Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Dustin Jurman]

Hey Fred,  we did exactly that with our Hardee County Network, we use licensed 
links between MEF switches.  Rapid deployment with fiber forward design.

I think we have been through all configurations,  bridging, routing and layer2 
switching.  You could not hit the nail on the head any better here.

The advantages of this type of design include scaleability, performance and 
reduced opex.

DSJ

Dustin Jurman C.E.O
Rapid Systems Corporation
1211 North Westshore BLVD suite 711
Tampa, Fl 33607
"Building Better Infrastructure"

On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:35 PM, "Fred Goldstein" 
mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>> wrote:

At 10/11/2012 06:52 PM, SamT 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?

There could be one NAT, at the access point.

My taste, which to be sure I haven't tested at scale in a wireless network (but 
plan to), is to follow what is becoming standard wireline practice and do 
switching, not bridging, at "layer 2".  Routing would then be lumped into one 
place, making it easier to manage.

The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is 
that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if 
it's possible.  Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, 
and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone.  We invented this at DEC in the 
1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of 
thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast 
traffic level was 400 kbps.  This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991.  I 
was testing ISDN bridges and "discovered" how you can't just bridge that type 
of network across a 56k connection.  (I discovered the traffic when I first 
turned up the bridge.  I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an 
old VAX.  At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.)

Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is 
the big thing for fiber.  It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; 
the MAC addresses are just passed along.  Since it's connection-oriented (via 
the tag), it can have QoS assigned.  I think it's theoretically possible to tag 
user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to 
do it all.  Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more 
isolation and privacy than plain routing.  Mesh routing then works at that 
layer, transparent to IP.  It'll be "interesting" to set up.


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

--
Arthur Stephens
Senior Sales Technician
Ptera Wireless Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
509-927-7837
For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support
 -
"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is 
intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed.
Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or 
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not 
intended to represent those of the company."




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org

http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12
Internal Virus Database is out of date.



--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration



Mikrotik Advanced Certified

www.nwwnet.net
(765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239




___
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

 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701

___
Wireless mailing list
Wirele

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Steve Barnes]

Not to add an advertisement but Level 2 networking is one of the topics that we 
plan to hit on at WISPAPOLOOZA in the Technical Knowledge Exchange at 4:00 on 
Thursday the 25th. That is one of the point Gino wanted to bring up.  I will be 
moderating so if someone has other important Technical questions that might be 
a good session or the Technical Round table Tuesday evening from 7:45 till we 
go to bed.  Hope to see you all there.

Steve Barnes
General Manager
PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Dustin Jurman
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

Hey Fred,  we did exactly that with our Hardee County Network, we use licensed 
links between MEF switches.  Rapid deployment with fiber forward design.

I think we have been through all configurations,  bridging, routing and layer2 
switching.  You could not hit the nail on the head any better here.

The advantages of this type of design include scaleability, performance and 
reduced opex.

DSJ

Dustin Jurman C.E.O
Rapid Systems Corporation
1211 North Westshore BLVD suite 711
Tampa, Fl 33607
"Building Better Infrastructure"

On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:35 PM, "Fred Goldstein" 
mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>> wrote:
At 10/11/2012 06:52 PM, SamT 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?

There could be one NAT, at the access point.

My taste, which to be sure I haven't tested at scale in a wireless network (but 
plan to), is to follow what is becoming standard wireline practice and do 
switching, not bridging, at "layer 2".  Routing would then be lumped into one 
place, making it easier to manage.

The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is 
that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if 
it's possible.  Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, 
and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone.  We invented this at DEC in the 
1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of 
thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast 
traffic level was 400 kbps.  This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991.  I 
was testing ISDN bridges and "discovered" how you can't just bridge that type 
of network across a 56k connection.  (I discovered the traffic when I first 
turned up the bridge.  I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an 
old VAX.  At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.)

Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is 
the big thing for fiber.  It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; 
the MAC addresses are just passed along.  Since it's connection-oriented (via 
the tag), it can have QoS assigned.  I think it's theoretically possible to tag 
user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to 
do it all.  Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more 
isolation and privacy than plain routing.  Mesh routing then works at that 
layer, transparent to IP.  It'll be "interesting" to set up.



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

--
Arthur Stephens
Senior Sales Technician
Ptera Wireless Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
509-927-7837
For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support
 -
"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is 
intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed.
Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or 
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not 
intended to represent those of the company."



___

Wireless mailing list

Wireless@wispa.org



http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12
Internal Virus Database is out of d

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Tim Densmore]

Hi Fred,

Could you expand a bit on this?  It sounds like you're describing what 
I'd refer to as "virtual circuits" rather than "switching." Are you 
setting up per-customer VLANs or something like that?

TD

On 10/11/2012 06:35 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier 
> Ethernet is the big thing for fiber.  It uses the VLAN tag to identify 
> the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along.  Since 
> it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned.  I 
> think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and 
> set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all.  Switching 
> doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy 
> than plain routing.  Mesh routing then works at that layer, 
> transparent to IP.  It'll be "interesting" to set up.

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/12/2012 10:23 AM, Tim Densmore wrote:
>Hi Fred,
>
>Could you expand a bit on this?  It sounds like you're describing what
>I'd refer to as "virtual circuits" rather than "switching." Are you
>setting up per-customer VLANs or something like that?

It helps if you think of it as "Ethernet-framed Frame Relay", rather 
than as Ethernet that hoary old LAN.  So it's virtual circuit 
switching (the two terms are complementary, not contradictory).  Each 
link between a pair of routers is a VLAN, which is a two-point 
virtual circuit.  The term "VLAN" is a bit inappropriate nowadays, 
and the 12-bit size of the tag is inadequate for large networks, but 
that's what we get when recycling a mass-produced 
product.  (Apparently AT&T ran out of tags on some of their 
switches.)  The tag btw is solved by "Q-in-Q" nesting of tags, though 
most of the time it's a subscriber tag nested inside a provider tag.

There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP 
vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This 
would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a 
building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a 
separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School 
Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate 
VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from 
each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a 
Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are 
multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and 
firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a 
Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of 
course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a 
shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.

I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly 
instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs 
and queues.

>TD
>
>On 10/11/2012 06:35 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier
> > Ethernet is the big thing for fiber.  It uses the VLAN tag to identify
> > the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along.  Since
> > it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned.  I
> > think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and
> > set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all.  Switching
> > doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy
> > than plain routing.  Mesh routing then works at that layer,
> > transparent to IP.  It'll be "interesting" to set up.
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Olufemi Adalemo]

Need help,
I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply.
Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a
DC to DC converter?

Best regards,
- - -
*Olufemi Adalemo*
M: +234-803-5610040
M: +234-809-8610040
f...@adalemo.com
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Josh Luthman]

Yes you will.  The batteries will probably be around 27v which Ubnt won't
like.  You'll need to clean the ~18-27v from the batteries to 24v.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:

> Need help,
> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply.
> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
> requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a
> DC to DC converter?
>
> Best regards,
> - - -
> *Olufemi Adalemo*
> M: +234-803-5610040
> M: +234-809-8610040
> f...@adalemo.com
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[Drew Lentz]

At the risk of starting a flame war, I think UBNT needs its own list for WISPA. 
I love the conversation in here, but it seems that more and more this is 
turning into UBNT crowd-sourced support. I may be alone on this, but seriously. 

/just sayin

-drew 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:

> Need help,
> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply. 
> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it requires 
> a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a DC to DC 
> converter?
> 
> Best regards,
> - - -
> Olufemi Adalemo
> M: +234-803-5610040
> M: +234-809-8610040
> f...@adalemo.com
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[Chuck Hogg]

They already have the list...

ubnt_us...@wispa.org

Regards,
Chuck


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Drew Lentz  wrote:

> At the risk of starting a flame war, I think UBNT needs its own list for
> WISPA. I love the conversation in here, but it seems that more and more
> this is turning into UBNT crowd-sourced support. I may be alone on this,
> but seriously.
>
> /just sayin
>
> -drew
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:
>
> Need help,
> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply.
> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
> requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a
> DC to DC converter?
>
> Best regards,
> - - -
> *Olufemi Adalemo*
> M: +234-803-5610040
> M: +234-809-8610040
> f...@adalemo.com
>
>
>  ___
> 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
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[Josh Luthman]

There is:

"Ubiquiti Users Group" ,

The question was just posted on the wrong list.  It doesn't bother me
because I'm on both lists.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Drew Lentz  wrote:

> At the risk of starting a flame war, I think UBNT needs its own list for
> WISPA. I love the conversation in here, but it seems that more and more
> this is turning into UBNT crowd-sourced support. I may be alone on this,
> but seriously.
>
> /just sayin
>
> -drew
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:
>
> Need help,
> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply.
> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
> requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a
> DC to DC converter?
>
> Best regards,
> - - -
> *Olufemi Adalemo*
> M: +234-803-5610040
> M: +234-809-8610040
> f...@adalemo.com
>
>
>  ___
> 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
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[Drew Lentz]

looks left  then looks right ... ::shrugs::

Well ok then. 

-d

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:

> They already have the list...
> 
> ubnt_us...@wispa.org
> 
> Regards,
> Chuck
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Drew Lentz  wrote:
>> At the risk of starting a flame war, I think UBNT needs its own list for 
>> WISPA. I love the conversation in here, but it seems that more and more this 
>> is turning into UBNT crowd-sourced support. I may be alone on this, but 
>> seriously. 
>> 
>> /just sayin
>> 
>> -drew 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:
>> 
>>> Need help,
>>> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply. 
>>> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it 
>>> requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a 
>>> DC to DC converter?
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> - - -
>>> Olufemi Adalemo
>>> M: +234-803-5610040
>>> M: +234-809-8610040
>>> f...@adalemo.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Olufemi Adalemo]

Aha, thanks
That explains why I have a dead NSM5 on my desk
I guess the charge controller is not very good at giving out 24v regulated
power

- - -
*Olufemi Adalemo*
M: +234-803-5610040
M: +234-809-8610040
f...@adalemo.com




On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:

> Yes you will.  The batteries will probably be around 27v which Ubnt won't
> like.  You'll need to clean the ~18-27v from the batteries to 24v.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>
>> Need help,
>> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply.
>> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
>> requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a
>> DC to DC converter?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> - - -
>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>> M: +234-803-5610040
>> M: +234-809-8610040
>> f...@adalemo.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Josh Luthman]

Charger isn't going to spit out 24v for batteries that need charged, it's
usually 27v.

I was under the impression they would simply lock up and you could reboot,
or maybe I'm just thinking of MT.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:

> Aha, thanks
> That explains why I have a dead NSM5 on my desk
> I guess the charge controller is not very good at giving out 24v regulated
> power
>
> - - -
> *Olufemi Adalemo*
> M: +234-803-5610040
> M: +234-809-8610040
> f...@adalemo.com
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> Yes you will.  The batteries will probably be around 27v which Ubnt won't
>> like.  You'll need to clean the ~18-27v from the batteries to 24v.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>>
>>> Need help,
>>> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply.
>>> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
>>> requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a
>>> DC to DC converter?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> - - -
>>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>>> M: +234-803-5610040
>>> M: +234-809-8610040
>>> f...@adalemo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Kristian Hoffmann]

We have MT and Ubnt equipment of all shapes and sizes running at 27.6V.  
The only problems we've had are a handful of freak RB411s that won't 
power on with >27V.  Most of the older ones wouldn't kick into 
overvoltage protection until >28V, but we've come across a few odd balls.


-Kristian

On 10/12/2012 10:44 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Charger isn't going to spit out 24v for batteries that need charged, 
it's usually 27v.


I was under the impression they would simply lock up and you could 
reboot, or maybe I'm just thinking of MT.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Olufemi Adalemo > wrote:


Aha, thanks
That explains why I have a dead NSM5 on my desk
I guess the charge controller is not very good at giving out 24v
regulated power

- - -
*Olufemi Adalemo*
M: +234-803-5610040 
M: +234-809-8610040 
f...@adalemo.com 




On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Luthman
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>>
wrote:

Yes you will.  The batteries will probably be around 27v which
Ubnt won't like.  You'll need to clean the ~18-27v from the
batteries to 24v.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo
mailto:adal...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Need help,
I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar
supply.
Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet
shows that it requires a 24v supply however the POE
injector supplied is 15v, do I need a DC to DC converter?

Best regards,
- - -
*Olufemi Adalemo*
M: +234-803-5610040 
M: +234-809-8610040 
f...@adalemo.com 



___
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



___
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


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Olufemi Adalemo]

What's your typical config for the NSM5?
Some of my guys just tried to power one off a 24v battery bank (no charger
connected just battery) and it fried good

- - -
*Olufemi Adalemo*
M: +234-803-5610040
M: +234-809-8610040
f...@adalemo.com




On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Kristian Hoffmann wrote:

>  We have MT and Ubnt equipment of all shapes and sizes running at 27.6V.
> The only problems we've had are a handful of freak RB411s that won't power
> on with >27V.  Most of the older ones wouldn't kick into overvoltage
> protection until >28V, but we've come across a few odd balls.
>
> -Kristian
>
>
> On 10/12/2012 10:44 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> Charger isn't going to spit out 24v for batteries that need charged, it's
> usually 27v.
>
>  I was under the impression they would simply lock up and you could
> reboot, or maybe I'm just thinking of MT.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>
>> Aha, thanks
>> That explains why I have a dead NSM5 on my desk
>> I guess the charge controller is not very good at giving out 24v
>> regulated power
>>
>>   - - -
>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>>  M: +234-803-5610040
>> M: +234-809-8610040
>>  f...@adalemo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes you will.  The batteries will probably be around 27v which Ubnt
>>> won't like.  You'll need to clean the ~18-27v from the batteries to 24v.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>>>
  Need help,
 I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply.
 Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
 requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a
 DC to DC converter?

  Best regards,
   - - -
 *Olufemi Adalemo*
  M: +234-803-5610040
 M: +234-809-8610040
  f...@adalemo.com



  ___
 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing 
> listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Josh Luthman]

What voltage were the batteries spitting out?  They charge at 27v but
without a charger put out much closer to 24v until they begin discharging.
 If it fried the radio I would first think that it was connected wrong, not
that the voltage was too high.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:

> What's your typical config for the NSM5?
> Some of my guys just tried to power one off a 24v battery bank (no charger
> connected just battery) and it fried good
>
> - - -
> *Olufemi Adalemo*
> M: +234-803-5610040
> M: +234-809-8610040
> f...@adalemo.com
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Kristian Hoffmann wrote:
>
>>  We have MT and Ubnt equipment of all shapes and sizes running at 27.6V.
>> The only problems we've had are a handful of freak RB411s that won't power
>> on with >27V.  Most of the older ones wouldn't kick into overvoltage
>> protection until >28V, but we've come across a few odd balls.
>>
>> -Kristian
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2012 10:44 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> Charger isn't going to spit out 24v for batteries that need charged, it's
>> usually 27v.
>>
>>  I was under the impression they would simply lock up and you could
>> reboot, or maybe I'm just thinking of MT.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>>
>>> Aha, thanks
>>> That explains why I have a dead NSM5 on my desk
>>> I guess the charge controller is not very good at giving out 24v
>>> regulated power
>>>
>>>   - - -
>>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>>>  M: +234-803-5610040
>>> M: +234-809-8610040
>>>  f...@adalemo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 Yes you will.  The batteries will probably be around 27v which Ubnt
 won't like.  You'll need to clean the ~18-27v from the batteries to 24v.

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373


  On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:

>  Need help,
> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply.
> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
> requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need 
> a
> DC to DC converter?
>
>  Best regards,
>   - - -
> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>  M: +234-803-5610040
> M: +234-809-8610040
>  f...@adalemo.com
>
>
>
>  ___
> 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


>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing 
>> listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Olufemi Adalemo]

Ah ok, it is possible that the guys didn't get the polarity right
I will check though they swear that they did


- - -
*Olufemi Adalemo*
M: +234-803-5610040
M: +234-809-8610040
f...@adalemo.com




On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:

> What voltage were the batteries spitting out?  They charge at 27v but
> without a charger put out much closer to 24v until they begin discharging.
>  If it fried the radio I would first think that it was connected wrong, not
> that the voltage was too high.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>
>> What's your typical config for the NSM5?
>> Some of my guys just tried to power one off a 24v battery bank (no
>> charger connected just battery) and it fried good
>>
>> - - -
>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>> M: +234-803-5610040
>> M: +234-809-8610040
>> f...@adalemo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Kristian Hoffmann 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  We have MT and Ubnt equipment of all shapes and sizes running at
>>> 27.6V.  The only problems we've had are a handful of freak RB411s that
>>> won't power on with >27V.  Most of the older ones wouldn't kick into
>>> overvoltage protection until >28V, but we've come across a few odd balls.
>>>
>>> -Kristian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2012 10:44 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>> Charger isn't going to spit out 24v for batteries that need charged,
>>> it's usually 27v.
>>>
>>>  I was under the impression they would simply lock up and you could
>>> reboot, or maybe I'm just thinking of MT.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>>>
 Aha, thanks
 That explains why I have a dead NSM5 on my desk
 I guess the charge controller is not very good at giving out 24v
 regulated power

   - - -
 *Olufemi Adalemo*
  M: +234-803-5610040
 M: +234-809-8610040
  f...@adalemo.com




   On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> Yes you will.  The batteries will probably be around 27v which Ubnt
> won't like.  You'll need to clean the ~18-27v from the batteries to 24v.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>  On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo 
> wrote:
>
>>  Need help,
>> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply.
>> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
>> requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I 
>> need a
>> DC to DC converter?
>>
>>  Best regards,
>>   - - -
>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>>  M: +234-803-5610040
>> M: +234-809-8610040
>>  f...@adalemo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>  ___
>> 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
>
>

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing 
>>> listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[Mike Hammett]

UBNT also is founded upon crowd-sourced sales and support. ;-)



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

- Original Message -
From: "Drew Lentz" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Cc: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:36:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.



looks left  then looks right ... ::shrugs:: 


Well ok then. 


-d 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Chuck Hogg < ch...@shelbybb.com > wrote: 




They already have the list... 


ubnt_us...@wispa.org 

Regards, 
Chuck 



On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Drew Lentz < d...@drewlentz.com > wrote: 




At the risk of starting a flame war, I think UBNT needs its own list for WISPA. 
I love the conversation in here, but it seems that more and more this is 
turning into UBNT crowd-sourced support. I may be alone on this, but seriously. 


/just sayin 


-drew 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo < adal...@gmail.com > wrote: 




Need help, 
I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply. 
Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it requires a 
24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a DC to DC 
converter? 


Best regards, 




- - - 
Olufemi Adalemo 

M: +234-803-5610040 M: +234-809-8610040 
f...@adalemo.com 






___ 
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 





___ 
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
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[aajayiobe]

I've used a 24v AC-DC power supply with cable length 80M. Been up 6months.  

Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe
+234(0)8023258027

-Original Message-
From: Olufemi Adalemo 
Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:14:58 
To: WISPA List
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Subject: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

___
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

Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[aajayiobe]

How do I join?


Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe
+234(0)8023258027

-Original Message-
From: Chuck Hogg 
Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:28:21 
To: WISPA General List
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

___
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

Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[Chuck Hogg]

http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users

Regards,
Chuck


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM,  wrote:

> How do I join?
>
>
> Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe
> +234(0)8023258027
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chuck Hogg 
> Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:28:21
> To: WISPA General List
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.
>
> ___
> 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
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Kristian Hoffmann]

Ya, it should be +24 on pins 4,5 and -24/comm on 7,8.  If it blew up 
then there was probably a short somewhere.


-Kristian

On 10/12/2012 11:11 AM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:

Ah ok, it is possible that the guys didn't get the polarity right
I will check though they swear that they did


- - -
*Olufemi Adalemo*
M: +234-803-5610040
M: +234-809-8610040
f...@adalemo.com 




On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:


What voltage were the batteries spitting out?  They charge at 27v
but without a charger put out much closer to 24v until they begin
discharging.  If it fried the radio I would first think that it
was connected wrong, not that the voltage was too high.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Olufemi Adalemo
mailto:adal...@gmail.com>> wrote:

What's your typical config for the NSM5?
Some of my guys just tried to power one off a 24v battery bank
(no charger connected just battery) and it fried good

- - -
*Olufemi Adalemo*
M: +234-803-5610040 
M: +234-809-8610040 
f...@adalemo.com 




On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Kristian Hoffmann
mailto:kh...@fire2wire.com>> wrote:

We have MT and Ubnt equipment of all shapes and sizes
running at 27.6V. The only problems we've had are a
handful of freak RB411s that won't power on with >27V. 
Most of the older ones wouldn't kick into overvoltage

protection until >28V, but we've come across a few odd balls.

-Kristian


On 10/12/2012 10:44 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Charger isn't going to spit out 24v for batteries that
need charged, it's usually 27v.

I was under the impression they would simply lock up and
you could reboot, or maybe I'm just thinking of MT.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Olufemi Adalemo
mailto:adal...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Aha, thanks
That explains why I have a dead NSM5 on my desk
I guess the charge controller is not very good at
giving out 24v regulated power

- - -
*Olufemi Adalemo*
M: +234-803-5610040 
M: +234-809-8610040 
f...@adalemo.com 




On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Luthman
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:

Yes you will.  The batteries will probably be
around 27v which Ubnt won't like.  You'll need to
clean the ~18-27v from the batteries to 24v.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo
mailto:adal...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Need help,
I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by
a 24v solar supply.
Does anyone have experience with this? The
data sheet shows that it requires a 24v
supply however the POE injector supplied is
15v, do I need a DC to DC converter?

Best regards,
- - -
*Olufemi Adalemo*
M: +234-803-5610040 
M: +234-809-8610040 
f...@adalemo.com 



___
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



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org  

Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[Rick Harnish]

http://www.wispa.org/mailing-lists

Where there is a Wisp, there is a way!

Respectfully,

Rick Harnish
Executive Director
WISPA
260-307-4000 cell
866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office
Skype: rick.harnish.
rharn...@wispa.org
adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick)





> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of aajayi...@as-technologies.com
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:50 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.
> 
> How do I join?
> 
> 
> Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe
> +234(0)8023258027
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Chuck Hogg 
> Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:28:21
> To: WISPA General List
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.
> 
> ___
> 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

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[Drew Lentz]

I am totally aware of that, I just don't think the WISPA General List is
the place for it. :)

-drew

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> UBNT also is founded upon crowd-sourced sales and support. ;-)
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Drew Lentz" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Cc: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:36:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.
>
>
>
> looks left  then looks right ... ::shrugs::
>
>
> Well ok then.
>
>
> -d
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Chuck Hogg < ch...@shelbybb.com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> They already have the list...
>
>
> ubnt_us...@wispa.org
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Drew Lentz < d...@drewlentz.com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> At the risk of starting a flame war, I think UBNT needs its own list for
> WISPA. I love the conversation in here, but it seems that more and more
> this is turning into UBNT crowd-sourced support. I may be alone on this,
> but seriously.
>
>
> /just sayin
>
>
> -drew
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo < adal...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Need help,
> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply.
> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
> requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a
> DC to DC converter?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
>
> - - -
> Olufemi Adalemo
>
> M: +234-803-5610040 M: +234-809-8610040
> f...@adalemo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
> ___
> 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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Butch Evans]

On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:52 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP 
> vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This 
> would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a 
> building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a 
> separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School 
> Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate 
> VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from 
> each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a 
> Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are 
> multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and 
> firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a 
> Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of 
> course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a 
> shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.
> 
> I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly 
> instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs 
> and queues.

So, what you're saying is that you don't understand HOW to make the
network using MT as a tool?  NOTE: This is not the same as "It can't do
".  It's all in the documentation.  You just have to either
figure it out from what is there or ask for help from someone who has.

It is there and can be done in a number of different ways (bridged OR
switched).  Truth be told, I am amazed at what can be done in a small
box like the mikrotik devices.  It is a swiss army knife.  However, the
other side of this coin is that often, there is a BETTER tool for some
network needs.  Much like a swiss army knife, while it is true that it
has a screwdriver built in, a REAL screwdriver is usually better suited.
At the same time, often, you only need the functionality provided by the
built-in screwdriver, but it takes a special knack to make it do the
job.  The point being, that while it is certainly possible to make
RouterOS NOT be a router, why would you?  If you want a switch, put in a
switch.  If you want to save money, just realize that you are trading
something to get it.

There is very little that you can't do with RouterOS in terms of vlan
behaviors, but there certainly ARE a few limitations.  Your needs will
determine which is better.

-- 

* Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation   *
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks  *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!*
*  NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 *




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/12/2012 05:48 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
>On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:52 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
> > vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This
> > would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a
> > building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a
> > separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School
> > Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate
> > VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from
> > each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a
> > Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are
> > multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and
> > firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a
> > Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of
> > course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a
> > shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.
> >
> > I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly
> > instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs
> > and queues.
>
>So, what you're saying is that you don't understand HOW to make the
>network using MT as a tool?  NOTE: This is not the same as "It can't do
>".  It's all in the documentation.  You just have to either
>figure it out from what is there or ask for help from someone who has.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking.  They never documented how to put 
those pieces together, though they might work.  And "Switched 
Ethernet" would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and 
Webfig.  I'm from the old school, where the definition of "bug" is 
"an undocumented feature", and where software was written to conform 
to the documentation, not the other way around.

>It is there and can be done in a number of different ways (bridged OR
>switched).  Truth be told, I am amazed at what can be done in a small
>box like the mikrotik devices.  It is a swiss army knife.  However, the
>other side of this coin is that often, there is a BETTER tool for some
>network needs.  Much like a swiss army knife, while it is true that it
>has a screwdriver built in, a REAL screwdriver is usually better suited.
>At the same time, often, you only need the functionality provided by the
>built-in screwdriver, but it takes a special knack to make it do the
>job.  The point being, that while it is certainly possible to make
>RouterOS NOT be a router, why would you?  If you want a switch, put in a
>switch.  If you want to save money, just realize that you are trading
>something to get it.

Find me an MEF switch for only 200% of the price of an equivalent 
Routerboard! (I suppose the new UBNT EdgeMAX will also fit that 
test.)  Most of the <$1000 Ethernet switches are pure LAN bridges, 
not MEF 9/14.  They use the same frame format but utterly different 
semantics.  Plus a RouterOS box might allow a mix of the two, routing 
in one network and switching for everyone.

>There is very little that you can't do with RouterOS in terms of vlan
>behaviors, but there certainly ARE a few limitations.  Your needs will
>determine which is better.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Being a Technical person, and a visual learner.. I am having trouble 
translating what Fred is trying to do with a Mikrotik, which he thinks 
it cannot do.

We build our Fixed wireless pop's with a Mikrotik Router doing the 
Routing Functions at each pop.
Each of the Sectors are connected on their own port.
   AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges.

This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are 
bridged) 

But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup, 
just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans...

What am I missing ?

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 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 10/12/2012 05:48 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:52 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>>> There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
>>> vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This
>>> would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a
>>> building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a
>>> separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School
>>> Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate
>>> VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from
>>> each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a
>>> Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are
>>> multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and
>>> firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a
>>> Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of
>>> course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a
>>> shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.
>>>
>>> I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly
>>> instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs
>>> and queues.
>> So, what you're saying is that you don't understand HOW to make the
>> network using MT as a tool?  NOTE: This is not the same as "It can't do
>> ".  It's all in the documentation.  You just have to either
>> figure it out from what is there or ask for help from someone who has.
> Yes, that's what I'm thinking.  They never documented how to put
> those pieces together, though they might work.  And "Switched
> Ethernet" would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and
> Webfig.  I'm from the old school, where the definition of "bug" is
> "an undocumented feature", and where software was written to conform
> to the documentation, not the other way around.
>
>> It is there and can be done in a number of different ways (bridged OR
>> switched).  Truth be told, I am amazed at what can be done in a small
>> box like the mikrotik devices.  It is a swiss army knife.  However, the
>> other side of this coin is that often, there is a BETTER tool for some
>> network needs.  Much like a swiss army knife, while it is true that it
>> has a screwdriver built in, a REAL screwdriver is usually better suited.
>> At the same time, often, you only need the functionality provided by the
>> built-in screwdriver, but it takes a special knack to make it do the
>> job.  The point being, that while it is certainly possible to make
>> RouterOS NOT be a router, why would you?  If you want a switch, put in a
>> switch.  If you want to save money, just realize that you are trading
>> something to get it.
> Find me an MEF switch for only 200% of the price of an equivalent
> Routerboard! (I suppose the new UBNT EdgeMAX will also fit that
> test.)  Most of the <$1000 Ethernet switches are pure LAN bridges,
> not MEF 9/14.  They use the same frame format but utterly different
> semantics.  Plus a RouterOS box might allow a mix of the two, routing
> in one network and switching for everyone.
>
>> There is very little that you can't do with RouterOS in terms of vlan
>> behaviors, but there certainly ARE a few limitations.  Your needs will
>> determine which is better.
>--
>Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>+1 617 795 2701
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/12/2012 07:06 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>Being a Technical person, and a visual learner.. I am having trouble
>translating what Fred is trying to do with a Mikrotik, which he thinks
>it cannot do.

Actually, I said that I don't know how to do it, not that it can or 
cannot be done.  It may be a documentation problem, that they never 
wrote down how to do it.

>We build our Fixed wireless pop's with a Mikrotik Router doing the
>Routing Functions at each pop.
>Each of the Sectors are connected on their own port.
>AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges.
>
>This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are
>bridged) 
>
>But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup,
>just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans...
>
>What am I missing ?

If you're doing routing, how do you also do VLANs?

The VLAN is at a layer below IP, and (this is a key requirement) the 
IP layer must be totally invisible to the box (RouterOS, EdgeOS, 
etc.), and it might not even be an IP packet inside that VLAN.  If it 
is still IP, the address space belongs to the client, not the ISP.

The Ethernet layer may require some kind of route-determination 
protocol.  Since it's not a real LAN, STP doesn't really hack it; 
perhaps (in RouterOS) HWMP+ can do it.  This protocol varies among CE 
switches.  If it's an edge (CPE) switch, though, it doesn't need to 
participate in route-determination.


>On 10/12/2012 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > At 10/12/2012 05:48 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:52 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> >>> There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
> >>> vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This
> >>> would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a
> >>> building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a
> >>> separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School
> >>> Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate
> >>> VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from
> >>> each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a
> >>> Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are
> >>> multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and
> >>> firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a
> >>> Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of
> >>> course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a
> >>> shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly
> >>> instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs
> >>> and queues.
> >> So, what you're saying is that you don't understand HOW to make the
> >> network using MT as a tool?  NOTE: This is not the same as "It can't do
> >> ".  It's all in the documentation.  You just have to either
> >> figure it out from what is there or ask for help from someone who has.
> > Yes, that's what I'm thinking.  They never documented how to put
> > those pieces together, though they might work.  And "Switched
> > Ethernet" would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and
> > Webfig.  I'm from the old school, where the definition of "bug" is
> > "an undocumented feature", and where software was written to conform
> > to the documentation, not the other way around.
> >
> >> It is there and can be done in a number of different ways (bridged OR
> >> switched).  Truth be told, I am amazed at what can be done in a small
> >> box like the mikrotik devices.  It is a swiss army knife.  However, the
> >> other side of this coin is that often, there is a BETTER tool for some
> >> network needs.  Much like a swiss army knife, while it is true that it
> >> has a screwdriver built in, a REAL screwdriver is usually better suited.
> >> At the same time, often, you only need the functionality provided by the
> >> built-in screwdriver, but it takes a special knack to make it do the
> >> job.  The point being, that while it is certainly possible to make
> >> RouterOS NOT be a router, why would you?  If you want a switch, put in a
> >> switch.  If you want to save money, just realize that you are trading
> >> something to get it.
> > Find me an MEF switch for only 200% of the price of an equivalent
> > Routerboard! (I suppose the new UBNT EdgeMAX will also fit that
> > test.)  Most of the <$1000 Ethernet switches are pure LAN bridges,
> > not MEF 9/14.  They use the same frame format but utterly different
> > semantics.  Plus a RouterOS box might allow a mix of the two, routing
> > in one network and switching for everyone.
> >
> >> There is very little that you can't do with RouterOS in terms of vlan
> >> behaviors, but there certainly ARE a few limitations.  Your needs will
> >> determine which is better.
> >--
> >Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ion

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Tony C. Loosle]

I have several radios 
working off solar for years.  Good charge controller and batteries works
 perfect!

tony



   	   
   	Olufemi Adalemo  
  Friday, October 
12, 2012 11:14 AM
  Need help,I'm looking to 
deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply. Does anyone
 have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it requires a 24v 
supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a DC to DC 
converter?

Best regards,- -
 -Olufemi
 Adalemo

M: +234-803-5610040M: 
+234-809-8610040

f...@adalemo.com




___Wireless mailing
 listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 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?

It matters. NAT 44 or NAT 444 or NAT  are detrimental to
applications that are not just browsing the web, as the user usually
loses UPnP features that a single NAT can provide.

What I liked doing was having the benefits of both by filtering at L2
to only packets going to gateway and to required broadcast addresses
All other junk was filtered by the Ubiquiti radio. No double nat, no
routing. Best of both worlds.


Rubens
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Faisal Imtiaz


On 10/12/2012 7:19 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 10/12/2012 07:06 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>> Being a Technical person, and a visual learner.. I am having trouble
>> translating what Fred is trying to do with a Mikrotik, which he thinks
>> it cannot do.
> Actually, I said that I don't know how to do it, not that it can or
> cannot be done.  It may be a documentation problem, that they never
> wrote down how to do it.
Understood, we are discussing this further, because I think both of us 
will come out learning something.
:)
>> We build our Fixed wireless pop's with a Mikrotik Router doing the
>> Routing Functions at each pop.
>> Each of the Sectors are connected on their own port.
>> AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges.
>>
>> This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are
>> bridged) 
>>
>> But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup,
>> just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans...
>>
>> What am I missing ?
> If you're doing routing, how do you also do VLANs?
Mikrotik's can act like a Layer3 Switch. If you wanted to Route, you can 
assign an IP address to the Vlan or the Ethernet Port and route IP.
If you wanted to pass only Vlan's, then you simple define the Vlan's and 
'bridge them' (kind of like how the Cisco Routers do it).
If you wanted to use the vlan switch function built into the chip set, 
then I believe it is a bit harder to route.
>
> The VLAN is at a layer below IP, and (this is a key requirement) the
> IP layer must be totally invisible to the box (RouterOS, EdgeOS,
> etc.), and it might not even be an IP packet inside that VLAN.  If it
> is still IP, the address space belongs to the client, not the ISP.
Correct, so today, since the MT's are vlan aware devices... So if you 
put an MT on each side of the Wireless Connection (Ubnt/WDS), then 
effectively they look like they are two MT's connection via Ethernet 
cable (smaller bandwidth of course)...
or
You can pass tagged Vlans over the the Ubnt Radio , and have it deal 
with Vlans...(new firmware is Vlan Aware).
> The Ethernet layer may require some kind of route-determination
> protocol.
You are loosing me here... ?? Pls explain further.
>   Since it's not a real LAN, STP doesn't really hack it;
> perhaps (in RouterOS) HWMP+ can do it.  This protocol varies among CE
> switches.  If it's an edge (CPE) switch, though, it doesn't need to
> participate in route-determination.
>
>
>> On 10/12/2012 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>>> At 10/12/2012 05:48 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
 On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:52 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
> vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This
> would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a
> building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a
> separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School
> Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate
> VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from
> each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a
> Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are
> multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and
> firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a
> Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of
> course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a
> shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.
>
> I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly
> instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs
> and queues.
 So, what you're saying is that you don't understand HOW to make the
 network using MT as a tool?  NOTE: This is not the same as "It can't do
 ".  It's all in the documentation.  You just have to either
 figure it out from what is there or ask for help from someone who has.
>>> Yes, that's what I'm thinking.  They never documented how to put
>>> those pieces together, though they might work.  And "Switched
>>> Ethernet" would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and
>>> Webfig.  I'm from the old school, where the definition of "bug" is
>>> "an undocumented feature", and where software was written to conform
>>> to the documentation, not the other way around.
>>>
 It is there and can be done in a number of different ways (bridged OR
 switched).  Truth be told, I am amazed at what can be done in a small
 box like the mikrotik devices.  It is a swiss army knife.  However, the
 other side of this coin is that often, there is a BETTER tool for some
 network needs.  Much like a swiss army knife, while it is true that it
 has a screwdriver built in, a REAL screwdriver is usually better suited.
 At the same time, ofte

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Scott Reed]

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

--
Arthur Stephens
Senior Sales Technician
Ptera Wireless Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
509-927-7837
For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support
 - 

"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, 
and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally 
addressed.
Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views 
or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and are not intended to represent those of the company."



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 
10/01/12

Internal Virus Database is out of date.



--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration

  


Mikrotik Advanced Certified
  
www.nwwnet.net

(765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239


___
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


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12
Internal Virus Database is out of date.



--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration

 


Mikrotik Advanced Certified
 
www.nwwnet.net

(765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Scott Reed]

MT has several devices with hardware switches on board and fully 
accessible through the GUI.  They also have a switch sort of based on ROS.

On 10/11/2012 8:35 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

At 10/11/2012 06:52 PM, SamT 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?


There could be one NAT, at the access point.

My taste, which to be sure I haven't tested at scale in a wireless 
network (but plan to), is to follow what is becoming standard wireline 
practice and do switching, not bridging, at "layer 2". Routing would 
then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage.


The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT 
and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up 
in the UI, even if it's possible.  Bridging is bad -- it was designed 
for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. 
We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't 
scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a 
bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps. 
This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991.  I was testing ISDN 
bridges and "discovered" how you can't just bridge that type of 
network across a 56k connection.  (I discovered the traffic when I 
first turned up the bridge.  I ended up isolating it behind a router, 
built from an old VAX.  At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.)


Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier 
Ethernet is the big thing for fiber.  It uses the VLAN tag to identify 
the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along.  Since 
it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned.  I 
think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and 
set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all.  Switching 
doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy 
than plain routing.  Mesh routing then works at that layer, 
transparent to IP.  It'll be "interesting" to set up.




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

--
Arthur Stephens
Senior Sales Technician
Ptera Wireless Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
509-927-7837
For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support
 - 

"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety 
information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was 
originally addressed.
Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any 
views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author and are not intended to represent those of the company."




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org  

http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 
10/01/12

Internal Virus Database is out of date.



--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration

  


Mikrotik Advanced Certified
  
www.nwwnet.net  

(765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239



___
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 



 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12
Internal Virus Database is out of date.



--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration

 


Mikrotik 

Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[Victoria Proffer]

Sign me up to that list! =)

 

Victoria Proffer

President/CEO 

314-974-5600

St. Louis Broadband, LLC

  www. StLouisBroadband.com

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Drew Lentz
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:20 PM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: WISPA List
Subject: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

 

At the risk of starting a flame war, I think UBNT needs its own list for WISPA. 
I love the conversation in here, but it seems that more and more this is 
turning into UBNT crowd-sourced support. I may be alone on this, but seriously. 

 

/just sayin

 

-drew 


Sent from my iPhone


On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:

Need help,

I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply. 

Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it requires a 
24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a DC to DC 
converter?

 

Best regards,


- - -

Olufemi Adalemo

M: +234-803-5610040

M: +234-809-8610040

f...@adalemo.com

 

 

___
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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[LTI - Dennis Burgess]

What is being described is the default behavior of any standard managed
switch.  There is no "virtual circuit" being built and it still
"broadcasts" across said VLAN.  They are simply only allowing the VLAN to
go from point A to point B.  This though can be done at wire speed in the
hardware of any switch and MT.   This is not an intelligent method (the
switching system not the people talking about this), as there can only be
STP or other non-standard protocols to handle fail over.  The example is
that if you have 5 switches in-line, you are simply ONLY allowing say
vlan999 to tag ingress on port 22 on switch 1, then only flow though tagged
on the trunk ports between switches, then finally only having one egress
non-tagged port at switch 5 port 22..  Hence a sort of "circuit"..

This works great on large bandwidth wired applications, but going over
anything wireless for the most part poses an issue.  The "trunks" are still
seeing all broadcast traffic from all devices, maybe its not going as far
and yes you can control it a bit more, but in the end, a packet storm on
one VLAN will take down the wireless connection and all trunks on a
backhaul radio.  Simply because the UBNT or whatever radio you are using
can't handle 100,000 pps.  The switches, in hardware, can handle millions,
making this situation not a major issue as we have plenty of hardware to
handle those instances and with several mitigation systems built into
these switches, you can further handle said traffic.  Not saying this
method does not work, simply has its own "gotchas" just like anything else.

The limitations is really in the fail over  it don't care what kind of
packets or even if the packets are "needed" to traverse the network, hence
more traffic than needed, but its better than one large bridge.  Building
rings that have "disabled" ports can help, but still don't
"intelligently" route around issues, as routing would do.But to the
topic, yes, MT can ingress non-vlan tagged traffic and send it out as
tagged traffic, and yes bridging is how that is done (mt is more switching
than bridging in those aspects) and it also can be done with some of there
hardware switch chips.

As for the topic at hand, never let your customer access your layer2
network, it will end up coming back to bite you.  Hence, route your CPE, if
the client wants a public, you route though the CPE as a router, if the
client is a home user and don't want/need inbound access, give them a
public on the CPE, and NAT a private. As far as their router inside, it
should be setup to be a swtich with a AP, makes it simple, else, double-nat
will not affect web/email applications

Dennis



On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Scott Reed  wrote:

>  MT has several devices with hardware switches on board and fully
> accessible through the GUI.  They also have a switch sort of based on ROS.
>
> On 10/11/2012 8:35 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>
> At 10/11/2012 06:52 PM, SamT 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?
>
>
> There could be one NAT, at the access point.
>
> My taste, which to be sure I haven't tested at scale in a wireless network
> (but plan to), is to follow what is becoming standard wireline practice and
> do switching, not bridging, at "layer 2".  Routing would then be lumped
> into one place, making it easier to manage.
>
> The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and
> MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the
> UI, even if it's possible.  Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange
> hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to everyone.  We invented
> this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we
> had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the
> background broadcast traffic level was 400 kbps.  This was a lot for
> systems to handle in 1991.  I was testing ISDN bridges and "discovered" how
> you can't just bridge that type of network across a 56k connection.  (I
> discovered the traffic when I first turned up the bridge.  I ended up
> isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX.  At DEC, we built
> everything ouf of VAXen.)
>
> Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier
> Ethernet is the big thing for fiber.  It uses the VLAN tag to identify the
> virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along.  Since it's
> connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned.  I think it's
> theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and set QoS on
> RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all.  Switching doesn't pass
> broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy than plain
> routing.  Mesh routing then works at that layer, transparent to IP.  It'll
> be "interesting" to set up.
>
>
> 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

Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.

[LTI - Dennis Burgess]

Here here!  Move it to the UBNT list!

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Victoria Proffer  wrote:

> Sign me up to that list! =)
>
> ** **
>
> Victoria Proffer
>
> President/CEO 
>
> 314-974-5600
>
> St. Louis Broadband, LLC
>
> www. StLouisBroadband.com 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Drew Lentz
> *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2012 12:20 PM
> *To:* WISPA General List
> *Cc:* WISPA List
> *Subject:* [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.
>
> ** **
>
> At the risk of starting a flame war, I think UBNT needs its own list for
> WISPA. I love the conversation in here, but it seems that more and more
> this is turning into UBNT crowd-sourced support. I may be alone on this,
> but seriously. 
>
> ** **
>
> /just sayin
>
> ** **
>
> -drew 
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:**
> **
>
> Need help,
>
> I'm looking to deploy a UBNT NSM5 powered by a 24v solar supply. 
>
> Does anyone have experience with this? The data sheet shows that it
> requires a 24v supply however the POE injector supplied is 15v, do I need a
> DC to DC converter?
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,
> 
>
> - - -
>
> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>
> M: +234-803-5610040
>
> M: +234-809-8610040
>
> f...@adalemo.com
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ___
> 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
>
>


-- 

*Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer** Author of "Learn RouterOS-
Second Edition ”

 Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support
Services

 Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net – *Skype*:
linktechs
* **-- Create Wireless Coverage’s with *www.towercoverage.com* **– 900Mhz –
LTE – 3G – 3.65 – TV Whitespace
**5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop -- July 23rd 2012 – St. Louis, MO,
USA
5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop – Oct 8th 2012 – St. Louis, MO,
USA

*
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Mike Hammett]

Fred, I don't think most of the people here understand what YOU'RE talking 
about. They think a switch is just a switch and they're all the same, but 
that's far from the truth.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

- Original Message -
From: "Fred Goldstein" 
To: fai...@snappydsl.net, "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 6:19:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

At 10/12/2012 07:06 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>Being a Technical person, and a visual learner.. I am having trouble
>translating what Fred is trying to do with a Mikrotik, which he thinks
>it cannot do.

Actually, I said that I don't know how to do it, not that it can or 
cannot be done.  It may be a documentation problem, that they never 
wrote down how to do it.

>We build our Fixed wireless pop's with a Mikrotik Router doing the
>Routing Functions at each pop.
>Each of the Sectors are connected on their own port.
>AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges.
>
>This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are
>bridged) 
>
>But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup,
>just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans...
>
>What am I missing ?

If you're doing routing, how do you also do VLANs?

The VLAN is at a layer below IP, and (this is a key requirement) the 
IP layer must be totally invisible to the box (RouterOS, EdgeOS, 
etc.), and it might not even be an IP packet inside that VLAN.  If it 
is still IP, the address space belongs to the client, not the ISP.

The Ethernet layer may require some kind of route-determination 
protocol.  Since it's not a real LAN, STP doesn't really hack it; 
perhaps (in RouterOS) HWMP+ can do it.  This protocol varies among CE 
switches.  If it's an edge (CPE) switch, though, it doesn't need to 
participate in route-determination.


>On 10/12/2012 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > At 10/12/2012 05:48 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:52 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> >>> There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
> >>> vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This
> >>> would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a
> >>> building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a
> >>> separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School
> >>> Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate
> >>> VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from
> >>> each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a
> >>> Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are
> >>> multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and
> >>> firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a
> >>> Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of
> >>> course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a
> >>> shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly
> >>> instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs
> >>> and queues.
> >> So, what you're saying is that you don't understand HOW to make the
> >> network using MT as a tool?  NOTE: This is not the same as "It can't do
> >> ".  It's all in the documentation.  You just have to either
> >> figure it out from what is there or ask for help from someone who has.
> > Yes, that's what I'm thinking.  They never documented how to put
> > those pieces together, though they might work.  And "Switched
> > Ethernet" would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and
> > Webfig.  I'm from the old school, where the definition of "bug" is
> > "an undocumented feature", and where software was written to conform
> > to the documentation, not the other way around.
> >
> >> It is there and can be done in a number of different ways (bridged OR
> >> switched).  Truth be told, I am amazed at what can be done in a small
> >> box like the mikrotik devices.  It is a swiss army knife.  However, the
> >> other side of this coin is that often, there is a BETTER tool for some
> >> network needs.  Much like a swiss army knife, while it is true that it
> >> has a screwdriver built in, a REAL screwdriver is usually better suited.
> >> At the same time, often, you only need the functionality provided by the
> >> built-in screwdriver, but it takes a special knack to make it do the
> >> job.  The point being, that while it is certainly possible to make
> >> RouterOS NOT be a router, why would you?  If you want a switch, put in a
> >> switch.  If you want to save money, just realize that you are trading
> >> something to get it.
> > Find me an MEF switch for only 200% of the price of an equivalent
> > Routerboard! (I suppose the new UBNT EdgeMAX will also fit that
> > test.)  Most of the <$1000 Ethernet switches are pure LAN bri

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Mike Hammett]

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" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
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 

-- 
Arthur Stephens 
Senior Sales Technician 
Ptera Wireless Inc. 
PO Box 135 
24001 E Mission Suite 50 
Liberty Lake, WA 99019 
509-927-7837 
For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support 
- 
"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is 
intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. 
Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or 
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not 
intended to represent those of the company." 


___
Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 



No virus found in this message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 
Internal Virus Database is out of date. 
-- 
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration

 

Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239 

___
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 



No virus found in this message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 
Internal Virus Database is out of date. 
-- 
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration

 

Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239 
___
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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Mike Hammett]

All MT switching is junk.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

- Original Message -
From: "Scott Reed" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers


MT has several devices with hardware switches on board and fully accessible 
through the GUI. They also have a switch sort of based on ROS. 

On 10/11/2012 8:35 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 


At 10/11/2012 06:52 PM, SamT 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? 
There could be one NAT, at the access point. 

My taste, which to be sure I haven't tested at scale in a wireless network (but 
plan to), is to follow what is becoming standard wireline practice and do 
switching, not bridging, at "layer 2". Routing would then be lumped into one 
place, making it easier to manage. 

The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT and MT) is 
that they don't tend to have switching documented or set up in the UI, even if 
it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was designed for orange hose Ethernet, and 
it passes broadcast traffic to everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s 
and discovered how it doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand 
DECnet and IP nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic 
level was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was testing 
ISDN bridges and "discovered" how you can't just bridge that type of network 
across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic when I first turned up the 
bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, 
we built everything ouf of VAXen.) 

Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier Ethernet is 
the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to identify the virtual circuit; 
the MAC addresses are just passed along. Since it's connection-oriented (via 
the tag), it can have QoS assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag 
user ports, route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to 
do it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation 
and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at that layer, 
transparent to IP. It'll be "interesting" to set up. 




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 

-- 
Arthur Stephens 
Senior Sales Technician 
Ptera Wireless Inc. 
PO Box 135 
24001 E Mission Suite 50 
Liberty Lake, WA 99019 
509-927-7837 
For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support 
- 
"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is 
intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. 
Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or 
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not 
intended to represent those of the company." 



___
Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

No virus found in this message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 
Internal Virus Database is out of date. 

-- 
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration

 

Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239 


___
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 

-- 
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com 
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ 
+1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 



No virus found in this message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 
Internal Virus Database is out of date. 
-- 
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Net

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

Mike Hammett duly noted,

Fred, I don't think most of the people here understand what YOU'RE 
talking about. They think a switch is just a switch and they're all 
the same, but that's far from the truth.



Probably true, which is why I'd like to clarify it.  Vendors who sell 
primarily to ISPs or one-company IP networks don't realize how big 
the "enterprise network" market is, now largely moving to Carrier 
Ethernet as a cheaper substitute for leased lines, which are 
grotesquely overpriced in much of the US (if you're not in a major 
data center).  And there is opportunity for wireless here too, though 
nowadays it's mostly done via dedicated point-to-point radios, not 
shared networks.


At 10/12/2012 10:10 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
What is being described is the default behavior of any standard 
managed switch.  There is no "virtual circuit" being built and it 
still "broadcasts" across said VLAN.  They are simply only allowing 
the VLAN to go from point A to point B.  This though can be done at 
wire speed in the hardware of any switch and MT.


I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.  It is allowing only 
the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and 
the VLAN is invisible to everyone else.  Which is really virtual 
circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID.


In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone 
else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside.  What 
goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that 
port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users.  So 
it's secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD.  This is 
different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere.  One type of 
MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with >2 ports and 
broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL would not 
know a broadcast frame from anything else, since they just pass the 
MAC addresses transparently.


This is not an intelligent method (the switching system not the 
people talking about this), as there can only be STP or other 
non-standard protocols to handle fail over.  The example is that if 
you have 5 switches in-line, you are simply ONLY allowing say 
vlan999 to tag ingress on port 22 on switch 1, then only flow though 
tagged on the trunk ports between switches, then finally only having 
one egress non-tagged port at switch 5 port 22..  Hence a sort of "circuit"..


Almost everything, including the RB951-2n, supports RSTP as well as 
STP, but yes beyond that the intelligence is non-standard.  Cisco, 
for instance, has a fairly elaborate routing (in the literal sense, 
not IP) protocol for optimizing every path.  Of course you don't see 
many multi-vendor CE networks... the edges can be different though.


This works great on large bandwidth wired applications, but going 
over anything wireless for the most part poses an issue.  The 
"trunks" are still seeing all broadcast traffic from all devices, 
maybe its not going as far and yes you can control it a bit more, 
but in the end, a packet storm on one VLAN will take down the 
wireless connection and all trunks on a backhaul radio.


The idea is that there are no broadcast packets.  You configure 
devices that use the network to think of it as point-to-point 
circuits.  Broadcasts only go to the opposite end of that EPL 
(2-point) or EVPL (point-to-multipoint).  I'm ignoring the EP-LAN 
case since that's not relevant here.


Also, traffic levels on each EPL (VLAN) are limited by the 
three-color traffic classifier (CIR+EIR).  So you cap each user at 
the ingress, and optionally assign a CIR to a smaller amount, for 
applications like VoIP.  However, typical unlicensed radio links 
aren't as predictable as fiber so the commitment isn't the same.


 Simply because the UBNT or whatever radio you are using can't 
handle 100,000 pps.  The switches, in hardware, can handle 
millions, making this situation not a major issue as we have plenty 
of hardware to handle those instances and with several mitigation 
systems built into these switches, you can further handle said 
traffic.  Not saying this method does not work, simply has its own 
"gotchas" just like anything else.


I wonder if that hardware handles the VLANs with the QoS (CIR/CBS, 
EIR/EBS) features.  Otherwise it could still be done in software, but 
not at the same speed.  I'd still expect, for example, an LTI box to 
be able to do it fast enough to keep up with a Ubiquiti 5GHz 
radio.  (AirFiber might be a bit trickier.)


The limitations is really in the fail over  it don't care what kind 
of packets or even if the packets are "needed" to traverse the 
network, hence more traffic than needed, but its better than one 
large bridge.  Building rings that have "disabled" ports can help, 
but still don't "intelligently" route around issues, as routing 
would do.But to the topic, yes, MT can ingress non-vlan tagged 
traffic and send it out as tagged tr