How about just assign the public to the CPE? Then NAT at the CPE to the customer - only one IP.
On Dec 31, 2013, at 16:32, Sam Tetherow <tethe...@shwisp.net> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
