 RhaasPremium
join:2005-12-19
Bernie, MO | reply to treichhart
Re: What software do you use to manage your connection speeds? Currently we use Mikrotik & PPPoE with the simple queues set through the radius attributes - A number of routers are also able to do this as well.
I can see setting the speeds on the CPE being a good option as long as you are fairly small. I can't see that scaling well though.
A few years back we increased speed across the board for our lowest tiered customers from 512k to 768k. At that time I think we were at ~1k customers (100+ wireless, mostly DSL). I couldn't imagine having to log into 100+ radios and changing their speed tiers.. I simply changed one setting in the radius DB and was done.
PPPoE brings it's own set of issues to the table though. |
|
| said by Rhaas:I couldn't imagine having to log into 100+ radios and changing their speed tiers. PPPoE brings it's own set of issues to the table though. But how often would a WISP want to make such system wide CPE changes?
Some people will swear by PPoE and others will say WISPs use it because they don't know how to use anything else. Some people say it has its own problems, some say they never have a problem. |
|
|
|
RhaasPremium
join:2005-12-19
Bernie, MO | Obviously we had to at least once. Same with having to re-number our entire network (seeing this one coming again in the near future as we will be multi-homing and getting a /20 from arin). On wireless we don't see customers jumping around on speed tiers very often, but on the DSL side we probably do 2-3 changes daily but that is also 250+ customers vs 1400+ customers.
You are right though a network wide change is not often, but at what point do you say that you need something more centralized than doing it on the CPE - 50? 100? 500? 1k?. At some point management at the CPE is too time consuming (or too complex for your average installer) and or a record keeping nightmare. Same goes for using static IP's on the CPE. At a small scale though handling everything at the CPE is a viable solution, the 'breaking' point where management takes priority over finer granular control is different for everyone, for me it was at about 100 wireless and 600 dsl customers. At that time we were still doing Static & DHCP to *all* of our customers - DSL & wireless. All the control was done at the core routers by IP. If a customer wanted a different speed tier then they were assigned a static IP and a different set of policing policies were assigned to that IP.. Keeping track of who had what, where was just too much.
Again though, I'm not 'downing' the use of throttling - or anything else at the CPE - there is a clear advantage of doing so as you have much more definite granular control per customer. The big downside I see (with most CPE) is being able to scale such a system, keep it in order and to keep it simple enough that you can easily train someone who has 0 networking background to be able to handle even simple changes.
It's not hard to design a system such as I have that allows my CSR's to handle non-pays, disconnects and speed tier changes all from a web interface. Which in turn is all handled through radius & pppoe. The CSR's do not need to know anything about the customers equipment, all they need is the customers telephone number or name to look their account up.
PPPoE is not the end all solution, I have had my share of headaches with it. MTU issues have been a thorn in my side and one of the biggest issues I've had with Mikrotik. |
|
| said by Rhaas:allows my CSR's to handle non-pays, disconnects and speed tier changes all from a web interface. Which in turn is all handled through radius & pppoe. The CSR's do not need to know anything about the customers equipment, all they need is the customers telephone number or name to look their account up. I could not have said it better. That was exactly I had in mind when I said some people find it easier. i was having a discussion about that a few eeeks ago and the other WISP owner said he has it set up such that even the front desk receptionist can make changes with very little training. |
|
