Hi,

Could you please help me understand how to set-up the following scenario:
I have RB433AH set-up as AP with PPPoE server running on wlan1 interface. Ether1 connected to the rest of the network.
I'd like to use Nanostatio5 as clients (CPE) but I'd like customer PC to use PPPoE (so Nanostations would just become simple bridge).
As far as I know Nanostation does not support station-pseudobridge mode (just station or station WDS) so it won't forward PPPoE packets in station mode.
Do I have to use WDS to achieve that (I'm a bit worried about performance when using WDS, and I'd probably need to change all existing CPEs to use WDS as well)...
Has anyone configured Nanostation as CPE working in "fully transparent" mode...?
If I use WDS - will that affect performance (I've got approx. 20 CPEs per radio, generating max. of 10Mbps traffic).

Thanks,

dyrdymal

I'd like to use Nanostatio5 as clients (CPE) but I'd like customer PC to use PPPoE (so Nanostations would just become simple bridge). As far as I know Nanostation does not support station-pseudobridge mode (just station or station WDS) so it won't forward PPPoE packets in station mode.

ANY 802.11 client that claims to support bridging as a station device is doing so using what Mikrotik refers to as "station-pseudobridge". There is no such thing as "bridge" in 802.11. With that said, there are devices on the market (I have not tested UBNT) that WILL pass pppoe traffic when they are in "bridge" mode as a station device. Have you tried it with the UBNT product? It may be better to either test that feature yourself or ask the question on Ubiquiti's forum.

Do I have to use WDS to achieve that (I'm a bit worried about performance when using WDS, and I'd probably need to change all existing CPEs to use WDS as well)...

You should be worried about WDS for this purpose (when you are running so many stations in wds).

Has anyone configured Nanostation as CPE working in "fully transparent" mode...?

There is no such thing without wds

If I use WDS - will that affect performance (I've got approx. 20 CPEs per radio, generating max. of 10Mbps traffic).

Out of curiosity, why do you NOT want the cpe (nanostation in this case) to run the pppoe client? It makes for a MUCH better solution other than when you have a customer that needs a public IP directly on their PC or their own router.

You should be worried about WDS for this purpose (when you are running so many stations in wds).

As I've never used WDS before - I thought WDS will only be big issue when connecting APs... Is it really an issue for one AP in WDS mode and 20 WDS-stations (WDS APs would be RB450G routing between these APs and the rest of the network)...?

Out of curiosity, why do you NOT want the cpe (nanostation in this case) to run the pppoe client? It makes for a MUCH better solution other than when you have a customer that needs a public IP directly on their PC or their own router.

Well - if I can run PPPoE up to customer interface (PC) I can assign just one /32 IP to a customer. If Nanostation is PPPoE client then /32 IP address is assigned to Nanostation and I'd have to waste /30 subnet for customer:

(PC eth) --- (eth NS wlan) ~~~ (wlan AP eth) --- (rest of the network)

If NS is PPPoE client then /32 is assigned to (NS wlan), one /32 to (wlan AP) segment. (PC eth) --- (eth NS) segment requires /30 subnet (I've never seen /31 being used in Mikrotik)
If PC is PPPoE client - /32 is assigned to (PC eth), /32 is assigned to (wlan AP) and I'm not wasting public /30...
All that assuming I'm assigning 1 public IP to a customer (which is the case)...

dyrdymal

As I've never used WDS before - I thought WDS will only be big issue when connecting APs... Is it really an issue for one AP in WDS mode and 20 WDS-stations (WDS APs would be RB450G routing between these APs and the rest of the network)...?

Not sure it's a "big issue", but you will have added overhead that is not needed.

Well - if I can run PPPoE up to customer interface (PC) I can assign just one /32 IP to a customer. If Nanostation is PPPoE client then /32 IP address is assigned to Nanostation and I'd have to waste /30 subnet for customer:

MOST customers will not need the public directly on their PC. Many customers want to run more than one pc in their home. If you configure the NS2/NS5 as a nat device, then the /32 is their public IP (on the cpe). I'd make bridging the cpe the exception instead of the rule.

How would you best resolve the issue when the end customer DOES need a public address?

There are several methods. You could route a /30 to them (even over their pppoe). You can set up a small subnet and not do pppoe for that client. You can do WDS station for that client. There are MANY ways to handle that scenario.

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I am setting up PPPoE for an existing WISP, any ideas why I'm seeing the issue I described here: http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=37309

I'm doing something similar to the original poster, though I have a network of Trango Broadband gear, those can only be simple ethernet bridges - no option to do PPPoE on the client radio. Though we will be rolling out some WiFi based radios with that feature.

MOST customers will not need the public directly on their PC. Many customers want to run more than one pc in their home. If you configure the NS2/NS5 as a nat device, then the /32 is their public IP (on the cpe). I'd make bridging the cpe the exception instead of the rule.

well... most of my customers will use their own indoor AP that will be doing NAT... That's why I'd like to provide /32 public IP right to the customer interface - customer's AP would use PPPoE to get the IP.
I'd love to set-up Nano to do PPPoE server but that's not possible and that's why I'd need Nano to be "transparent" and forward PPPoe requests from cusomer's AP to RouterBoard's PPPoE server at the tower...
I could use Nano's DHCP to assign public IP to client but that has at least 2 drawbacks: I'd have to waste /30 for each customer and I 'd have to assign it "statically" (can't setup nano's DHCP to use radius as far as I know). Another drawback is that Nanos don't support OSPF I'd have a lot of static routes at my AP...

I may be wrong but customer's equipment (be it PC or AP) talking PPPoE directly to my Mikrotik (via "transparent" Nano) seems to be the best solution here. What I'd have then is PPPoE server assigning /32 to customer, RADIUS for authentication and IP assignment and routing between APs at the tower and the rest of the network (and I coudl easily create separate OSPF areas per sector or per tower and summarize customer's /32 into bigger subnets (and thus avoiding crowded backbone area)...
The only problem is that I'm not sure if I can set-up Nano to be "transparent" to PPPoE traffic (I guess I need to get one to check that...)

BTW - Mikrotik in Nano's form-factor and price tag would be even better solution I can't find anything like that here I'm afraid...

I guess I don't see the problem, in my testing PPPoE worked fine through a WiFi client.