Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7
I tend to look at this as if it were ethernet, right or wrong. Most of my customers that need a public ip for a specific reason I would rather pseudobridge as if it were a bridge on an ethernet or cable system. This helps me so that I don't have to mess with port forwarding etc for special aps in mostly incoming aps to the customer. I have run into the occasional outbound from the customer ap that doesn't like the nat etc we have for our usual customers. That way they deal with whatever networking issues instead of me having to mess with it. Its just simpler for me. For the few pseudobridges I have instituted so far, I have not seen a problem with traffic and it has worked well for the customer (mostly businesses or home offices). For instance, I configured a pseudobridge for a customer who ran certain aps and his performance increased, aps worked and he no longer had complaints. I have not had issues with performance on the ap as a result. Now maybe if I had a lot of them on a particular AP that would be different. But so far no. Terri Kelley Network Engineer 254-697-6710 This email message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above, and may contain, together with any attachment(s), confidential information that is privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or distribution of this message and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Butch Evans wrote: 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 mailing list Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20080501/0d0ebefb/attachment.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LogoHzlsigtest.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2158 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20080501/0d0ebefb/attachment.jpg
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 mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com 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
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
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 mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com 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*
Re: [Mikrotik] RB OS v 3.7
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 mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com 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
