. We are looking at providing the customer with their IP >on their own equipment. Station-wds was looking like the answer. >If all 40 of those clients were in station-wds, meaning there are >now 43 wds links on the AP, is the AP going to choke? The AP would not like 43 station-wds clients. However, that is not needed. Let me explain a bit. To run wds, you need to set up the AP for WDS. Then, you set ONLY those clients that need WDS as station-wds. Other clients can be running as "normal" clients (station mode if you are running MT clients). In this scenario, the AP will not have a problem. FWIW, you can run pseudobridge clients (trango, MT and others) on the same network that you run station-wds clients on. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879*ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/*StarOS and MORE * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Wired or Wireless Networks* ___ Mikrotik mailing list Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik
Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Keith Barber wrote: >Right, which we'll have a fair split of customer's that don't have >publics running in plain station mode. But in some of the business >districts about 90% of those clients are going to be putting the >public IP into their equipment, with the ap as the gateway, so we >don't have to do any NATing above their router. For most of them, it may work without issues to use pseudobridge in MT (or any other "ethernet bridge" gear), but if there will be a lot of INBOUND connections, then you may see trouble due to the realities of how 802.11 works. If they just need the public IP on their gear so that they can establish OUTBOUND connections (for corporate VPN or whatever), then they should work just fine with pseudobridge. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Wired or Wireless Networks*
[Mikrotik] RB450 external enclosure
What are you guys using for your RB450s (or other board with several Ethernet ports)? I'm looking to need a couple. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20080430/03199864/attachment.html
Re: [Mikrotik] RB450 external enclosure
Will the 150 cases work? Mike Hammett wrote: What are you guys using for your RB450s (or other board with several Ethernet ports)? I'm looking to need a couple. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20080430/03199864/attachment.html ___ Mikrotik mailing list Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik
