We are used to using the FSK stuff where:
* We have an internal management IP address on the unit
* We enable NAT, and configure a DHCP server on a network that is not the same as the management IP
* Configure the DHCP server on the SM to hand out IP’s in this defined range.
On the PMP 320 stuff this does not seem possible. It appears that the DHCP server has to use the same IP network as the LAN/management IP address. Is there not a way to have a completely separate management interface when using NAT mode? I would expect to put the management IP of the SM as the “LAN IP,” and then be able to define a new DHCP gateway interface separately like all of the other Motorola gear.
So, basically…the WAN IP becomes the management IP. There is no separate management interface in NAT mode on these. How do people keep track of them if they are handing out DHCP to the WAN?
We use our SMs in bridge mode but still have DHCP for the management interface. Static reservations for everything so that an IP is always known and always consistent. Also, if a rogue radio connects, it will never get an address.
Have you looked at what the manual calls L2NAT mode? It alludes to a separate VLAN for management as well as NAT going out the air interface.
Ah, so you make static reservations just for management? Do you have another router/device that you manage behind the SM since you are doing bridge mode? I did read the manual, like 30 times. When NAT mode is enabled, you can specify a separate VLAN for management, but there isn’t a way to configure a separate IP on this VLAN from what I am reading - which seems to make this feature useless? Maybe I’m missing something.
If NAT mode is enabled, the WAN IP (in our case, a public IP assigned via DHCP) becomes the management IP of the device. This is unlike the FSK stuff, where we would have the ability to assign a separate/private MANAGEMENT IP in addition to the WAN IP that the SM receives via DHCP.
I just wish Motorola/Cambium would have used the same design with the PMP 320 stuff… but like I said, maybe I’m missing something.
Ah, I see what your issue is now. I’m not very familiar with NAT at all - we bridge the SM and just dump it into a customer-owned router or PC. I only briefly saw the management VLAN mentioned while I was scanning for some other information on VLANs to get around a different problem and assumed that if you stuck in multiple VLANs you could give it multiple IPs…
+1 on keeping design similar. I’m really surprised how many steps backwards PMP320 is. The APs are basically useless for looking at statistics or finding a subscriber. The SMs are like magic black boxes that don’t behave normally at all… in bridge mode you can’t even tell that the things even HAVE an Ethernet port, let alone check whether or not the customer has something plugged in…
Sorry to rant. I feel your pain. Good luck figuring out a solution.
I completely agree. The PMP 320 series stuff took a serious step back in functionality compared to the FSK stuff. Very frustrating.
Im in the same boat, public ip pool for wan private pool for management and a standard password protected lan interface … realllllllly want the management interface on the wimax… a in sync count would be nice along with some sort of link efficiency test… i dont even care about measuring speed just something to show the effectiveness of the link…