Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
hehe... A switch is a switch is a switch... and then there are switches with additional functionality built in... The question here is what is this 'other functionality' are we talking about ? 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 10:47 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 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 fgoldst...@ionary.com To: fai...@snappydsl.net, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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,
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
While this is your opinion, others have a different opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. 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 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 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 sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The WISP industry makes it difficult to do so. Currently everything I do is NATed at the CPE, but I'd like to make that optional, not a requirement. Obviously for enterprise\wholesale level connections I do something different, but there's too many hands involved to do that for residential at this time. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:51:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers While this is your opinion, others have a different opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. 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 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 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 sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 ___ 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
The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. Cisco, Dell and Extreme Networks (my current favorite) have almost unlimited power and granular control. They don't have some of the features of RouterOS, but teaming one of them with something running RouterOS is just as effective as using what Mikrotik supplies. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
How would you have an untagged VLAN? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. Cisco, Dell and Extreme Networks (my current favorite) have almost unlimited power and granular control. They don't have some of the features of RouterOS, but teaming one of them with something running RouterOS is just as effective as using what Mikrotik supplies. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
What most people are thinking of when they are thinking of a switch is something that applies to the enterprise and lower markets. The carrier level switches introduce a whole suite of features designed for the provisioning and deployment of services to others. Many times some of those features can be found in enterprise and lower switches, but they're not as well laid out and cohesive as a carrier switch. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:46:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers hehe... A switch is a switch is a switch... and then there are switches with additional functionality built in... The question here is what is this 'other functionality' are we talking about ? 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 10:47 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 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 fgoldst...@ionary.com To: fai...@snappydsl.net, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Standard Ethernet without the VLAN tag. One example is to support devices that do and do not support VLANs on a given network segment. Let's say in a given area, I have a dumb switch that just passes whatever frames it receives. Off of that I have a PC which requires the Ethernet to be in untagged form and a UniFi where I have local traffic untagged and additional SSIDs running on additional VLANs. A real switch has no problem with this, but the 250GS cannot have both tagged and untagged VLANs on the same interface (that serves the dumb switch referenced above). That is a limitation of the Atheros chips they are using. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:10:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers How would you have an untagged VLAN? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. Cisco, Dell and Extreme Networks (my current favorite) have almost unlimited power and granular control. They don't have some of the features of RouterOS, but teaming one of them with something running RouterOS is just as effective as using what Mikrotik supplies. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
That's painfully stupid. What a worthless device. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: Standard Ethernet without the VLAN tag. One example is to support devices that do and do not support VLANs on a given network segment. Let's say in a given area, I have a dumb switch that just passes whatever frames it receives. Off of that I have a PC which requires the Ethernet to be in untagged form and a UniFi where I have local traffic untagged and additional SSIDs running on additional VLANs. A real switch has no problem with this, but the 250GS cannot have both tagged and untagged VLANs on the same interface (that serves the dumb switch referenced above). That is a limitation of the Atheros chips they are using. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:10:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers How would you have an untagged VLAN? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. Cisco, Dell and Extreme Networks (my current favorite) have almost unlimited power and granular control. They don't have some of the features of RouterOS, but teaming one of them with something running RouterOS is just as effective as using what Mikrotik supplies. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
If I have multiple UniFis or PCs, I would need to use multiple ports on the 250GS going to multiple dumb switches, one that is the untagged VLAN for the PCs and the other with the UniFis, only I would have to use an additional VLAN to transport the local traffic from the UniFi to the 250GS, where I can drop the tag when it leaves. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:20:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers That's painfully stupid. What a worthless device. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Standard Ethernet without the VLAN tag. One example is to support devices that do and do not support VLANs on a given network segment. Let's say in a given area, I have a dumb switch that just passes whatever frames it receives. Off of that I have a PC which requires the Ethernet to be in untagged form and a UniFi where I have local traffic untagged and additional SSIDs running on additional VLANs. A real switch has no problem with this, but the 250GS cannot have both tagged and untagged VLANs on the same interface (that serves the dumb switch referenced above). That is a limitation of the Atheros chips they are using. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:10:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers How would you have an untagged VLAN? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. Cisco, Dell and Extreme Networks (my current favorite) have almost unlimited power and granular control. They don't have some of the features of RouterOS, but teaming one of them with something running RouterOS is just as effective as using what Mikrotik supplies. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat.. Care to put a context to your statement ? :) 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 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: All MT switching is junk. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Hi Fred, I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're using generic terms like switching and VLAN to describe complex Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains, but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq Sent from a Apple Newton On Oct 13, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Tim Densmore tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com wrote: Hi Fred, I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're using generic terms like switching and VLAN to describe complex Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains, but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. ___ 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
With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. It's a trade off. The switching chips were designed for home gateways, and that's why they cost X (both volume and price issues), Mikrotik did a good job of getting that functionality available to do wire-rate filtering with sub-$100 devices. What was a good decision for RB4xx/7xx/8xx series might not be the case for RB1xxx series, which have more ports and usage requirements. Rubens ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
...now for a little bit of a distraction... Sent from a Apple Newton Every time I see the above tag line on Gino's email... I cannot help but crack a smile... now how many folks know what an Apple Newton was ? 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 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq Sent from a Apple Newton On Oct 13, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Tim Densmore tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com wrote: Hi Fred, I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're using generic terms like switching and VLAN to describe complex Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains, but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. ___ 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
I do...it used to say his Motorola Startac... Sent from my iPhone On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: ...now for a little bit of a distraction... Sent from a Apple Newton Every time I see the above tag line on Gino's email... I cannot help but crack a smile... now how many folks know what an Apple Newton was ? 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 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq Sent from a Apple Newton On Oct 13, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Tim Densmore tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com wrote: Hi Fred, I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're using generic terms like switching and VLAN to describe complex Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains, but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. ___ 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
At 10/13/2012 11:27 AM, Tim Densmore wrote: Hi Fred, I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're using generic terms like switching and VLAN to describe complex Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains, but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Yep, the terminology is confusing. I'm talking about Metro-E (a/k/a Carrier Ethernet), which is switching and uses the VLAN tag, but sure isn't LAN switching. The confusion is that the original 1980s Orange Hose Ethernet was a broadcast-topology LAN, and the original bridges were designed to be transparent. So by the 1990s orange hose was gone, and all Ethernet was switched, but it was switched using the bridge construct. And this still works fine for LANs and the home application. They don't need isolation. I see a lot of confusion between these two worlds in the wireline/IT world too. Data centers use big managed switches that are still LAN-model, or use VLANs with limited isolation. They rarely deal with QoS. But when you hit the WAN space, the Carrier Ethernet construct makes more sense, generally to provide a 2-point pipe between routers, or a fan-in. The ILECs are selling these things like crazy. What's frustrating is that there are differences between each carriers' offerings; they don't have an easy apples-to-apples comparison. Some of this is policy (do they want to sell CIR and EIR separately?) and some of this is hardware limitations (VZ-Core's Fujitsu 4500s can't do EVPL, so they map EPLs onto SONET VCGs). The Metro Ethernet Forum wrote its standards using constructs adapted from earlier switches, based of course on what vendors were building. So the VLAN tag is used as the VCI, even though it's too small. And a lot of switches can do both the CE and LAN application, depending on how they're configured. (Extreme comes to mind.) Throw in the term layer 3 switching and you realize that we're a bit short of unique nouns in our vocabulary! Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? I would not expect a large-scale Metro-E/Carrier-E network to be built using MT or UBNT in the middle. But a WISP or small ISP might want to provide some isolated Ethernet pipes between a customers' locations -- think of schools in a district, for instance, or some other operation that has internal networking, uses its own private address space, and wants to maintain one firewall, hanging other sites behind it. That's one application. Another is the CPE: The RB2011 with the SFP slot looks like a potential CPE for a building that has one fiber drop feeding multiple networks. The application that comes to mind is a state office building with offices for motor vehicles, social services, and taxation in it -- each has its own isolated network, but why not share fiber? Ciena-class boxes are typically used for that, at a much higher price. (I ran into this while doing a procurement cycle for a state network.) One other way to look at the difference: The usual ISP view is that there is one global public IP address space, and NAT is the exception used at the customer location. The enterprise-IT view is that everybody has their own private IP network, and the public Internet is that dangerous space on the other side of a firewall. Where you stand on that influences the design of the network and switches. Thanks for the interesting discussion! I've enjoyed it. I still hope somebody at some point figures out just how close you can get to an MEF-type switch using RouterOS or AirOS. Or EdgeOS, Real Soon Now. (They're all Linux under the skin, after all.) TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Lol... startac is my phone, newton is my ipad Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:28 PM To: fai...@snappydsl.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers I do...it used to say his Motorola Startac... Sent from my iPhone On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: ...now for a little bit of a distraction... Sent from a Apple Newton Every time I see the above tag line on Gino's email... I cannot help but crack a smile... now how many folks know what an Apple Newton was ? 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 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq Sent from a Apple Newton On Oct 13, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Tim Densmore tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com wrote: Hi Fred, I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're using generic terms like switching and VLAN to describe complex Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains, but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. ___ 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
You're all a bunch of young whippersnappers with all that newfangled gear. At 10/13/2012 12:34 PM, you wrote: Lol... startac is my phone, newton is my ipad Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:28 PM To: fai...@snappydsl.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers I do...it used to say his Motorola Startac... Sent from my iPhone On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: ...now for a little bit of a distraction... Sent from a Apple Newton Every time I see the above tag line on Gino's email... I cannot help but crack a smile... now how many folks know what an Apple Newton was ? 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 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq Sent from a Apple Newton On Oct 13, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Tim Densmore tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com wrote: Hi Fred, I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're using generic terms like switching and VLAN to describe complex Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains, but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than standard packet switched ethernet dot1q VLANs in that regard. I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are trying to figure out what I'm talking about. I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single network segment before hitting a router? Thanks for the interesting discussion! TD On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 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. Sent from my PDP-11 via DECWRL Mail-11 to TCP/IP gateway ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 09:02 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: Cisco, Dell and Extreme Networks (my current favorite) have almost unlimited power and granular control. They don't have some of the features of RouterOS, but teaming one of them with something running RouterOS is just as effective as using what Mikrotik supplies. And you expected that ANYONE could produce the same features and such for a fraction of the cost? It isn't fair to compare a $40 switch to one that sells at $500 or more. It isn't SUPPOSED to do the same things. Statements and comparisons like this really show your age. The Mikrotik devices are what they are. They have limitations which should be expected. They work well when they are put in a spot within the network that fits their capability. -- * 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
[WISPA] tranzeo management
Does anyone know how to centrally manage bandwidth shaping on tranzeo cpq and sl2 series radios? -- Jay DeBoer Chief Engineer Summit Digital, Inc. 100 N Roland St, Suite B McBain, MI 49657 Office: 231-825-2500 Direct: 231-908-0033 jdeb...@summitdigital.us ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
Hi Gino, Pardon my ignorance, but what's Mk? TD On 10/13/2012 09:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 12:30 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: I've enjoyed it. I still hope somebody at some point figures out just how close you can get to an MEF-type switch using RouterOS or AirOS. Or EdgeOS, Real Soon Now. (They're all Linux under the skin, after all.) It can be done (sort of) in Linux. Which, of course, RouterOS has at it's core. The problem, though, is that Mikrotik's software is called RotuerOS for a reason. These devices are built to be routers. While what you are talking about is (at some levels) a hybrid of routing (at layer 2) and switching. I realize that is an oversimplification, but bear with me. RouterOS is certainly capable of doing much of what you want, but it is not intended to behave as a switch. It will, however, have to do it in software, which IS bridging. You can, for example, create the following configurations: Ether1 - trunk port for vlans 10,20,30 Ether2 - Untagged traffic for vlan10 Ether3 - Tagged for vlan20 vlan30 is for managment of the device The vlans would be configured as: vlan 10 - created on ether1 only (E1V10) vlan 20 - created on ether1 (E1V20) and ether3 (E3V20) vlan 30 - created on ether1 only (E1V30) Now for the software routing configuration. You need a bridge device that includes the following: bvlan10 - includes E1V10 and ether2 bvlan20 - includes E1V20 and E3V20 bvlan30 - (management) includes E1V30 only This configuration, while it uses bridges to tie the ports together, would not send broadcast traffic between bridges. Even on the trunk port side (ether1). IP addressing would be on the bridge devices (if you want them to be visible at layer 3). Obviously, bvlan30 would need an address. Strictly speaking, you could simply eliminate the bridge for vlan30 and add the layer 3 stuff at E1V30, but personally, I like the consistent behavior of allowing the bridges to be the communication interface. Because RouterOS is designed to be a router and not a switch, the ability to create a port that handles both tagged and untagged traffic becomes rather ugly. It can be done, but it is a horribly ugly configuration and it uses bridges. This, of course, depends somewhat on exactly what you are trying to accomplish. Because of the limitations of the backend software and the design purpose of that software, RouterOS would work fine at certain places in a CE network, but it certainly doesn't fit at the core. The same is true of other routers. -- * 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
Butch, thanks for that information! I've marked that message priority high so I don't lose it in my mailing list archive. I do get your point, that RouterOS was optimized for routing; there's just nothing else that fits its price points and form factors (especially outdoor Routerboards), so even if it's a little inefficient, it may still be cost-effective for some traffic levels. The discussion began with questions about multiple NATs and routing within a network; I'd expect the VLAN configurations to get at least as much throughput as full-scale routing. It won't compete with Ciena but their boxes don't cost $100 and run on 6 watts. At 10/13/2012 03:58 PM, Butch Evans wrote: On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 12:30 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: I've enjoyed it. I still hope somebody at some point figures out just how close you can get to an MEF-type switch using RouterOS or AirOS. Or EdgeOS, Real Soon Now. (They're all Linux under the skin, after all.) It can be done (sort of) in Linux. Which, of course, RouterOS has at it's core. The problem, though, is that Mikrotik's software is called RotuerOS for a reason. These devices are built to be routers. While what you are talking about is (at some levels) a hybrid of routing (at layer 2) and switching. I realize that is an oversimplification, but bear with me. RouterOS is certainly capable of doing much of what you want, but it is not intended to behave as a switch. It will, however, have to do it in software, which IS bridging. You can, for example, create the following configurations: Ether1 - trunk port for vlans 10,20,30 Ether2 - Untagged traffic for vlan10 Ether3 - Tagged for vlan20 vlan30 is for managment of the device The vlans would be configured as: vlan 10 - created on ether1 only (E1V10) vlan 20 - created on ether1 (E1V20) and ether3 (E3V20) vlan 30 - created on ether1 only (E1V30) Now for the software routing configuration. You need a bridge device that includes the following: bvlan10 - includes E1V10 and ether2 bvlan20 - includes E1V20 and E3V20 bvlan30 - (management) includes E1V30 only This configuration, while it uses bridges to tie the ports together, would not send broadcast traffic between bridges. Even on the trunk port side (ether1). IP addressing would be on the bridge devices (if you want them to be visible at layer 3). Obviously, bvlan30 would need an address. Strictly speaking, you could simply eliminate the bridge for vlan30 and add the layer 3 stuff at E1V30, but personally, I like the consistent behavior of allowing the bridges to be the communication interface. Because RouterOS is designed to be a router and not a switch, the ability to create a port that handles both tagged and untagged traffic becomes rather ugly. It can be done, but it is a horribly ugly configuration and it uses bridges. This, of course, depends somewhat on exactly what you are trying to accomplish. Because of the limitations of the backend software and the design purpose of that software, RouterOS would work fine at certain places in a CE network, but it certainly doesn't fit at the core. The same is true of other routers. -- 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
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 17:33 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: I do get your point, that RouterOS was optimized for routing; there's just nothing else that fits its price points and form factors (especially outdoor Routerboards), so even if it's a little inefficient, it may still be cost-effective for some traffic levels. Specifically, it fits well at the edge (customer edge). I have some clients who use RouterOS in a similar way to what you are describing for that purpose. For example, one client is running RouterOS as the head end device in a few buildings he manages. He is able to combine the routing capability in RouterOS with it's VLAN capability and deliver some quality services to tenants in the building. Throughout the buildings, he has either switches (mostly Cisco switches) or more Routerboards (some are X86 systems instead) to manage traffic flows. The problem with these devices is really centered around management rather than functionality. Cisco, for example, has some really nice tools that can do some routing of vlan traffic at the switch layer, whereas Mikrotik has to be statically configured for this. It is not too hard to build the redundant routes and just use STP or RSTP to provide the failover in these building networks, but on a large scale, this can be rather difficult and daunting. The discussion began with questions about multiple NATs and routing within a network; I'd expect the VLAN configurations to get at least as much throughput as full-scale routing. It won't compete with Ciena but their boxes don't cost $100 and run on 6 watts. Bear in mind that with RouterOS is actually faster in bridge than in routing. Really, that is true of ALL Linux devices. Because you are not needing to do a lot of traffic management, you can probably afford to turn off connection tracking on the Routerboard devices, which can save an impressive amount of CPU and latency. As for multiple NAT, I will just say that I am not a fan of NAT in any way, other than at the customer edge. In my networks, I always provided my customers with one or more public IP addresses. If they wanted more, I could deliver more, but it was behind a router. Customer layer2 traffic belongs to them and I always kept it there. -- * 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
You can do tag swapping and other fancy VLAN tricks in AirOS by creating VLAN subints and mapping them to each other using bridge interfaces. The Linux bridge interface behaves more like a switch than a bridge in that you can control mac aging, learning, etc so it doesn't blindly forward traffic. If you were feeling ambitious you could roll custom Ubnt firmware that includes OAM features using dot1ag-utils. Speaking to the earlier discussion, While it has overhead I've seen people use EoIP on Mikrotik to implement pseudo EPL services. L2 over L3 over L2 may offend sensibilities but it works well enough. I've also seen carriers using older Cisco gear to connect up customers to non-MEF switches (Cisco 3550 is still used all over the place) and do L2PT and QinQ to carry traffic towards the core where you have devices capable of doing pseudowires. My point here is that there are ways to achieve the goal of providing L2 transport services over wireless, fiber, carrier pigeon with current small carrier equipment. Mikrotik Ubiquiti aren't targeting the kinds of customers that demand the formal MEF features and I wouldn't expect them to change. On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: just how close you can get to an MEF-type switch using RouterOS or AirOS. Or EdgeOS, Real Soon Now. (They're all Linux under the skin, after all.) ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.
Can we also move all Mikrotik and Canopy related posts to their respective lists since I use neither? On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM, LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.comwrote: Here here! Move it to the UBNT list! On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Victoria Proffer victo...@stlbroadband.com wrote: Sign me up to that list! =) ** ** Victoria Proffer President/CEO 314-974-5600 St. Louis Broadband, LLC www. StLouisBroadband.com http://www.stlbroadband.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 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 -- *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer** Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm” 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, USAhttp://www.wlan1.com/RouterOS_Training_p/5d-stl-training-july2012.htm 5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop – Oct 8th 2012 – St. Louis, MO, USAhttp://www.wlan1.com/RouterOS_Training_p/5d-stl-training-oct2012.htm * ___ 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.
Personally, I'd like to see responses on these lists to be 'hey, this is more relevant over on the X list', where the topic IS appropriate for the X list. -forrest On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Elton Wilson el...@alohabroadband.netwrote: Can we also move all Mikrotik and Canopy related posts to their respective lists since I use neither? On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM, LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.comwrote: Here here! Move it to the UBNT list! On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Victoria Proffer victo...@stlbroadband.com wrote: Sign me up to that list! =) ** ** Victoria Proffer President/CEO 314-974-5600 St. Louis Broadband, LLC www. StLouisBroadband.com http://www.stlbroadband.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 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 -- *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer** Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm” 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, USAhttp://www.wlan1.com/RouterOS_Training_p/5d-stl-training-july2012.htm 5-Day Advanced RouterOS Workshop – Oct 8th 2012 – St. Louis, MO, USAhttp://www.wlan1.com/RouterOS_Training_p/5d-stl-training-oct2012.htm * ___ 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] tranzeo management
You mean upload from the radio? yeah, you can use curl to do this. Take a look at tranzeofaq.com the autoconfig.txt file: http://tranzeofaq.com/autoconfig.txt You could shape things like this: http://username:password@192.168.1.100/set_config.cgi?net.router.qos.enabled=Yesnet.router.qos.uplink_speed=4096admin.cmd=storeadmin.cmd=reboot Let me know if I can help in some other way. ryan On 10/13/2012 12:55 PM, Jay DeBoer wrote: Does anyone know how to centrally manage bandwidth shaping on tranzeo cpq and sl2 series radios? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] This isn't UBNT support.
I dunno about that.. While I can understand everyone wanting to have only relevant discussion on the main list..., having a crap load of other lists also has the risk ofone missing an interesting / possible relevant discussion about one of the other products.. I can give two very concrete examples... I have learned things about the packet flux product from such a discussion... Call me stupid, but I recently had to look up what WECAT stood forand had to wonder why I had missed any or all info on itthen it hit me... Duhhh.. It must be on another list... I dunno what is easier...hitting the delete button...or dealing with lots of sub-lists... But I can tell you one thing...folks complaining about out of topic discussions on the list will lead to a very quiet list...where hardly anything worth while gets discussed anymore...how do I know thisjust ask anyone who is also a FISPA member !!! Regards Faisal On Oct 13, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) li...@packetflux.com wrote: Personally, I'd like to see responses on these lists to be 'hey, this is more relevant over on the X list', where the topic IS appropriate for the X list. -forrest On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Elton Wilson el...@alohabroadband.net wrote: Can we also move all Mikrotik and Canopy related posts to their respective lists since I use neither? On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM, LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.com wrote: Here here! Move it to the UBNT list! On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Victoria Proffer victo...@stlbroadband.com 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 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 -- 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 ___ 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.
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 23:43 -0400, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: I dunno about that.. While I can understand everyone wanting to have only relevant discussion on the main list... Question is, what do those who complain consider relevant? Every list I'm on has the same set of topics to some degree. UBNT, Mikrotik, Canopy (Cabmium or whatever), WISP business, etc. While there ARE lists created specifically for these topics, they all are made up of WISPs and people will ask their question where they are most comfortable...NOT where it is most appropriate (if that is different). My Mikrotik list has been rather quiet lately, but even on a Mikrotik specific list, there are other topics that come up. I think people should just create better filters for their email (unless you use windows or gmail, which limits your ability to create good filters). Alternatively, instead of posting ANOTHER off-topic message whining about an off-topic message, why not send a PRIVATE message to the moderator asking THEM to address the issue. Looks like I'm gonna have to figure out how to match this type of whining in a regex so I don't have to see it anyway. -- * 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
Actually, NIB they're $1800 - $5k or more. Used, under $200 shipped with warranty. Of course they fit the networks they're capable of, because they're capable of so little. ;-) I'm honestly working to remove all the RB250s from my house's network as they've become too annoying. I'll have to home-run some more cable, but so is life. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:44:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 09:02 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: Cisco, Dell and Extreme Networks (my current favorite) have almost unlimited power and granular control. They don't have some of the features of RouterOS, but teaming one of them with something running RouterOS is just as effective as using what Mikrotik supplies. And you expected that ANYONE could produce the same features and such for a fraction of the cost? It isn't fair to compare a $40 switch to one that sells at $500 or more. It isn't SUPPOSED to do the same things. Statements and comparisons like this really show your age. The Mikrotik devices are what they are. They have limitations which should be expected. They work well when they are put in a spot within the network that fits their capability. -- * 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 23:16 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: Of course they fit the networks they're capable of, because they're capable of so little. ;-) I'm honestly working to remove all the RB250s from my house's network as they've become too annoying. I'll have to home-run some more cable, but so is life. They are plenty capable for a $40 switch. That is what they are and to expect something more is not a problem of the product, but the implementer. I have 3 of them here in my home network and guess what...they work perfectly as I expect. I don't expect them to be more than a cheap switch, though. -- * 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] This isn't UBNT support.
I was actually being somewhat sarcastic. I don't really mind seeing threads about other products I don't use, Its just that every once in a while someone complains about the amount of ubiquiti threads, but no one mentions the mikrotik or Cabrium/Canopy threads that seem just as prevalent. I personally think the whole email threads is a bad idea to begin with and this would all be avoided with a good forum, but that is another Flame War... On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 23:43 -0400, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: I dunno about that.. While I can understand everyone wanting to have only relevant discussion on the main list... Question is, what do those who complain consider relevant? Every list I'm on has the same set of topics to some degree. UBNT, Mikrotik, Canopy (Cabmium or whatever), WISP business, etc. While there ARE lists created specifically for these topics, they all are made up of WISPs and people will ask their question where they are most comfortable...NOT where it is most appropriate (if that is different). My Mikrotik list has been rather quiet lately, but even on a Mikrotik specific list, there are other topics that come up. I think people should just create better filters for their email (unless you use windows or gmail, which limits your ability to create good filters). Alternatively, instead of posting ANOTHER off-topic message whining about an off-topic message, why not send a PRIVATE message to the moderator asking THEM to address the issue. Looks like I'm gonna have to figure out how to match this type of whining in a regex so I don't have to see it anyway. -- * 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 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
