To each their own, especially if they can get an extra $9.95 out of it ;) I run CPE as router so only 1 IP per customer, traffic DMZed to customer router.
I agree on PPPoE but I haven't tried it in a long time so it may work better now that I'm not using CB3s and 802.11b (I did say it was a long time ago :) On 12/31/2013 03:03 PM, li...@manageisp.com wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
