Yeah, the Airport should have detected the change (at least after a reboot) from bridge to router and changed accordingly. As you point out, it sounds like your PtMP vendor shares some of the blame as well.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 11:16:29 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Apple abandoning development of wireless routers A confluence of bugs perhaps. We usually run our SMs in NAT mode. When the airport discovers that it's getting NATted, it would default to bridge mode. This would typically overwhelm the SM's admittedly poor NAT overflow algorithm. Then for a number of reasons, we would have to switch the SM into bridge mode to handle VPN, or VoIP, or a femtocell, or whatever. The airport would stay in bridge mode, and we would end up with an additional public IPs being served from the local pool. Depending on the situation, it would overflow the local IP pool, or just be an irritant. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 11/28/2016 8:36 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: "(3) They would usually default to bridge mode, and saturate the local DHCP pool" Is this because you're not IPing your network properly? Usually this only happens if you're handing client RFC1918 addresses in which case bridging is appropriate behavior for the router. The rest I'd say are valid complaints. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 10:32:09 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Apple abandoning development of wireless routers The biggest issues for me was that (1) they were constantly changing the UI of their proprietary "airport admin" tool, (2) The Windows version was always a few revs behind (or would not work), (3) They would usually default to bridge mode, and saturate the local DHCP pool, (4) would not allow simple adjustments to channel frequencies, (5) their admin tool was proprietary, and not just a simple web server. There are probably another half dozen or so issues that I'm not recalling now. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 11/28/2016 8:13 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: <blockquote> I know some WISP's beef with them was because the WISP wasn't properly IPing their network. What other concerns are there? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> To: "Motorola III" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 10:07:21 AM Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Apple abandoning development of wireless routers Finally! There routers have caused more than their fair share of support calls. I say good riddance. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/apple-said-to-abandon-development-of-wireless-routers-ivs0ssec -- bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> </blockquote>
