RE: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses

[Alex Wong]

Title: Message

Please see this typical WISP network scenario http://www.smartbridges.com/new/solutions/articles.php?id=12 .  I guess most WISP won't allow the client to be on the same subnet as the device. Maybe you guys can share with each other what is your typical setup is if different from above.   Alex sB Tech Support     -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TopsailNet Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:41 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses Yeah, I told my clients not to use the 0.x sub-net too - but one of them decided to use it anyway.   I ran a test on an AP known to have only four AB's (all business clients) that should be closed on a Sunday night and that I could get too early tomorrow morning if some went wrong. I found that I could change the AB ip address from 192.168.0.x to 10.x.x.x with simpleNMS and the AB would still re-associate with the AP. After I changed the four AB's I changed the AP address and all appears to be functioning OK. Of course I had to change the address of my management computer to 10.x.x.x to see the devices again.   Harvey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of phantam Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 8:22 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses I agree with this change but im in the same boat I use 0.x for my smartbridges but I make sure I don't let clients use this for there networks I tell them to use 1.x or something similar. I know IP conflicts with the sb's have caused problems before I believe. Another reason I think vlan support should be implemented on the new ap's.   Chris   From: Ray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 4:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   I think that you should not be using 192.168.0.x.  Pick something else like 10.5.20.x   Ray     ----- Original Message ----- From: TopsailNet To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 12:47 PM Subject: RE: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses   The DHCP is providing public addresses, not 192.168.0.x addresses - it's working well but has thrown me a curve by giving one of my radios a public address - but that was before I started using simpleDeploy to insure that the radio doesn't ask for an address when it's reset.   So, you agree that allowing customers to use 192.168.0.x addresses is not a good idea?   Harvey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Mark P. Sullivan Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 3:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses If I were you, I wouldn't be running DHCP on the 192.168.0.x subnet.  That is a typical "default" subnet..and I don't do ANYTHING by default.   You don't want your client on the same subnet...that is for sure.   Sully   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TopsailNet Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 11:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses   I have all my sB wireless devices set up with 192.168.0.x addresses. All clients connected to the wireless network either have static public addresses assigned or use DHCP to obtain a public address.   I have instructed my customers that use a DSL/Cable router to connect a network, not to use 192.168.0.x on the LAN side of their router.   Now I have a customer that insists he must use 192.168.0.x on his LAN (I won't go into his reasoning)   If I allow him to use this sub-net on his LAN, my concern is that some fat-fingered IT person will inadvertently (or intentionally) turn off NAT on his DSL/Cable router and flood my wireless network with a bunch of duplicate 192.168.0.x addresses that may bring down my wireless network.   Is this a valid concern on my part? Any voice of experience will be appreciated. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/18/2003