This is suddenly looking more attractive. I was going to persue routing each
customer and providing a subnet of IP addresses to each one. I think I'll
experiment with pppoe and see how it works out.

Thanks for the info.
Roger

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Colin Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue


> Because everything is tunneled over the PPP connection. Each client
connects
> via a dedicated tunnel to the PPP Server, which performs all the requests
on
> teh clients behalf (for instance answering ARP requests - Proxy ARP's).
It's
> better to visualise a PPP session as a link between the customer and the
PPP
> Server, as opposed to the current way which is the Customer --> Access
Point
> then ---> NOC/Shaping system. To illustrate:
>
>
> Customer PC<=============================>ROUTER (Logical Layout in PPP)
> Customer PC<----->CPE<---->AP<---->SWITCH<---->ROUTER (Physical Layout)
>
> Because *All* client traffic is *forced* down the PPP tunnel (ICMP, et
al),
> you have full control over what your customers can and cannot do. For
> instance, when they reach the PPP Server (Access Concentrator) - All
Netbios
> (Windows File & Printer Sharing) can be blocked, all ICMP traffic could be
> blocked (if you wanted), All packets can be shaped so the customer can
only
> transmit/receive at the alloted bandwidth, you can also block virus
> prolifiration ports. If you are running a pure Layer 2 Network (I.e. teh
> only router is at your NOC), then this would be ideal because each client
> that connects will go through the PPPoE server at the NOC. Think of it as
a
> transparent proxy server, Basically thats what it is. PPP is NOT IP
traffic,
> PPP is an encapsulation protocol (like a bucket which you can fill with
many
> things).
>
> Just for your info, 99.9% of routers support PPPoE, - Most DSL ISP's use
> PPPoE or PPPoA for authenticaing and controlling their customers. Because
> you have a fixed point which concentrates access, you have a high degree
of
> control over your network. Also, you can 'share' a PPPoE connection via
> Windows ICS - negating the need for cheapskates who don't want to buy a
> router.
>
> Regards
>
> Colin
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue
>
>
> > How can PPPoE stop a client from sending out ICMP echo requests? If the
> > traffic gets dropped at the NOC queue then that customer can still tie
up
> > all the air time of the access point and bring the wireless side of the
> > network to it's knees. It keeps pinging whether it gets a response or
not,
> > whether the packets are dropped somewhere or not.
> >
> > I am looking into using PPPoE, I might set this up yet.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roger
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Colin Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue
> >
> >
> > > Or, C) Use PPPoE :)
> > >
> > > PPPoE overcomes all these problems, it also ensures you remove IP
> traffic
> > > from your client <-> AP wireless link (You tunnel everything over
PPP).
> > > Basically, if you use PPP you get to control the entire connection,
from
> > the
> > > IP leasing (So the user hasn't gotta configure anything, cept press
> > > Next->Next->Next), dns servers, and netmask. In addition you get all
the
> > > logging functionality (if you auth to a radius server). The other (and
> the
> > > one I imagine you are most interested) is the ability to traffic
limit.
> > > Because all traffic *has* to go through the PPP Tunnel, your client
can
> > only
> > > receive teh bandwidth you have designated him/her. So if one of the
> > buggers
> > > contracts a nasty strain of MSBLaST, and are paying for a 128/128
> > > connection, then they will only be able to spew traffic out at 128K -
no
> > > more, because the rest will get dropped at the NOC's queue. Also, it
> means
> > > clients can communicate with each other, even when Interlcient
> > communication
> > > is disabled - but only at the bandwidth they are paying for - So no
one
> > can
> > > hog all the air bandwidth - Really is a fantastic System :)
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Colin.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Roger Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 5:04 AM
> > > Subject: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue
> > >
> > >
> > > > One of the problems I seem to be facing frequently these days is
that
> a
> > > > single customer can get a virus and generate tremendous amounts of
> > > traffic,
> > > > which brings the whole network to a crawl. Normally bandwidth
shaping
> at
> > > the
> > > > NOC will limit the amount the customer can transmit, due to the
> > > Transmission
> > > > Control Protocol part of TCP/IP. But if it is something like the
> > > Nachi.worm
> > > > it is ping packets which do not have transmission control and can be
> > > spewed
> > > > out at tremendous rates that no bandwidth shaper can control. So
> what's
> > > the
> > > > solution to stop these slowdowns and outages caused by these
viruses?
> > > >
> > > > A) Reduce the customer's functionality by insisting they use a
router
> or
> > > > firewall.
> > > > B) Have bandwidth shaping at the CPE.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I prefer B.... but that seems to be expensive, usually.
> > > > Smartbridges, it might be something you can include in your Nexus
> > product?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Roger
> > > >
> > > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
> > > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe
> > > smartBridges <yournickname>
> > > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe
> > > smartBridges)
> > > > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
> > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe
> > smartBridges <yournickname>
> > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe
> > smartBridges)
> > > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
> >
> > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
> > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe
> smartBridges <yournickname>
> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe
> smartBridges)
> > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe
smartBridges <yournickname>
> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe
smartBridges)
> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org

The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges 
<yournickname>
To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges)
Archives: http://archives.part-15.org  

Reply via email to