I would like to see the SM be able to Give out a routable IPs or multiple routable IPs to what ever device is plugged into the SM ethernet port. and also still be a bridge NO NAT., This way it gives the network admin full control of the IPs, We have problems every now and then, that users replace equipment and use the incorrect IP.,
:roll:
This would require keeping the wired interface separate from the wireless interface. Otherwise you would have every SM acting as a DHCP server that can see the enitre network - causing major problems.
Aaron
Why not leave this to a DHCP server? I’m not sure I follow the reasoning. Can you explain further?
I agree. Set up the SM with it’s own management address, leave it as a bridge, and use a central DHCP server.
Aaron
acherman wrote: I agree. Set up the SM with it's own management address, leave it as a bridge, and use a central DHCP server.
Aaron
I have one application where all of my Canopy equipment is on a 10.x.x.x
subnet so that it can be completely seperate from the main network.
Because there's no easy way for me to get to my equipment via the
regular network, I keep an SM on the roof that I can plug in at any time
to log into the network.
My PC here logs into a DHCP server, but the server isn't on the 10.x.x.x
subnet so I have to manually configure an IP for my desktop.
That would be my reason for liking DHCP from the SM.
Can’t you just setup some static routes on a router and log into your 10.0.0.0 network that way? Our Canopy radios are all on the 192.168.0.0/24 network. Our SM at the office terminates into a Cisco 1605R which has two 10 Mbps Ethernet ports. One port goes to the SM, and the other goes to the office switches. The ethernet-0 interface is configured with one of our routable addresses, and ethernet-1 is 192.168.1.1/24. Obviously we are using NAT.
The way I get to the Canopy radio network from the office LAN (going from 192.168.1.0/24 to 192.168.0.0/24) is via a static route in the Cisco.
ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 ethernet0
Another way to accomplish this would be to assign a secondary IP address on the 192.168.0.0/24 Canopy network to the ethernet-0 interface. When that is done, a route is automatically added to the Cisco routing table since the Canopy network would be detected as being directly connected. That could get kind of messy with NAT being overloaded, but I think it would work.
Before I purchased the Cisco we were using a Linksys. The static routing on that never worked for me. I think it’s because when you add a static route, you have to specify a default gateway for the route, and I don’t have a router controlling the Canopy radio network. With the Cisco, you can simply tell it which interface to route the packet to and it will work. When we were using the Linksys, I had to either terminate the SM directly into my machine to get to the Canopy network, or plug into our managed switch where the backhaul terminates and get to the Canopy network that way.
I have my own Canopy network that terminates here, on the 10.0.0.0 subnet, I have a dedicated NIC for that. I also have our internal network on the 192.168.0.0 subnet and I have a dedicated NIC for that. Then I have a few private customer (172.26.0.0 and 10.12.0.0 for example) that use our microwave network between facilities. I have them segregated on the backbone using VLANs, all of which I have routed back here to another NIC. I just reconfigure the VID for the port on my switch to link me to which ever network I need to look at and configure my NIC. It is a little convoluted but it works for me.
I may play around with building some static routes using my router. I use m0n0wall for a router so I can have 1 physical interface with multiple logical interfaces (VLANs) with their own individual addresses for access. Therefore, I can access many different subnets via my m0n0 and a VLAN aware switch.
LAN <-- 192.168.0.0 --> m0n0wall <-- VIDs/Subnets --> switch <-- subnets
Aaron