OK, going to jump into the fray now for my $0.02 worth :)
On the Ubicom based devices (KarlNet KN50, et al), it's a nice device,
seems rugged enough environmentally, but does lack SNMP - which I agree is
a weakness.
On the DHCP/NAT functionality, what we do is:
We provide the wireless->ethernet bridge CPE for the customer and
lease/rent them the device for little-to-nothing per month. For those
interested, we use CB3's and WET11's as AP clients, and just getting
started on the TurboCell Ubicom devices (which I like and look forward to
Charles making good on his sub $250 integrated antenna and bridge in the
next week! :).
We require the customer to purchase (buy from us just above cost or
supply) a hardware router/NAT gateway box for all broadband connections.
We recommend Linksys, and offer to support and maintain Linksys devices in
the way of firmware upgrades for free if they choose (and most do), but
require the administration password of course. If they supply the device
(other than Linksys), we won't support or maintain it. Otherwise, we
charge minimal install fees, with the customer paying for "consumables"
such as antenna mounts, cable, staples, screws and whatnot - including
lightning arrestors where applicable. We lease the electronic "smarts"
for a minimal monthly fee.
This way, the NAT/DHCP functionality can be maintained, managed, and
configured separately from the device responsible for connecting to our
network - which we want complete control over. If they wish us to
maintain the gateway, fine - we happily do so. If they wish to maintain
it, that's fine too - but they do so at their own risk.
So, even though this is quite a bit different that a lot of you have
expressed, I personally don't care so much about DHCP and NAT
functionality as I do about consistency in management and supporting
equipment. SNMP support would be a step toward allowing the Ubicom
devices to be maintained in the same (or similar) way that the other
devices are, and that would be a definite plus.
I know that cost is also a factor, and integrating it into the same
hardware unit would be a cost savings, and I have not personally worked
with KarlNet's NAT/DHCP functions, but be separating the two it allows
each device to be as powerful and flexible as possible.
Brad
> Same complaint here, I would like to see that added prior to dhcp, etc.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Metcalf" <dan.metcalf@wbsysnet.com>
> To: "'Karlnet Mailing List'" <karlnet@wispnotes.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:31 AM
> Subject: RE: [Karlnet] Reduction of Karlnet features w/out notification.
>
>
>> The kn50 is a simple bridge that CAN NOT BE MANAGED VIA SNMP (IMO - my
>> biggest complaint)
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Karlnet mailing list
> Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
> http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet
>
_______________________________________________
Karlnet mailing list
Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet
|