Private IPs are only easier to manage if you don't have proper BGP setup. If you do it's trivial to move between carriers.
Plus running publics allows the customer to run VoIP and game systems without issue. Don't put the customers computer on the public. Just their router. We do a 1:1 NaT at the CPE. This keeps the customer computer off the Internet and off our network. In this day you'd be crazy not to have public IPs on customers. But that just my opinion. If privates work for you I guess keep doing it. On Dec 31, 2013, at 15:09, Matt Larsen - Lists <li...@manageisp.com> wrote: > Why would you give customers a public IP? That is nuts as far as I am > concerned. Private IPs are easier to manage across multiple towers, you can > setup routing properly so that subnets are completely separate for each AP, > you can pick and choose how and where to route edge traffic to multiple > backbone providers, you can move between backbone providers without having to > re-ip all customers, customers are not exposed to external virus traffic... > > I mean I could go on and on about why carrier-NAT is awesome. I see no > reason to mess with public IPs unless forced to. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > On 12/31/2013 12:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> Your customers don't get a public IP? >> >> I'll never understand why people do this. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> From: "Matt Larsen - Lists" <li...@manageisp.com> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:09:48 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography >> >> This last year, we finished "unification" of all our rate plans so that we >> would have consistency across our network. At this time last year, we had >> several plans that had overlap and different sets of services as part of the >> plans. For example, a 2meg plan for $49.95/month that included dialup and a >> public IP address sold next to a $49.95/month 4meg plan that did not have >> the dialup or public IP. Most of the customers did not use public IP >> addresses or dialup, and we were starting to get 2meg customers complaining >> about the 4meg plan on our website that was 2x the speed for the same price. >> At the same time, we still had a lot of 384k and 640k plans with people >> who were complaining about YouTube not working, but they were reluctant to >> upgrade to the next package because our prices were not as competitive on >> the lower end with the 1.5meg dsl bundles. >> >> What we ended up doing was this: >> >> 1) Replace the 384k and 640k plans with 1meg and 1.5meg speeds at the >> same prices >> 2) Bump up all existing 1meg and 2meg customers to 2meg and 3meg speeds >> for the same prices >> 3) Eliminate public IP addresses being included with plans, made them a >> separate monthly charge and adjusted customers to have a new speed package >> with the public IP added to it >> 4) Later in the year we established a maintenance fee package that was >> automatically added to each customer account, but customers were given the >> choice of opting out of the plan >> >> After doing all of this, we ended up having a much more competitive service >> on the low end, fewer customer complaints about YouTube and >> other sites from low end customers, and our revenue went up - mostly because >> of the addition of the maintenance package. Any plan inconsistencies >> between customers and areas were also resolved. >> >> The toughest part of this plan was the pre-planning that was involved to >> make it happen. We did a ton of customer data cleanup and plan adjustment >> over the summer, but that was work that needed to be done anyway because of >> a lot of random, nonstandard plan changes that employees had been doing as >> shortcuts. We also had to take a really strong look at oversub ratios on >> our access points and what the resulting oversub ratios would be with the >> plan changes, since the ratios would generally double. In doing so, we >> identified a bunch of places where we needed to add capacity or just needed >> to move higher bandwidth customers to other access points. There were a >> lot of radio swaps and service calls involved in that process, but the end >> result was better network performance and higher customer satisfaction. >> >> We set a 4:1 bandwidth ratio as our preferred point of upgrade on access >> points - meaning we can sell 40meg of customers plans on an AP >> that has approximately 10meg of capacity (such as a 2.4ghz 802.11g on 10mhz >> channel). When the process started, we had about 27 APs that would have >> been overloaded with the new plans. As of today, we have eight APs that >> are over 4:1, and six of those are just barely over. When it comes to the >> speeds that we offer in any particular area, we decided to make all speeds >> available, as long as the oversell ratio on the access point was not >> exceeded. >> >> Going into next year, my plan is to replace all of our remaining StarOS >> access points with either Airmax or Mikrotik, swap out as many old Tranzeo >> radios as possible and add sectors and microcells in places where capacity >> starts to get overloaded. I am not looking forward to the pricetag on this >> work, but it is the right thing to do and it will keep us competitive for >> the next few years. >> >> Happy New Year everyone, and have a great 2014! >> >> Matt Larsen >> Vistabeam.com >> >> On 12/31/2013 8:19 AM, heith petersen wrote: >> I assume the same would apply if you introduce new plans to existing >> customers as well? I assume customers that cannot get that service will beat >> on you to make some sort of change to get it to them, like >> a closer site. >> >> From: Matt Hoppes >> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 8:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Cc: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography >> >> What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't >> get at least the package you want we don't install you. >> >> On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, "heith petersen" <wi...@mncomm.com> wrote: >> >> We are getting to the point in a lot of our >> markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some >> markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able >> to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are >> offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And >> if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is >> it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another >> tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we >> just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down >> via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat >> in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only >> satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT >> M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a >> dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for >> not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more >> bandwidth. >> >> I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they >> claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding >> more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT >> to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was >> offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per >> month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to >> charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The >> bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically >> performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged >> satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and >> start the vicious circle all over again LOL. >> >> thanks >> heith >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
