That's painfully stupid. What a worthless device. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Mike Hammett <wispawirel...@ics-il.net>wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
