Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue
I think your description is correct. Thank you for mentioning "proxy arp." By its name it sounds exactly right although I am not familiar with it. We will look it up and test it if that makes sense. I am also trying to get a question into the Mikrotik forums. My question there isn't even allowed to be posted yet due to admin moderating, so the WISPA list is MUCH better. If I find a solution then I will post it back here. Thanks again, Mark -- Original Message -- From: "Sam Tetherow" To: "Mark Stephenson" ; "WISPA General List" Sent: 12/27/2013 6:11:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue >I don't run PPPoE, but I am guessing this is your problem. If it was >straight routing I would say you need to turn proxy arp on for the MT. >I don't know if that holds true for PPPoE or not. The issue is the CPEs >are sending traffic to the MT, the MT is sending to it's default GW and >the return traffic is coming back to the cable modem which is dumping >it >out the ethernet side, the MT just doesn't know that it needs to relay >the traffic on since it looks like it is destine for that LAN segment >instead of needing to pass through the MT to the clients. > >On 12/27/2013 03:27 PM, Mark Stephenson wrote: >> In this case, the Mikrotik has an IP in the same range as the radios >>but >> the gateway for all these IPs is external and inside a Time Warner >>owned >> business class modem. >> >> Mark >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "Sam Tetherow" >> To: "Mark Stephenson" ; "WISPA General >> List" >> Sent: 12/27/2013 4:05:02 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing >> Issue >>> Does the PPPOE concentrator have an IP on the same block as the >>> clients? Is the address block for the clients routed to the PPPOE >>> concentrator? >>> >>> On 12/27/2013 02:17 PM, Mark Stephenson wrote: >>>>Well, I thought that would fix it. We did have NAT running and >>>>the >>>> radio >>>>became accessible via the IP address just like we need it to. >>>>Then I >>>>tried other IPs and later I tried the same IP again and the radio >>>> can't >>>>communicate at all out of the Mikrotik. The PPPOE connection >>>>seems >>>> fine. >>>>The issue is that the radio can't browse and the IP is not >>>>visible. >>>> Any >>>>thoughts? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Mark >>>> >>>>-- Original Message -- >>>>From: "Sam Tetherow" >>>>To: "Mark Stephenson" ; "WISPA >>>>General >>>>List" >>>>Sent: 12/27/2013 12:34:36 PM >>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- >>>>Routing >>>>Issue >>>>>Did you enable natting as mentioned in Step 1 on that guide (if >>>>>you >>>>>did, >>>>>disabled it). >>>>> >>>>>On 12/27/2013 11:23 AM, Mark Stephenson wrote: >>>>>> We are setting up PPPOE using Mikrotik routers at our towers. >>>>>>We >>>>>> have >>>>>>an >>>>>> external radius and the plan is to have username/password >>>>>> authentication, radius assigned IPs, and PPP protocol from >>>>>> Ubiquiti >>>>>> client equipment to the Mikrotik router at each tower. We >>>>>>setup >>>>>> these >>>>>> parameters in the radius server to do this: >>>>>> >>>>>> radcheck table: >>>>>> Cleartext-Password password >>>>>> >>>>>> radreply table: >>>>>> Framed-IP-Address desired ip address >>>>>> Framed-IP-Netmask desired net mask >>>>>> MS-Primary-DNS-Server desired ip of the dns >>>>>> MS-Secondary-DNS-Server desired ip of the second dns >>>>>> Mikrotik-Rate-Limit rate limit like 1M/1M >>>>>> >>>>>> The Mikrotik router (currently version 5.21 RB750UP) has the >>>>>> PPPOE >>>>>> service running and radius
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue
In this case, the Mikrotik has an IP in the same range as the radios but the gateway for all these IPs is external and inside a Time Warner owned business class modem. Mark -- Original Message -- From: "Sam Tetherow" To: "Mark Stephenson" ; "WISPA General List" Sent: 12/27/2013 4:05:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue >Does the PPPOE concentrator have an IP on the same block as the >clients? Is the address block for the clients routed to the PPPOE >concentrator? > >On 12/27/2013 02:17 PM, Mark Stephenson wrote: >> Well, I thought that would fix it. We did have NAT running and the >>radio >> became accessible via the IP address just like we need it to. Then I >> tried other IPs and later I tried the same IP again and the radio >>can't >> communicate at all out of the Mikrotik. The PPPOE connection seems >>fine. >> The issue is that the radio can't browse and the IP is not visible. >>Any >> thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> Mark >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "Sam Tetherow" >> To: "Mark Stephenson" ; "WISPA General >> List" >> Sent: 12/27/2013 12:34:36 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing >> Issue >>> Did you enable natting as mentioned in Step 1 on that guide (if you >>> did, >>> disabled it). >>> >>> On 12/27/2013 11:23 AM, Mark Stephenson wrote: >>>>We are setting up PPPOE using Mikrotik routers at our towers. We >>>>have >>>> an >>>>external radius and the plan is to have username/password >>>>authentication, radius assigned IPs, and PPP protocol from >>>>Ubiquiti >>>>client equipment to the Mikrotik router at each tower. We setup >>>>these >>>>parameters in the radius server to do this: >>>> >>>>radcheck table: >>>>Cleartext-Password password >>>> >>>>radreply table: >>>>Framed-IP-Address desired ip address >>>>Framed-IP-Netmask desired net mask >>>>MS-Primary-DNS-Server desired ip of the dns >>>>MS-Secondary-DNS-Server desired ip of the second dns >>>>Mikrotik-Rate-Limit rate limit like 1M/1M >>>> >>>>The Mikrotik router (currently version 5.21 RB750UP) has the >>>>PPPOE >>>>service running and radius authentication to our external radius >>>> server. >>>>We used http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Pppoe_with_external_radius >>>>as a >>>>starting point, but it assumes dynamically assigned IPs from a >>>>local >>>>pool not IPs assigned from the radius server. >>>> >>>>We set up our Ubiquiti client equipment as routed with PPPOE and >>>> entered >>>>the PPPOE username and the password. The Ubiquiti client >>>>equipment >>>>connects to a Ubiquiti access point that is bridged and then to a >>>>Mikrotik router at the tower. The tower then connects to backhaul >>>> radios >>>>to get back to our main tower and our core router. >>>> >>>>The good news is that this mostly works! The Ubiquiti client >>>>connects >>>>wirelessly to the access point and via PPPOE to the Mikrotik. It >>>>gets >>>>the IP address and the DNS set in radius. I know that because it >>>> shows >>>>in the Ubiquiti user interface and I see it in the Mikrotik logs. >>>>And >>>>the Mikrotik does the rate limiting beautifully. We can also >>>>browse >>>> the >>>>web through the connection. From a client user perspective it all >>>> works. >>>>But there is one big catch that we are missing. >>>> >>>>All outbound connections are using the IP of the Mikrotik router >>>> instead >>>>of the assigned IP address. So the Ubiquiti client equipment has >>>>the >>>>right IP but the connection is using network address translation >>>> through >>>>the router. We need the assigned IP to be accessible through the >>>>Mikrotik router so it shows as the IP address of the Ubiquiti >>>>client >>>>connection and so we can login to the Ubiquiti client radio from >>>>our >>>>network. Now the Ubiquiti client radio is hidden behind the >>>>Mikrotik >>>>router. What needs to be changed on the router or the radius to >>>>fix >>>>this? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Mark >>>> >>>>___ >>>>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] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue
Well, I thought that would fix it. We did have NAT running and the radio became accessible via the IP address just like we need it to. Then I tried other IPs and later I tried the same IP again and the radio can't communicate at all out of the Mikrotik. The PPPOE connection seems fine. The issue is that the radio can't browse and the IP is not visible. Any thoughts? Thanks, Mark -- Original Message -- From: "Sam Tetherow" To: "Mark Stephenson" ; "WISPA General List" Sent: 12/27/2013 12:34:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue >Did you enable natting as mentioned in Step 1 on that guide (if you >did, >disabled it). > >On 12/27/2013 11:23 AM, Mark Stephenson wrote: >> We are setting up PPPOE using Mikrotik routers at our towers. We have >>an >> external radius and the plan is to have username/password >> authentication, radius assigned IPs, and PPP protocol from Ubiquiti >> client equipment to the Mikrotik router at each tower. We setup these >> parameters in the radius server to do this: >> >> radcheck table: >> Cleartext-Password password >> >> radreply table: >> Framed-IP-Address desired ip address >> Framed-IP-Netmask desired net mask >> MS-Primary-DNS-Server desired ip of the dns >> MS-Secondary-DNS-Server desired ip of the second dns >> Mikrotik-Rate-Limit rate limit like 1M/1M >> >> The Mikrotik router (currently version 5.21 RB750UP) has the PPPOE >> service running and radius authentication to our external radius >>server. >> We used http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Pppoe_with_external_radius as a >> starting point, but it assumes dynamically assigned IPs from a local >> pool not IPs assigned from the radius server. >> >> We set up our Ubiquiti client equipment as routed with PPPOE and >>entered >> the PPPOE username and the password. The Ubiquiti client equipment >> connects to a Ubiquiti access point that is bridged and then to a >> Mikrotik router at the tower. The tower then connects to backhaul >>radios >> to get back to our main tower and our core router. >> >> The good news is that this mostly works! The Ubiquiti client connects >> wirelessly to the access point and via PPPOE to the Mikrotik. It gets >> the IP address and the DNS set in radius. I know that because it >>shows >> in the Ubiquiti user interface and I see it in the Mikrotik logs. And >> the Mikrotik does the rate limiting beautifully. We can also browse >>the >> web through the connection. From a client user perspective it all >>works. >> But there is one big catch that we are missing. >> >> All outbound connections are using the IP of the Mikrotik router >>instead >> of the assigned IP address. So the Ubiquiti client equipment has the >> right IP but the connection is using network address translation >>through >> the router. We need the assigned IP to be accessible through the >> Mikrotik router so it shows as the IP address of the Ubiquiti client >> connection and so we can login to the Ubiquiti client radio from our >> network. Now the Ubiquiti client radio is hidden behind the Mikrotik >> router. What needs to be changed on the router or the radius to fix >> this? >> >> Thanks, >> Mark >> >> ___ >> 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
[WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue
We are setting up PPPOE using Mikrotik routers at our towers. We have an external radius and the plan is to have username/password authentication, radius assigned IPs, and PPP protocol from Ubiquiti client equipment to the Mikrotik router at each tower. We setup these parameters in the radius server to do this: radcheck table: Cleartext-Password password radreply table: Framed-IP-Address desired ip address Framed-IP-Netmask desired net mask MS-Primary-DNS-Server desired ip of the dns MS-Secondary-DNS-Server desired ip of the second dns Mikrotik-Rate-Limit rate limit like 1M/1M The Mikrotik router (currently version 5.21 RB750UP) has the PPPOE service running and radius authentication to our external radius server. We used http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Pppoe_with_external_radius as a starting point, but it assumes dynamically assigned IPs from a local pool not IPs assigned from the radius server. We set up our Ubiquiti client equipment as routed with PPPOE and entered the PPPOE username and the password. The Ubiquiti client equipment connects to a Ubiquiti access point that is bridged and then to a Mikrotik router at the tower. The tower then connects to backhaul radios to get back to our main tower and our core router. The good news is that this mostly works! The Ubiquiti client connects wirelessly to the access point and via PPPOE to the Mikrotik. It gets the IP address and the DNS set in radius. I know that because it shows in the Ubiquiti user interface and I see it in the Mikrotik logs. And the Mikrotik does the rate limiting beautifully. We can also browse the web through the connection. From a client user perspective it all works. But there is one big catch that we are missing. All outbound connections are using the IP of the Mikrotik router instead of the assigned IP address. So the Ubiquiti client equipment has the right IP but the connection is using network address translation through the router. We need the assigned IP to be accessible through the Mikrotik router so it shows as the IP address of the Ubiquiti client connection and so we can login to the Ubiquiti client radio from our network. Now the Ubiquiti client radio is hidden behind the Mikrotik router. What needs to be changed on the router or the radius to fix this? Thanks, Mark ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time?
Tom, Sounds like a great approach. Mark On 12/20/09 7:30 PM, "Tom Sharples" wrote: > At the risk of boring people - we use both. We have a fairly sophisticated > software watchdog routine that checks all threads and the integrity of the > various network devices like eth, ath, tun, tap, ppp, etc. etc, every few > minutes. If it sees anything wrong it takes corrective action, which can > include a number of steps short of a system reboot. It also logs any errors > plus corrective actions in a local log file for later analysis, and uploads > the entire system status file to our back-end servers every 15 minutes. > That same software routine pings the hardware watchdog every minute. That > way, if the entire system hangs, the hardware timer reboots the board, but > if only one or more of the threads or I/O devices hangs, the software > watchdog takes care of it. > After several years of tweaking, this approach has been working very well > for us. > > Tom S. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Mark Stephenson" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 2:10 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time? > > >> Tom, >> >> Watchdog timers like you describe are useful, but they tend to be less >> valuable than they used to be because newer software tends to be >> multi-threaded instead of single threaded and also the interfaces are >> smarter and do more processing on their own. This means there are more >> paths >> that the software is taking that may not be part of the watchdog timer. It >> is nice to have a watchdog timer to catch some things, but I think not >> having one is less of a show stopper than it used to be. We use external >> power controllers that can ping devices and can power cycle them if they >> do >> not respond. So far, I like that better because more of the system is >> probably tested by an external ping than by an internal watchdog timer. At >> least that is the theory. :) >> >> Thanks, Mark >> >> >> On 12/20/09 12:30 PM, "Tom Sharples" wrote: >> >>> A hardware watchdog timer, typically, watches only one thing - is the >>> software and/or CPU still alive? If a software pinger fails to reset a >>> hardware counter or timer every few seconds or so, the timer reaches the >>> end >>> of its count and resets the motherboard. It is a failsafe if everything >>> else >>> goes wrong - something that happens more often than one would like when >>> you're using developmental drivers. Software watchdogs are a poor >>> substitute >>> for obvious reasons - if the software or CPU is completely hung, the >>> software watchdog won't work either! >>> >>> Tom S. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Mark Stephenson" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 4:12 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time? >>> >>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> Do you happen to know what a hardware watchdog timer watches? Perhaps >>>> there >>>> is something it can watch like whether or not the device is sending on >>>> the >>>> Ethernet port or the program counter. But, it seems that as embedded >>>> systems >>>> add more software, a useful hardware watchdog timer becomes less >>>> possible >>>> because there are more things that can go wrong and it is >>>> difficult/expensive to make the hardware capable of checking those >>>> things. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/20/09 2:01 AM, "Tom Sharples" wrote: >>>> >>>>> A software watchdog timer is not the same thing as a hardware watchdog >>>>> timer. >>>>> And SNMP has nothing to do with either. >>>>> >>>>> Tom S. >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> From: jai...@budget.net >>>>> To: Tom Sharples ; WISPA General List >>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 9:03 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please don't take me wrong on this but your statement (b) bothers me. >>>>> You >>>>> are either running a very old version of Air OS or you have no clue >>>>> wha
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time?
Tom, Watchdog timers like you describe are useful, but they tend to be less valuable than they used to be because newer software tends to be multi-threaded instead of single threaded and also the interfaces are smarter and do more processing on their own. This means there are more paths that the software is taking that may not be part of the watchdog timer. It is nice to have a watchdog timer to catch some things, but I think not having one is less of a show stopper than it used to be. We use external power controllers that can ping devices and can power cycle them if they do not respond. So far, I like that better because more of the system is probably tested by an external ping than by an internal watchdog timer. At least that is the theory. :) Thanks, Mark On 12/20/09 12:30 PM, "Tom Sharples" wrote: > A hardware watchdog timer, typically, watches only one thing - is the > software and/or CPU still alive? If a software pinger fails to reset a > hardware counter or timer every few seconds or so, the timer reaches the end > of its count and resets the motherboard. It is a failsafe if everything else > goes wrong - something that happens more often than one would like when > you're using developmental drivers. Software watchdogs are a poor substitute > for obvious reasons - if the software or CPU is completely hung, the > software watchdog won't work either! > > Tom S. > > - Original Message - > From: "Mark Stephenson" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 4:12 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time? > > >> Tom, >> >> Do you happen to know what a hardware watchdog timer watches? Perhaps >> there >> is something it can watch like whether or not the device is sending on the >> Ethernet port or the program counter. But, it seems that as embedded >> systems >> add more software, a useful hardware watchdog timer becomes less possible >> because there are more things that can go wrong and it is >> difficult/expensive to make the hardware capable of checking those things. >> >> Thanks, Mark >> >> >> On 12/20/09 2:01 AM, "Tom Sharples" wrote: >> >>> A software watchdog timer is not the same thing as a hardware watchdog >>> timer. >>> And SNMP has nothing to do with either. >>> >>> Tom S. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: jai...@budget.net >>> To: Tom Sharples ; WISPA General List >>> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 9:03 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time? >>> >>> >>> Please don't take me wrong on this but your statement (b) bothers me. >>> You >>> are either running a very old version of Air OS or you have no clue what >>> your >>> talking about. UBNT has support for SNMP which I use to monitor not only >>> uptime but signal strength and a few other key items check out ZenOss if >>> you >>> need to watch these devices or any other network device for that matter. >>> AirOS >>> also has a "Watchdog timer" in the software that will automatically >>> reboot a >>> device that fails a ping time you set. I have never had to power cycle a >>> UBNT >>> device. In fact I had to reboot a Mikrotik router because it had a locked >>> process in the packet sniffer application that drove the CPU to 100% so >>> the >>> UBNT gear has a higher uptime than the core router. >>> >>> Jaimie >>> >>> >>> On Sat 12/19/09 12:24 PM , "Tom Sharples" tsharp...@qorvus.com sent: >>> >>> My biggest concern with these units is (a) lack of mechanical >>> robustness - >>> little plastic bits leak or break off quite easily and (b) lack of a >>> hardware watchdog timer which personally I think is essential esp. >>> when >>> you're using "development stage" firmware. We did most of the work to >>> port >>> our Qcode to run on the ubnt platform, but have decided to shelf that >>> project for another year, waiting for things to really settle down. >>> In the >>> CCTV business, there's no-one around to power-cycle the equipment and >>> unrecoverable device hangs are really a disaster. I realize that the >>> ISP >>> business is a little different because the customer can always reboot >>> the >>> CPE! >>> >>> Tom S. >>> >>> - Original Mes
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time?
Tom, Do you happen to know what a hardware watchdog timer watches? Perhaps there is something it can watch like whether or not the device is sending on the Ethernet port or the program counter. But, it seems that as embedded systems add more software, a useful hardware watchdog timer becomes less possible because there are more things that can go wrong and it is difficult/expensive to make the hardware capable of checking those things. Thanks, Mark On 12/20/09 2:01 AM, "Tom Sharples" wrote: > A software watchdog timer is not the same thing as a hardware watchdog timer. > And SNMP has nothing to do with either. > > Tom S. > > - Original Message - > From: jai...@budget.net > To: Tom Sharples ; WISPA General List > Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 9:03 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time? > > > Please don't take me wrong on this but your statement (b) bothers me. You > are either running a very old version of Air OS or you have no clue what your > talking about. UBNT has support for SNMP which I use to monitor not only > uptime but signal strength and a few other key items check out ZenOss if you > need to watch these devices or any other network device for that matter. AirOS > also has a "Watchdog timer" in the software that will automatically reboot a > device that fails a ping time you set. I have never had to power cycle a UBNT > device. In fact I had to reboot a Mikrotik router because it had a locked > process in the packet sniffer application that drove the CPU to 100% so the > UBNT gear has a higher uptime than the core router. > > Jaimie > > > On Sat 12/19/09 12:24 PM , "Tom Sharples" tsharp...@qorvus.com sent: > > My biggest concern with these units is (a) lack of mechanical robustness - > little plastic bits leak or break off quite easily and (b) lack of a > hardware watchdog timer which personally I think is essential esp. when > you're using "development stage" firmware. We did most of the work to port > our Qcode to run on the ubnt platform, but have decided to shelf that > project for another year, waiting for things to really settle down. In the > CCTV business, there's no-one around to power-cycle the equipment and > unrecoverable device hangs are really a disaster. I realize that the ISP > business is a little different because the customer can always reboot the > CPE! > > Tom S. > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert West" > To: ; "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 7:55 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time? > > >> I'm with ya on all that, Jamie. We've had minor issues but I expected >> things to not be perfect, they never are with version 1.0! The trade off >> is >> worth it, for me anyhow. >> >> Bob- >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of jai...@budget.net >> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 10:26 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ready for prime time? >> >> >> We use all UBNT and I have been very happy with the equipment. >> Tower has 2 Rocket M5s With 120 sectors, backhaul is Rocket M5s with >> the Rocket Dish. CPEs are Nano M5. Durring testing at 4 Miles with >> CPE to AP I was able to sustain symmetrical speeds of 75M to our >> test server on the other end of the backhaul. I was really amazed at >> how well they preformed for the price. I have read all the horror >> stories in the UBNT forums but have yet to have one problem. Probably >> just cursed myself and should of kept my mouth shut. But so far so >> good. >> On Sat 12/19/09 6:35 AM , Mike m...@aweiowa.com sent: >> I was almost ready to pull the trigger on some Ubiquiti equipment >> for >> a new project. The scent of low price is alluring. Then I start >> reading about connectors pulling out, connectors not soldered on >> properly, and the wrong boot code on boards. >> Is it too early? Should I wait a bit before I dive in? Has the >> haste to get product into the distribution stream compromised >> quality >> control? Is the low price just too good to be true? I'd be >> interested in some constructive thoughts and analysis. >> Thanks mg >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/";>http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org [2] >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless";>http://lists.wispa.org/mail >> man/listinfo/wireless >> Archives: >> http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/";>http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/ >> wireless/ >> >> >> Links: >> -- >> [1] http://signup.wispa.org/";>http://signup.wispa.org/ >> [2] wireless@wispa.org >> [3] >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/lis
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Bullet2
We have seen similar craziness with Ubiquiti stuff. Do you think it is the wrong firmware load in this case? Mark On 12/18/09 5:29 PM, "RickG" wrote: > I just configured a Bullet2 that thinks its a Picostation2! See attached. > WTH? > > > -- > -- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -- > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Bullet2HP
Yes, we are seeing problems with Bullet2HPs as well. It seems Ubiquiti is having quality problems mainly on the RF side. Frustrating and expensive. Mark On 12/16/09 11:41 PM, "RickG" wrote: > Anyone having issues with flaky Bullet2HP units? The last batch I got wont > connect to my StarOS/WRAP's. Actually, I discovered they do connect but have > 80+% packet loss. I updated them to 3.5 firmware but no help. Previous > shipments have worked great. -RickG > > > -- > -- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -- > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Report: Broadband stimulus funds won't suffice
Tom, According to Dictionary.com "Utility" just means "Useful." A service becomes a utility when it becomes readily available and so useful that it is vital to day to day life. When your phone or water or electricity goes out, that is a real big deal because we expect utilities to be there and we depend on them. The same is becoming more true with the internet. Technical complexity can keep something from becoming a utility because people can't count on it. But phones were very complex when they were introduced and problems were hard to diagnose. As technology evolved they became important enough and reliable enough to become a utility. Internet connectivity is following that same path. Mark On 12/14/09 6:14 PM, "Tom DeReggi" wrote: > Tim, > Interesting quotes that you posted. > > I also challenge the definition of "utility" and what qualifies. Another > subjective point of view often misunderstood, and how that translates to > "need" and "broadband". > Broadband is in no way a "utility" either. The reason is that it has an > intelligence component that cant be avoided. For example, if broadband > stops working from the perspective of the user, is it within the control of > that consumer to indentify the cause of failure on their own, and if it is > in fact a broadband outage? How do they tell if its the PC, the PC's loaded > software, a failed router, the destination web site, or the actual > broadband? Every tool the end user needs to make that determination he has > acces to, they just dont have the intelligence to understand how to run the > tools to get the data. All it takes is a day in a phone support center to > prove my point. Broadband needs "support". It is unavoidable. Therefore not > a basic utility. > Electricity and water on the other hand is a utility, an consumers knows > when it is on or off, they dont need a support center to tell them that. > Sure they may want to call to get an ETA for repair, but thats about it, > they know who is responsible. BRoadband is simply to technical and > complicated to be classified as a utility, even if it is of similar need in > some people's mind. > Any time "quality of support" is a large part of a user's experience, it has > factors that cant be measured easilly and equally for comparison to regulate > what is fair price. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tim Sylvester" > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 2:47 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: Broadband stimulus funds won't suffice > > >> A flashback to 1905 ... >> >> "Unless we adopt the principles of socialism, It can hardly be contended >> that It is the province of government, either state or municipal, to >> undertake the manufacture or supply of the ordinary subjects of trade and >> commerce, or to impose burdens upon the whole community for the supposed >> benefit of a few.. >> >> "The ownership and operation of municipal light plants stands upon a >> different basis from that of the ownership of water works, with which it >> is >> so often compared. Water is a necessity to the health and life of every >> individual member of a community.It must be supplied in order to preserve >> the public health, whether it can be done profitably or not, and must be >> furnished, not to a few individuals, but to every individual. >> >> "Electric lights are different. Electricity is not in any sense a >> necessity, >> and under no conditions is it universally used by the people of a >> community. >> It is but a luxury enjoyed by a small proportion of the members of any >> municipality, and yet if the plant be owned and operated by the city, the >> burden of such ownership and operation must be borne by all the people >> through taxation. >> >> "Now, electric light is not a necessity for every member of the community. >> It Is not the business of any one to see that I use electricity, or gas, >> or >> oil in my house, or even that I use any form of artificial light at all." >> >> and the 2009 version ... >> >> "Unless we adopt the principles of socialism, It can hardly be contended >> that It is the province of government, either state or municipal, to >> undertake the manufacture or supply of the ordinary subjects of trade and >> commerce, or to impose burdens upon the whole community for the supposed >> benefit of a few.. >> >> "The ownership and operation of municipal [broadband] stands upon a >> different basis from that of the ownership of [electric plants], with >> which >> it is so often compared. [Electricity] is a necessity to the health and >> life >> of every individual member of a community.It must be supplied in order to >> preserve the public health, whether it can be done profitably or not, and >> must be furnished, not to a few individuals, but to every individual. >> >> "[Broadband is] different. [Broadband] is not in any sense a necessity, >> and >>
Re: [WISPA] Ligowave 24ghz Backhaul Radio
What are your thoughts about the impact of rain and snow on the 24 GHz signal? On 11/23/09 2:23 PM, "can...@believewireless.net" wrote: > Why only 85Mbps? I figured they'd do a full 100. > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Bret Clark wrote: >> Has it run through heavy rain yet, wonder how much rain affectst the >> attenuation. >> >> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 12:01 -0700, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> >>> Just installed a Ligowave 24ghz unlicensed backhaul radio to take the >>> place of a 100meg fiber loop. >>> >>> We are going 2.97 miles with the 2' dishes. -65 signal on both sides >>> and it has tested out at 85meg of capacity in both directions. >>> >>> Very happy with it so far. The software and management interface is >>> very comprehensive and has some interesting features in it, including a >>> "constellation" feature that gives an approximation of what the OFDM >>> signals look like. This unit has the ability to use a voltmeter for >>> the signal strength peaking, and my climber highly recommends using that >>> instead of trying to call out signal strengths. That made it a lot >>> easier to peak in. >>> >>> Climber also says that the mounting hardware looks great, but is >>> actually pretty crappy when it is on the tower. It is not very >>> fine-grained in its adjustment capabilities - at least that is the >>> politically correct way to put it. >>> >>> The complete link was in the $8000 neighborhood. The fiber link was >>> costing $500/month, so it won't take very long for this to pay for itself. >>> >>> Matt Larsen >>> vistabeam.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> - >> --- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> - >> --- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > -- > -- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -- > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors
Have you tried CTB-15 from CANUSA? http://www.dsgcanusa.com/literature/datasheets/DATA_CTB-15.pdf The description seems pretty good and it does not require heat. Thanks, Mark On 11/19/09 10:56 PM, "AJ" wrote: > I used to use Coax-seal on everything... Finally discovered CANUSA and won't > ever turn back... Great seal and just takes a decent razor blade to remove > with no residue... Just gotta remember to put it on the coax line *before* > you tighten the fitting... Doh lol. > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:15 PM, RickG wrote: > >> Yes - hate the mess but seals the best! >> >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 6:43 PM, wrote: >> >>> Coax-seal >>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 6:42 PM, AJ wrote: >>> CANUSA adhesive shrink tubing is your friend :) On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, wrote: > No 400 connector from any of the manufacturers is weatherproof by >>> itself. > You need to weatherproof all of your connections. If they are not >>> getting > wet you are lucky. Plain and simple. > > Bob > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: "MDK" > Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:20:52 > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors > > > I've run out of these, and none of the vendors I use commonly carry >>> them. > Anyone out west have these? > > Yeah, I know, it costs more to buy two of these than a whole pre-built >>> 10 > foot cable, but every danged pre-built I buy has water issues. > > We have never had to seal any of the cables we built ourselves, and >> none >>> of > them have ever leaked (except when someone who'll forever remain >>> nameless > forgot to tighten the cable...), but I have no luck at all with the > pre-made > I've bought from multiple places. Our temporary site needed to go up >>> in a > real hurry, so I bought a whole pile of parts and cables, and most of >>> them > have had issues. > > > > > > > >>> >> - >> --- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >>> >> - >> --- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > >>> >> - >> --- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >>> >> - >> --- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>> >> - >> --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >> - >> --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> - >> --- >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> >> - >> --- >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> >> - >> --- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> - >> --- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > -- > -- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -- > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http:
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo Troubles
Go Kurt go! I think you will be pleased and it is especially nice that the order did not cost as much as it would with other solutions. Ubiquiti is not perfect either, but there seems to be real value there. Most of our new installs are Ubiquiti now days unless the units are sold out. On 11/17/09 12:52 PM, "Kurt Fankhauser" wrote: > Just placed my first order for Ubiquity NS2's 5 minutes ago... > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mark Stephenson > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:01 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo Troubles > > Kurt, > > Have you tried Ubiquiti? We have about 140 of them installed. At least 100 > are set as routers doing NAT. So far results have been positive. > > Mark > Country Connections > Washington Court House, OH > > > On 11/17/09 10:23 AM, "Kurt Fankhauser" wrote: > >> If someone made a CPE that did NAT properly with the Tranzeo mounting >> bracket and Ethernet cover, I'd switch to them in a heartbeat. >> >> Kurt Fankhauser >> WAVELINC >> P.O. Box 126 >> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> 419-562-6405 >> www.wavelinc.com >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Bret Clark >> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:11 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo Troubles >> >> I've always worried that by running the CPE's in bridging mode, really >> opens up the door for a teenage hacker to have a field day snooping the >> network. >> >> On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 09:56 -0500, Andy Trimmell wrote: >> >>> Our entire user base is based on customers needing to buy a router since >>> we run all of our CPE's in bridge mode. Just not enough processing power >>> to be running other services on them. People don't like the initial $50 >>> to go get a router before we get there but we make it up when they get >>> installed and love the service. >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Butch Evans >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:15 AM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo Troubles >>> >>> On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 00:02 -0500, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >>>> That's the only thing that kept me from loosing my insanity. >>> >>> Dumb question: What are you left with if you lose your insanity? :-) >>> >> >> >> > >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> > > -- >> -- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > > -- >> -- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > -- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -- > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo Troubles
Kurt, Have you tried Ubiquiti? We have about 140 of them installed. At least 100 are set as routers doing NAT. So far results have been positive. Mark Country Connections Washington Court House, OH On 11/17/09 10:23 AM, "Kurt Fankhauser" wrote: > If someone made a CPE that did NAT properly with the Tranzeo mounting > bracket and Ethernet cover, I'd switch to them in a heartbeat. > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Bret Clark > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:11 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo Troubles > > I've always worried that by running the CPE's in bridging mode, really > opens up the door for a teenage hacker to have a field day snooping the > network. > > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 09:56 -0500, Andy Trimmell wrote: > >> Our entire user base is based on customers needing to buy a router since >> we run all of our CPE's in bridge mode. Just not enough processing power >> to be running other services on them. People don't like the initial $50 >> to go get a router before we get there but we make it up when they get >> installed and love the service. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Butch Evans >> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:15 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo Troubles >> >> On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 00:02 -0500, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >>> That's the only thing that kept me from loosing my insanity. >> >> Dumb question: What are you left with if you lose your insanity? :-) >> > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > -- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -- > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo Troubles
If the CPEs are bridged and customers own the router, how do you protect your network from people entering invalid or duplicate Ips or other nasty things that they might do? Thanks, Mark On 11/17/09 9:56 AM, "Andy Trimmell" wrote: > Our entire user base is based on customers needing to buy a router since > we run all of our CPE's in bridge mode. Just not enough processing power > to be running other services on them. People don't like the initial $50 > to go get a router before we get there but we make it up when they get > installed and love the service. > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Butch Evans > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:15 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo Troubles > > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 00:02 -0500, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >> That's the only thing that kept me from loosing my insanity. > > Dumb question: What are you left with if you lose your insanity? :-) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
