Standard Ethernet without the VLAN tag. One example is to support devices that do and do not support VLANs on a given network segment. Let's say in a given area, I have a dumb switch that just passes whatever frames it receives. Off of that I have a PC which requires the Ethernet to be in untagged form and a UniFi where I have local traffic untagged and additional SSIDs running on additional VLANs. A real switch has no problem with this, but the 250GS cannot have both tagged and untagged VLANs on the same interface (that serves the dumb switch referenced above). That is a limitation of the Atheros chips they are using.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:10:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers How would you have an untagged VLAN? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett < wispawirel...@ics-il.net > wrote: The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface. With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the RouterOS features, it is bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole. Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the poor implementation. Cisco, Dell and Extreme Networks (my current favorite) have almost unlimited power and granular control. They don't have some of the features of RouterOS, but teaming one of them with something running RouterOS is just as effective as using what Mikrotik supplies. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Faisal Imtiaz" < fai...@snappydsl.net > To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:54:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
