Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
AND we spells it gooad twooz! On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > Matt, > > I find it incredably interesting and clever that you have managed to > operate > your network on private IP addresses. > However, the problem you are running into now is one common reason others > have given in to using public IP addresses. > > Having public IPs throughout your transport network is not necessary, we > use > all private IPs for all our radios. > But there is a large risk not giving end users, or small groups of end > users > their own public IP space. > The inherent problem is, that if one person causes an AUP violation, it > risks ALL subs. > There becomes a point where you grow large enough that your volume then > increases the chances of someone making a violation, where that risk puts > to > many existing customers at risk to everyone else. > > The two most common situations are... > Sending Email. and > Reported as a BitTorrent users. > > Large ISPs are becomming much quicker to simply immediately block an IP > assumed to be a potential threat. > > The risk can be reduced by devidign your network into multiple smaller > groups and assigning multiple public IPs each to one of these groups. > Now when there is a problem, fewer customers are effected, and lower odds > that group will have one detected. > > I can tell you in our world, if we have a business sub get their traffic > blocked/compromised because of the usage of another business, it quickly > leads to letter of cancellation. Its a common reason that WISPs will > eventually convert to public IPs, and leverage BGP to bypass being held > hostage by upstream providers. > But even still it adds a level of inflexibilty for internal network IP > assignment. > > Ironically, you probably have less BitTorrent problems, considering your > Private IP sceam. > > What this really is is a NetNeutrality issue. Yahoo,Google, and Hotmail > have > the rights to methods of Network Management. And there is a concensus > between them that this method of network management is an acceptable best > practice, and its your problem if you NAT all your users to a few IPs. > > You'll also see problems with poor rankings with "IP Reputation" methods of > Anti-spam. > > Another issue to consider is that Hotmail, Yahoo, and Google prefer to know > exactly where the end user resides, so they can better direct > advertisement. > NATing your customer base to a single NOC location, is distruptive to their > long term advertizing goals for target marketing. Its likely this battle > wont end here with this insodent. > > IF your problems are primarilly Email related, you can try to signup for > feedback loops to help, and make sure SPF records are valid, valid PTRs and > stuff. But if just to web sites, well, not sure their is an answer other > than to change the source IP address for the traffic. In that scenario you > may want to setup some sort of load balancing routine, to redirect > outbound > sessions to different source IPs or Proxy servers. > > A problem where we see it is with Hotels. We'll give a few IPs to the > Hotel, > and then NAT to all their rooms. When one of the overnight guests decides > to > download a copyrighted movie, we get an AUP notice, and ahve to react. > Obviously for a Hotel, we ahve no way to contact that subscriber or know > who > it is for Hotel confidentiality reasons. Sometimes upstreams might just > block that Public IP that serves them, if they didn't like our answer. Then > the whole Hotel will have problems. (The preferred solution is for us to > block access to the offending host site). This is one reason many Hotel > Hotspot providers try to ask for full Class C PUBLIC IP blocks for their > circuits. Then only the one room gets blocked if they violate AUP. This > has > not been a big problem, because my upstream is easy to work with and rarely > blocks traffic. But this situation demonstrates my point. > > Good luck with it. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Matt Larsen - Lists" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:22 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google > > > >I believe that we have fixed this by using the StarOS policy routing to > > split up some of our subnets to SourceNAT through a different IP address > > on our NAT server. > > > > If we are going to get into the public vs. privates discussion, well > > > > I have used NAT for customer IP addresses from day 1. I used to use > > p
Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
issues and dealing with customers problems from natting and assigning publics. Even if I'm generous and it was only say 2hrs per week say cheap tech labor I would figure cost of $15/hr (salary, unemployment, social and benefits all added up) and that would cost me $1560 a year. To track down someone on an abuse report I would think in a network wide nat behind single ip would in itself take about an hour at least per 200 customers or so. This then blows the above 2 hours per week out of line. We do good firewalling to prevent customers getting infected etc and almost every time we gotten an abuse report it's someones laptop that gotten infected or someone that got a e-mail to their work account they check from how with a infected .exe masquerading as a image file or screen saver or whatever and the customer is themselves behind their own broadband router as well. I figure 1-2 reports a year per 200 so clients. 2k clients I would guess 5-10 reports a year at the least. But if I did that I would probably have it down to an art to detect the offender and have in located within a few hours. But easiest way to solve Matts problem without going public ips is as I already mention before share the load of NATing groups of his clients behind multiple IP's on his core router. Which should be doable with any Linux based system but for sure doable if you have iptables direct access but even if not I know it's doable on numerous platforms such as for example MikroTik where you do not have direct control over iptables. Imagestream and StarOS you write Iptables/ipchains rules so can be done. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, you aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch of baloney!! There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about what the real question is and then, if and only if, the can pose a solution to the real problem, post a suggestion. But, since the only posts I have seen to Matt's is give everyone a public address, I have a few questions: So, who is going to buy Matt a block of IPs to fix this non-NAT issue? I ask, because I do as Matt does and if that is the fix, I need someone to buy me a block as well. But the issue isn't really NAT, is it? The real question is how does he deal with the current issue on his current network? Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > 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/ > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09 09:34:00 > > -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
I agree and disagree with you. NAT is good and works well for most home users. I have issues with consoles and NAT, wherein I have many users who want to game together, and xbox doesn't let that happen nicely. I hand out 1 public to those who need it, more for those who want to pay. As for network redundancy and the failover. That works just fine with publics, better if you have your own ASN. I agree that having your own ASN raises costs and there is a pretty step learning curve to using it and using it well. There are trade offs to both methods and you found one that works for you. Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > I believe that we have fixed this by using the StarOS policy routing to > split up some of our subnets to SourceNAT through a different IP address > on our NAT server. > > If we are going to get into the public vs. privates discussion, well > > I have used NAT for customer IP addresses from day 1. I used to use > publics, but it was a tremendous pain in the ass, and would be very > difficult to implement on my current network design (routed subnets at > every single location) so I have no interest in giving each customer > their own public IP address. There are about 160 private subnets on > the access points in my network, so I have no intention of switching to > publics anytime soon. I also loathe PPPoE and have worked with a > couple of people who tried to convert to it and converted back as soon > as they could because it just didn't work as well as advertised. YMMV, > but I'm just fine not using it. > > NAT has been very beneficial to my customers as a whole, since they are > not directly exposed to the Internet and we have far fewer > virus/trojan/backdoor issues because of it.We do have a few folks > who need a public IP, and route several subnets of public IP addresses > out to towers where public IP addresses are needed. That is fine with > me, because we charge extra for the IP addresses. Just another reason > for power users to move up the pricing ladder if they want the extras. > > Not using publics has also been a godsend as far as maintaining > flexibility between backbone providers and utilization of secondary > links in the event of failures. Sometime in the next month, I'm > switching my primary backbone to go through a new provider that is > delivering 50meg for the same price that I was previously paying for 15. > Moving traffic to that backbone will be as simple as changing one line > in a policy routing statement. If I was using publics, I would still > be stuck with the previous provider. I don't like being hostage to > outside network providers if I can avoid it. In addition to my primary > backbone link, I also have backbone links with two other neighboring > WISPs and the ability to route traffic to the Internet through them in > the event of an outage on my network between my APs and my NOC. They > can do the same thing through my network.Just last week, a set of > rolling power outages took out two towers that were the redundant paths > to five APs on the far eastern side of my network. OSPF figured it out > and routed them out through my neighbor's network until the towers came > back up and it switched back. Same thing happened on his network last > month, and we handled the majority of his traffic until his backbone > link was back up. That is not a very simple thing to implement with > public IP addresses, but it was pretty easy to make it happen with privates. > > So yeah, I have my reasons for using NAT. Switching to publics is a > rhetorical answer, not a useful one. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> I believe Matt has around 5k subs, maybe I'm wrong. At 5k subs, his cost >> per year per IP address is $0.45. That's under $0.04/month. I'd consider >> that a reasonable expense. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Scott Reed" >> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:23 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google >> >> >>> >>> So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, you >>> aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch of >>> baloney!! >>> There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What >>> really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about what >>> the real question is
Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
Matt, I find it incredably interesting and clever that you have managed to operate your network on private IP addresses. However, the problem you are running into now is one common reason others have given in to using public IP addresses. Having public IPs throughout your transport network is not necessary, we use all private IPs for all our radios. But there is a large risk not giving end users, or small groups of end users their own public IP space. The inherent problem is, that if one person causes an AUP violation, it risks ALL subs. There becomes a point where you grow large enough that your volume then increases the chances of someone making a violation, where that risk puts to many existing customers at risk to everyone else. The two most common situations are... Sending Email. and Reported as a BitTorrent users. Large ISPs are becomming much quicker to simply immediately block an IP assumed to be a potential threat. The risk can be reduced by devidign your network into multiple smaller groups and assigning multiple public IPs each to one of these groups. Now when there is a problem, fewer customers are effected, and lower odds that group will have one detected. I can tell you in our world, if we have a business sub get their traffic blocked/compromised because of the usage of another business, it quickly leads to letter of cancellation. Its a common reason that WISPs will eventually convert to public IPs, and leverage BGP to bypass being held hostage by upstream providers. But even still it adds a level of inflexibilty for internal network IP assignment. Ironically, you probably have less BitTorrent problems, considering your Private IP sceam. What this really is is a NetNeutrality issue. Yahoo,Google, and Hotmail have the rights to methods of Network Management. And there is a concensus between them that this method of network management is an acceptable best practice, and its your problem if you NAT all your users to a few IPs. You'll also see problems with poor rankings with "IP Reputation" methods of Anti-spam. Another issue to consider is that Hotmail, Yahoo, and Google prefer to know exactly where the end user resides, so they can better direct advertisement. NATing your customer base to a single NOC location, is distruptive to their long term advertizing goals for target marketing. Its likely this battle wont end here with this insodent. IF your problems are primarilly Email related, you can try to signup for feedback loops to help, and make sure SPF records are valid, valid PTRs and stuff. But if just to web sites, well, not sure their is an answer other than to change the source IP address for the traffic. In that scenario you may want to setup some sort of load balancing routine, to redirect outbound sessions to different source IPs or Proxy servers. A problem where we see it is with Hotels. We'll give a few IPs to the Hotel, and then NAT to all their rooms. When one of the overnight guests decides to download a copyrighted movie, we get an AUP notice, and ahve to react. Obviously for a Hotel, we ahve no way to contact that subscriber or know who it is for Hotel confidentiality reasons. Sometimes upstreams might just block that Public IP that serves them, if they didn't like our answer. Then the whole Hotel will have problems. (The preferred solution is for us to block access to the offending host site). This is one reason many Hotel Hotspot providers try to ask for full Class C PUBLIC IP blocks for their circuits. Then only the one room gets blocked if they violate AUP. This has not been a big problem, because my upstream is easy to work with and rarely blocks traffic. But this situation demonstrates my point. Good luck with it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Larsen - Lists" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google >I believe that we have fixed this by using the StarOS policy routing to > split up some of our subnets to SourceNAT through a different IP address > on our NAT server. > > If we are going to get into the public vs. privates discussion, well > > I have used NAT for customer IP addresses from day 1. I used to use > publics, but it was a tremendous pain in the ass, and would be very > difficult to implement on my current network design (routed subnets at > every single location) so I have no interest in giving each customer > their own public IP address. There are about 160 private subnets on > the access points in my network, so I have no intention of switching to > publics anytime soon. I also loathe PPPoE and have worked with a > couple of people who tried to convert to it and converted back as soon > as they could because it just didn
Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
Totally agree dude! Advantanges and disadvanges. Once you have a large routed network with privates, it sux to convert. --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of "Learn RouterOS" -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google I believe that we have fixed this by using the StarOS policy routing to split up some of our subnets to SourceNAT through a different IP address on our NAT server. If we are going to get into the public vs. privates discussion, well I have used NAT for customer IP addresses from day 1. I used to use publics, but it was a tremendous pain in the ass, and would be very difficult to implement on my current network design (routed subnets at every single location) so I have no interest in giving each customer their own public IP address. There are about 160 private subnets on the access points in my network, so I have no intention of switching to publics anytime soon. I also loathe PPPoE and have worked with a couple of people who tried to convert to it and converted back as soon as they could because it just didn't work as well as advertised. YMMV, but I'm just fine not using it. NAT has been very beneficial to my customers as a whole, since they are not directly exposed to the Internet and we have far fewer virus/trojan/backdoor issues because of it.We do have a few folks who need a public IP, and route several subnets of public IP addresses out to towers where public IP addresses are needed. That is fine with me, because we charge extra for the IP addresses. Just another reason for power users to move up the pricing ladder if they want the extras. Not using publics has also been a godsend as far as maintaining flexibility between backbone providers and utilization of secondary links in the event of failures. Sometime in the next month, I'm switching my primary backbone to go through a new provider that is delivering 50meg for the same price that I was previously paying for 15. Moving traffic to that backbone will be as simple as changing one line in a policy routing statement. If I was using publics, I would still be stuck with the previous provider. I don't like being hostage to outside network providers if I can avoid it. In addition to my primary backbone link, I also have backbone links with two other neighboring WISPs and the ability to route traffic to the Internet through them in the event of an outage on my network between my APs and my NOC. They can do the same thing through my network.Just last week, a set of rolling power outages took out two towers that were the redundant paths to five APs on the far eastern side of my network. OSPF figured it out and routed them out through my neighbor's network until the towers came back up and it switched back. Same thing happened on his network last month, and we handled the majority of his traffic until his backbone link was back up. That is not a very simple thing to implement with public IP addresses, but it was pretty easy to make it happen with privates. So yeah, I have my reasons for using NAT. Switching to publics is a rhetorical answer, not a useful one. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Mike Hammett wrote: > I believe Matt has around 5k subs, maybe I'm wrong. At 5k subs, his > cost per year per IP address is $0.45. That's under $0.04/month. I'd > consider that a reasonable expense. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Scott Reed" > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:23 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google > > >> >> So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, >> you aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch >> of baloney!! >> There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What >> really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about >> what the real question is and then, if and only if, the can pose a >> solution to the real problem, post a suggestion. >> >> But, since the only posts I have seen to Matt's is give everyone a >> public address, I have a few questions: >> >> So, who is going to buy M
Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
I believe that we have fixed this by using the StarOS policy routing to split up some of our subnets to SourceNAT through a different IP address on our NAT server. If we are going to get into the public vs. privates discussion, well I have used NAT for customer IP addresses from day 1. I used to use publics, but it was a tremendous pain in the ass, and would be very difficult to implement on my current network design (routed subnets at every single location) so I have no interest in giving each customer their own public IP address. There are about 160 private subnets on the access points in my network, so I have no intention of switching to publics anytime soon. I also loathe PPPoE and have worked with a couple of people who tried to convert to it and converted back as soon as they could because it just didn't work as well as advertised. YMMV, but I'm just fine not using it. NAT has been very beneficial to my customers as a whole, since they are not directly exposed to the Internet and we have far fewer virus/trojan/backdoor issues because of it.We do have a few folks who need a public IP, and route several subnets of public IP addresses out to towers where public IP addresses are needed. That is fine with me, because we charge extra for the IP addresses. Just another reason for power users to move up the pricing ladder if they want the extras. Not using publics has also been a godsend as far as maintaining flexibility between backbone providers and utilization of secondary links in the event of failures. Sometime in the next month, I'm switching my primary backbone to go through a new provider that is delivering 50meg for the same price that I was previously paying for 15. Moving traffic to that backbone will be as simple as changing one line in a policy routing statement. If I was using publics, I would still be stuck with the previous provider. I don't like being hostage to outside network providers if I can avoid it. In addition to my primary backbone link, I also have backbone links with two other neighboring WISPs and the ability to route traffic to the Internet through them in the event of an outage on my network between my APs and my NOC. They can do the same thing through my network.Just last week, a set of rolling power outages took out two towers that were the redundant paths to five APs on the far eastern side of my network. OSPF figured it out and routed them out through my neighbor's network until the towers came back up and it switched back. Same thing happened on his network last month, and we handled the majority of his traffic until his backbone link was back up. That is not a very simple thing to implement with public IP addresses, but it was pretty easy to make it happen with privates. So yeah, I have my reasons for using NAT. Switching to publics is a rhetorical answer, not a useful one. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Mike Hammett wrote: > I believe Matt has around 5k subs, maybe I'm wrong. At 5k subs, his cost > per year per IP address is $0.45. That's under $0.04/month. I'd consider > that a reasonable expense. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Scott Reed" > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:23 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google > > >> >> So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, you >> aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch of >> baloney!! >> There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What >> really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about what >> the real question is and then, if and only if, the can pose a solution >> to the real problem, post a suggestion. >> >> But, since the only posts I have seen to Matt's is give everyone a >> public address, I have a few questions: >> >> So, who is going to buy Matt a block of IPs to fix this non-NAT issue? >> I ask, because I do as Matt does and if that is the fix, I need someone >> to buy me a block as well. >> But the issue isn't really NAT, is it? >> The real question is how does he deal with the current issue on his >> current network? >> >> >> >> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> >>> We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our >>> customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over >>> the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are >>> behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP addre
Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
That is what I'm trying to do. Each sector has it's own public IP. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Blair Davis wrote: > I run NAT, and my answer is to put each tower, or sector in cases where > there is more than one radio on a tower, on it's own public NAT. > > That way I only have 20 or so users behind one IP > > It also makes it easier to track down DMCA take down notices. > > > Scott Reed wrote: > > > So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, you > aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch of > baloney!! > There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What > really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about what > the real question is and then, if and only if, the can pose a solution > to the real problem, post a suggestion. > > But, since the only posts I have seen to Matt's is give everyone a > public address, I have a few questions: > > So, who is going to buy Matt a block of IPs to fix this non-NAT issue? > I ask, because I do as Matt does and if that is the fix, I need someone > to buy me a block as well. > But the issue isn't really NAT, is it? > The real question is how does he deal with the current issue on his > current network? > > > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > > > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > Matt Larsenvistabeam.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/ > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09 > 09:34:00 > > > > > > > > > > > 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
I run NAT, and my answer is to put each tower, or sector in cases where there is more than one radio on a tower, on it's own public NAT. That way I only have 20 or so users behind one IP It also makes it easier to track down DMCA take down notices. Scott Reed wrote: So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, you aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch of baloney!! There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about what the real question is and then, if and only if, the can pose a solution to the real problem, post a suggestion. But, since the only posts I have seen to Matt's is give everyone a public address, I have a few questions: So, who is going to buy Matt a block of IPs to fix this non-NAT issue? I ask, because I do as Matt does and if that is the fix, I need someone to buy me a block as well. But the issue isn't really NAT, is it? The real question is how does he deal with the current issue on his current network? Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better solution. Anyone have any similar issues? 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09 09:34:00 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
Matt, Based on an e-mail you sent last month, you have 1,700 subscribers behind a single IP address. That is excessive over-subscription of a single IP address. I am surprised that it even works. I suggest that you create a pool of IP addresses with many IP address - 50 to 200 IP addresses. I don't know if it can be done on a Mikrotik but I know other firewall/router/NAT devices can create a NAT pool with 100s of IP addresses for clients. Tim > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:41 AM > To: WISPA General List; Motorola Canopy User Group > Subject: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google > > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic > over > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
I see the same issue. I'm on a satellite internet connection shared with about 10 people. The satellite carrier does their own NAT and we all appear as the same IP to the internet. The only fix for me is to turn on my VPN. It's not a NAT-failure or NAT mis-configuration issue, but it most certainly is caused by the very nature of NAT - the traffic of many being seen as the traffic of one IP address due to NAT. So nat still is the root cause. Greg On Oct 28, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic > over > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
oh sorry, that was on the moto list. --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of "Learn RouterOS" -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google You did'ent read my reply then.. --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of "Learn RouterOS" -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, you aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch of baloney!! There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about what the real question is and then, if and only if, the can pose a solution to the real problem, post a suggestion. But, since the only posts I have seen to Matt's is give everyone a public address, I have a few questions: So, who is going to buy Matt a block of IPs to fix this non-NAT issue? I ask, because I do as Matt does and if that is the fix, I need someone to buy me a block as well. But the issue isn't really NAT, is it? The real question is how does he deal with the current issue on his current network? Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > 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/ > > -- > -- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: > 10/28/09 09:34:00 > > -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
You did'ent read my reply then.. --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of "Learn RouterOS" -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, you aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch of baloney!! There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about what the real question is and then, if and only if, the can pose a solution to the real problem, post a suggestion. But, since the only posts I have seen to Matt's is give everyone a public address, I have a few questions: So, who is going to buy Matt a block of IPs to fix this non-NAT issue? I ask, because I do as Matt does and if that is the fix, I need someone to buy me a block as well. But the issue isn't really NAT, is it? The real question is how does he deal with the current issue on his current network? Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > 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/ > > -- > -- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: > 10/28/09 09:34:00 > > -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
I believe Matt has around 5k subs, maybe I'm wrong. At 5k subs, his cost per year per IP address is $0.45. That's under $0.04/month. I'd consider that a reasonable expense. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Scott Reed" Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:23 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google > > So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, you > aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch of > baloney!! > There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What > really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about what > the real question is and then, if and only if, the can pose a solution > to the real problem, post a suggestion. > > But, since the only posts I have seen to Matt's is give everyone a > public address, I have a few questions: > > So, who is going to buy Matt a block of IPs to fix this non-NAT issue? > I ask, because I do as Matt does and if that is the fix, I need someone > to buy me a block as well. > But the issue isn't really NAT, is it? > The real question is how does he deal with the current issue on his > current network? > > > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our >> customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over >> the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are >> behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address >> of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better >> solution. Anyone have any similar issues? >> >> 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/ >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: >> 10/28/09 09:34:00 >> >> > > -- > Scott Reed > Sr. Systems Engineer > GAB Midwest > 1-800-363-1544 x4000 > Cell: 260-273-7239 > > > > > 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
It's a long term solution. Several short term solutions were also listed. You either buy public IPs or buy time dealing with NAT. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Scott Reed wrote: > > So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, you > aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch of > baloney!! > There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What > really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about what > the real question is and then, if and only if, the can pose a solution > to the real problem, post a suggestion. > > But, since the only posts I have seen to Matt's is give everyone a > public address, I have a few questions: > > So, who is going to buy Matt a block of IPs to fix this non-NAT issue? > I ask, because I do as Matt does and if that is the fix, I need someone > to buy me a block as well. > But the issue isn't really NAT, is it? > The real question is how does he deal with the current issue on his > current network? > > > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over > > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: > 10/28/09 09:34:00 > > > > > > -- > Scott Reed > Sr. Systems Engineer > GAB Midwest > 1-800-363-1544 x4000 > Cell: 260-273-7239 > > > > > > 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
Ahhh, a real answer for Matt. Jason Hensley wrote: > Yep, we've seen this too. Ended up being a rogue user on the network that > we had to shutdown from sending spam. Fixed them and it cleared it up after > a little bit. > > We are moving all users to their own publics as well as we migrate > everything to PPPoE. > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:41 PM > To: WISPA General List; Motorola Canopy User Group > Subject: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google > > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > 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/ > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09 > 09:34:00 > > -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
So, as with so much that goes on the lists, not just this one, "oh, you aren't doing it my way so the fix is do it my way." What a bunch of baloney!! There are lots of ways to do almost everything we do as ISPs. What really needs to happen is for people to read the post, think about what the real question is and then, if and only if, the can pose a solution to the real problem, post a suggestion. But, since the only posts I have seen to Matt's is give everyone a public address, I have a few questions: So, who is going to buy Matt a block of IPs to fix this non-NAT issue? I ask, because I do as Matt does and if that is the fix, I need someone to buy me a block as well. But the issue isn't really NAT, is it? The real question is how does he deal with the current issue on his current network? Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > 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/ > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09 > 09:34:00 > > -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
Well, since it is not a NAT issue, there is probably a better solution. sa...@jeffcosoho.com wrote: > Yep, > > I give up on chasing NAT issues. We just give everyone publics. > > Jim > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > >> We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our >> customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over >> the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are >> behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address >> of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better >> solution. Anyone have any similar issues? >> >> 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/ > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09 > 09:34:00 > > -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
Yep, we've seen this too. Ended up being a rogue user on the network that we had to shutdown from sending spam. Fixed them and it cleared it up after a little bit. We are moving all users to their own publics as well as we migrate everything to PPPoE. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:41 PM To: WISPA General List; Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better solution. Anyone have any similar issues? 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/
Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
Don't NAT all of your customers. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Matt Larsen - Lists" Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:41 PM To: "WISPA General List" ; "Motorola Canopy User Group" Subject: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
Yep, I give up on chasing NAT issues. We just give everyone publics. Jim Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our > customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over > the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are > behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address > of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better > solution. Anyone have any similar issues? > > 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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
We are having a problem with certain sites that are rejecting our customers because they say the IP address has sent too much traffic over the last 24 hours. This is a problem, as 98% of our customers are behind a single NATted IP address. I am just changing the IP address of the NAT server every 12 hours now, but am looking for a better solution. Anyone have any similar issues? 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/
