At 10/11/2012 06:52 PM, SamT wrote:
Not sure I under stand the no-NAT, so every device on the other side
of the CPE has it's own public IP?
There could be one NAT, at the access point.
My taste, which to be sure I haven't tested at scale in a wireless
network (but plan to), is to follow what is becoming standard
wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at "layer
2". Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage.
The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT
and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set
up in the UI, even if it's possible. Bridging is bad -- it was
designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to
everyone. We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it
doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP
nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level
was 400 kbps. This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991. I was
testing ISDN bridges and "discovered" how you can't just bridge that
type of network across a 56k connection. (I discovered the traffic
when I first turned up the bridge. I ended up isolating it behind a
router, built from an old VAX. At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.)
Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier
Ethernet is the big thing for fiber. It uses the VLAN tag to
identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed
along. Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS
assigned. I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports,
route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do
it all. Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more
isolation and privacy than plain routing. Mesh routing then works at
that layer, transparent to IP. It'll be "interesting" to set up.
On 10/11/2012 4:53 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
We run MT, not UBNT, CPE, but it doesn't matter what brand it
is. We run them in as routers, but do not NAT. Same benefits
others mentioned for routing, just one fewer NAT. Never have a
problem with it this way and can't see any good reason to NAT there.
On 10/11/2012 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephens wrote:
We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and assign a ip
address to the customers router.
He have heard other wisp are using the Ubiquiti radio as a router.
Would like feed back why one would do this when it appears
customers would be double natted when they hook up their routers?
Or does it not matter from the customer experience?
Thanks
--
Arthur Stephens
Senior Sales Technician
Ptera Wireless Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
509-927-7837
For technical support visit
<http://www.ptera.net/support>http://www.ptera.net/support
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety
information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was
originally addressed.
Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any
views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and are not intended to represent those of the company."
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
Mikrotik Advanced Certified
<http://www.nwwnet.net>www.nwwnet.net
(765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
