I like to assign a /24 to each access point to cover all of the IP addresses needed for customers and CPE radios. No need to have public IP addresses on a CPE. So if you use publics for customers, you have to setup another subnet of privates for the CPE radios. More complexity. If you do publics, that means a minimum of two IPs on each end user subnet. That is kind of a waste.
PPPoE is another point of failure and complexity both at the core and at the customer. No desire to go there. Plus, if someone wants a public IP for their gaming or VPN or security system, I charge an extra $9.95/month for it. More cheddar! Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:55:05 -0600, Sam Tetherow <tethe...@shwisp.net> wrote: > You can do all the routing magic with PPPoE (has it's own cost). Or > with dynamic routing (OSPF and BGP). > > You can easily firewall the customers so they look just like a NATed IP > (basically drop all !related !established traffic). > > I give publics because I got tired of users complaining about strict NAT > on their gaming consoles and issues with crappy VPNs. > > Also go tired of managing 1-1 NATs for the ever growing list of > customers with security cameras, remote light controls and other home > automation/security products. It still boggles my mind that I have > customers that have home security systems and cameras installed, but > they don't lock their doors. > > > > > On 12/31/2013 02:09 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists 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 <mailto:mhop...@indigowireless.com> >>> *Sent:* Monday, December 30, 2013 8:34 PM >>> *To:* WISPA General List <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >>> *Cc:* WISPA General List <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >>> *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 >>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
