MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard) Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense.... Every Mfg. has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you try to use them out of that range they fall flat..
Care to put a context to your statement ? :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 10/12/2012 10:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > All MT switching is junk. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Reed" <sr...@nwwnet.net> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18:25 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers > > > MT has several devices with hardware switches on board and fully accessible > through the GUI. They also have a switch sort of based on ROS. > > On 10/11/2012 8:35 PM, Fred Goldstein 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 > _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
