The main reason I was asking about MPLS is that it looks pretty easy to extract the data, and I've seen a bunch of people on the WISP Talk FB group complaining about having to de-encapsulate before they pass things through Preseem. Where I could see that being most useful is if you have a shaper at a tower (rather than just the one), and want to shape your backhaul directly. I'll keep it on the "things to play with" list. :-) We ran MPLS/VPLS for a while; we were pretty surprised when our network sped up a lot when it was removed! (Routers got really good at routing, and it's often faster than parsing a label these days). It also made it easier for the other techs to diagnose faults, MPLS never seemed to "click" for them. On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:15 PM Robert Chacón < robert.chacon@jackrabbitwireless.com> wrote: > We use MPLS (VPLS tunnels back to core) with L2 isolation and DHCP > snooping everywhere. > It decapsulates at our core so we don't need MPLS parsing for LibreQoS in > our case. > It works well and minimizes the number of RFC6598 CG-NAT clients behind > public addresses. > I'd prefer simple routing, but with IPv4 exhaustion - that would lead to a > lot of unused RFC6598 addresses (and hence high CG-NAT ratios). > Many clients on one CG-NAT address leads to a lot of problems with > services like Amazon Prime. > I'm hopeful we can switch to VXLAN as Dan suggested. It could be a great > alternative to VPLS/MPLS. > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:49 AM dan via LibreQoS < > libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> MPLS is great for those that have dedicated engineering staff or hire a >> consultant to help out. It's a real PITA when the business is primarily >> techs and they have no idea how to solve an issue. I've been pushing for >> vxlan/evpn or srv6 for a while as a way to simplify the model. 'wisp' >> focused gear just isn't there yet though. high hopes for mikrotik's >> support for vxlan to get hardware acceleration. >> >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:05 AM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS < >> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >> >>> Actually had a conversation with our primary upstream provider yesterday >>> about IPv6 (and why >>> they won't provide it to us). One of their lead engineers, once plied >>> with beer, said that every >>> time they've deployed it they get 99% of it working well and 1% of >>> things mysteriously >>> stop working, or go wonky. That was similar to our experience a few >>> years ago. It mostly >>> helped a lot, but chasing down the "hey, this advertises a v6 address >>> and doesn't actually >>> support it" issues drove us crazy. >>> >>> Right now, we don't have enough IPv4 addresses, but that's being >>> rectified. We mostly >>> do CGNAT and 10.64 addresses in the meantime, with public IPs assigned >>> where they >>> are needed (mostly through a tunnel setup to avoid subnetting waste). >>> Tunnels are a pain, >>> but they work (once you chase down all of the MTU issues). >>> >>> Which reminds me, I have "can we support MPLS?" on my crazy notes list. >>> I know that >>> Preseem and similar don't try, but we're already reading deeply enough >>> into the ethernet >>> header that saying "this is an MPLS label, advance 4 bytes", "this is a >>> VPLS label, advance >>> X (I forget) bytes" looks do-able. [Note, I personally don't enjoy MPLS. >>> It's handy when >>> you want to pretend to have a flat network on top of a large routed >>> network - and some >>> WISP consultants absolutely swear by it - but my experience is that you >>> are adding >>> complexity for the sake of it. Routing works remarkably well.] >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS < >>> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>> >>>> in my continued rip-van-winkle, living in the third world (california) >>>> way, I am curious as to how y'all are managing your >>>> ipv4 address supply and if you are deploying ipv6 to any extent? >>>> >>>> In all this discussion of multi-gbit fiber, my own direct experience >>>> is that AT&T's fiber rollout had very flaky ipv6, and more and more >>>> services (like starlink) are appearing behind cgnats, which have their >>>> own capex and opex costs. >>>> >>>> I see a lot of rfc1918 being used as the operational overlay >>>> elsewhere, tons of tunnels, also. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: >>>> >>>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz >>>> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LibreQoS mailing list >>>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LibreQoS mailing list >>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> LibreQoS mailing list >> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos >> > > > -- > Robert Chacón > CEO | JackRabbit Wireless LLC >