Yeah.. that's the solution most WISPs are forced into. Would sure be nice to do it without NAT.

On 10/19/2012 1:58 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
I have all of that now.  I NAT the CPE.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Simon Westlake <si...@powercode.com <mailto:si...@powercode.com>> wrote:

    I pretty much say 'meh' to that. What it really means is that a
    smart person can probably quickly find a way to exploit your
    network because everyone is reinventing the wheel and making a lot
    of mistakes doing it.

    I get what you're saying but I don't agree that it is a good
    reason for lack of standardization. Imagine how nice it would be
    if you could just hook up an SM and have the following things happen:

    Customer plugs in any device and it just works (no calling you to
    have you help configure PPPoE, authorize their new MAC)
    Customer loops their network and it doesn't break stuff beyond the SM
    Customer can't do stuff beyond the SM even though it's not running
    NAT (e.g. ARP poisoning)
    Rate limiting, etc, is standardized in the SM

    This is a small subset what you get with a cable modem, and a
    cable modem is not a (at a high level) complicated or expensive
    device.


    On 10/19/2012 1:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
    The opposite of convenience and standardization.  You do things
    your way, I do things my way, another guy does things his way -
    makes it hard to jump from network to network from a white hat or
    black hat perspective.

    Josh Luthman
    Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
    Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
    1100 Wayne St
    Suite 1337
    Troy, OH 45373


    On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Simon Westlake
    <si...@powercode.com <mailto:si...@powercode.com>> wrote:

        What builds security?


        On 10/19/2012 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
        It does build a security, though.  Security =
        1/convenience*0.72

        Josh Luthman
        Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
        Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
        1100 Wayne St
        Suite 1337
        Troy, OH 45373


        On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Simon Westlake
        <si...@powercode.com <mailto:si...@powercode.com>> wrote:

            Mike,

            I completely agree and I think it is a goal the WISP
            industry needs to
            work towards - the provisioning of CPE is still a
            nightmare in
            comparison to DOCSIS. PPPoE is not a good solution, IMO
            - it's arguably
            better than nothing but you shouldn't have to rely on
            the customer
            supplied equipment being configured correctly to just
            auth to the
            network - that's the job of the ISP CPE.

            It's not even that hard of a problem to solve in the
            grand scheme of things.

            On 10/13/2012 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
            > 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
            <mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>>
            > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org
            <mailto: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 <tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232>
            > Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 <tel:305%20663%205518> option 2
            Email: supp...@snappydsl.net <mailto: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
            <mailto:sr...@nwwnet.net>>
            >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org
            <mailto: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 <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
            > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
            > _______________________________________________
            > Wireless mailing list
            > Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
            > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

            --
            Simon Westlake
            Powercode.com
            (920) 351-1010 <tel:%28920%29%20351-1010>




            _______________________________________________
            Wireless mailing list
            Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
            http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




        _______________________________________________
        Wireless mailing list
        Wireless@wispa.org  <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
        http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

-- Simon Westlake
        Powercode.com
        (920) 351-1010  <tel:%28920%29%20351-1010>




        _______________________________________________
        Wireless mailing list
        Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
        http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




    _______________________________________________
    Wireless mailing list
    Wireless@wispa.org  <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
    http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

-- Simon Westlake
    Powercode.com
    (920) 351-1010  <tel:%28920%29%20351-1010>




    _______________________________________________
    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

--
Simon Westlake
Powercode.com
(920) 351-1010



_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Reply via email to