Feedback on 8.1.5 regarding NAT

Has anyone done some testing of 8.1.5 with NAT clients? If so, can you share your findings?

The bitter experience i had with 8.1.4 made we very wary of an upgrade.


We’ve got several 8.1.5 SMs using NAT. Other than a few small issues right after the upgrade (some users had to ipconfig /release, /renew) we haven’t had any problems.

Thanks for the feedback.

Is DFS still enabled by default on ?

Dynamic Frequency Selection? We’re running 2.4GHz and 900MHz modules, so in our case it doesn’t apply.

THanks WiFiGuy.

Is anyone else running on 5.4?

I’m still holding off on, because the NAT issue is acknowledged in the release notes, and we rely heavily on the NAT feature. I’m glad that it has been recognized as an issue, though. (we’re running 900MHz.)

We have 95% of our network running 8.1.5 and about 10% of those run NAT. We have monitoted those customers carefully to get feedback, etc.
We started with one tower and slowly add more as we became more confident.

We have seen the reset issue referenced in the docs on two radios only and only a couple times on each. Not enough to have customers notice a problem.

So far, other than the obvious need to improve some user interface issues, we are very happy with the upgrade


Good to hear some feedback on that issue, thanks!

I’ll see if I can go ahead and wedge some testing time into the schedule…


What advantages did you see from upgrading to as opposed to running 7.3.6?


Actually, just a couple things we saw an immediate use for. While we are in the process of rolling out Mikrotik routers to each tower which will help with broadcast/worms, that will take us some time.

The SM isolation feature on 8.x helps with some of that.

Also, the port forwarding feature makes NAT alot more useful.

Those are the two things that come to mind


Sort of hijacking this thread…

Anyone running on backhauls? Any problems? Any improvements?

I am testing on a 900AP with 6ea SM’s, one of which is mine. Seems to be an improvement in response and throughput but that might be wishful thinking.

We are only running NAT on a few SM’s but not on this AP so I can’t comment on that.

We’re running on a PTP100 BHM/BHS - latency improved, throughput is about the same. We’re running 1x mode.

The APs/SMs we did update to seemed to show some signs of improvement, although I agree it may be just what I want to believe. 8)