What we're (well, I am anyway) saying is that the way the WISP industry does it... is sub-optimal. The customer should be able to supply whatever device they want, be handed up to a configured maximum number of public IP addresses (specified per account), but the CPE has managed all account authorization. The customer should still be permitted to pass 1500 byte packets. The customer shouldn't have any configuration on their behalf. You know... how cable does it.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "LTI - Dennis Burgess" <gmsm...@gmail.com> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:48:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers don't know why you would let the customer equipment auth. our network all auth is done at the CPE that we control. On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Simon Westlake < 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 > > 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 -- Simon Westlake Powercode.com (920) 351-1010 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of " Learn RouterOS- Second Edition ” Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services Office : 314-735-0270 Website : http://www.linktechs.net – Skype : linktechs -- Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com – 900Mhz – LTE – 3G – 3.65 – TV Whitespace _______________________________________________ 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
