Not to add an advertisement but Level 2 networking is one of the topics that we plan to hit on at WISPAPOLOOZA in the Technical Knowledge Exchange at 4:00 on Thursday the 25th. That is one of the point Gino wanted to bring up. I will be moderating so if someone has other important Technical questions that might be a good session or the Technical Round table Tuesday evening from 7:45 till we go to bed. Hope to see you all there.
Steve Barnes General Manager PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi<http://www.rcwifi.com/> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dustin Jurman Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:52 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers Hey Fred, we did exactly that with our Hardee County Network, we use licensed links between MEF switches. Rapid deployment with fiber forward design. I think we have been through all configurations, bridging, routing and layer2 switching. You could not hit the nail on the head any better here. The advantages of this type of design include scaleability, performance and reduced opex. DSJ Dustin Jurman C.E.O Rapid Systems Corporation 1211 North Westshore BLVD suite 711 Tampa, Fl 33607 "Building Better Infrastructure" On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:35 PM, "Fred Goldstein" <fgoldst...@ionary.com<mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>> wrote: 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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 Wireless@wispa.org<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://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 www.nwwnet.net<http://www.nwwnet.net> (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com<http://ionary.com> ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
