Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The WISP industry makes it difficult to do so. Currently everything I do is NATed at the CPE, but I'd like to make that optional, not a requirement. Obviously for enterprise\wholesale level connections I do something different, but there's too many hands involved to do that for residential at this time.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappydsl.net> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:51:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers While this is your opinion, others have a different opinion... For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list. As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new firmware . As far as NAT is concerned, it has it's place. Regards. 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: > I want to see the removal of doing anything other than DHCP to the client's > device. The CPE radio pulls it's rate-shaping information from RADIUS and > allows any number of DHCP clients on a per-CPE basis to pull a public IP. > > An ISP doing NAT is just silly. > > > > ----- > 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 8:16:43 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers > > > NAT at the at a couple of towers, but not at the CPE. > > > On 10/11/2012 6:52 PM, Sam Tetherow 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? > > 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 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
