Open Letter to all manufacturers with IP interfaces

[WNTIRadio]

Dear All Manufacturers:

When you so nicely include a very handy, convenient and versatile IP interface, please include a way to change the port that said interface uses. I have 4 devices here that all use port 80 for HTTP. That leaves 3 devices to set up port/IP translation in a Cisco router, and if you have ever used a Cisco router, you know what a giant pain in the neck that is. If we were all able to specify a port, I would already be done in the time it took me to type this.

Thank you,

Every engineer/ops person who has ever set up equipment with IP interfaces.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Agreed. With that being said, it might be that the type of router you're using would be easier to change than to get manufactures to "do the right thing". Sometimes it's about being a cameleon and adjusting to one's limitations placed there by others. In our industry, it's more about that anymore than much else. Every day I'm thown a new way something has changed and doesn't play nice with something else. It's our "job", among other things, to make all the crap work together...

 

[landtuna]

Every day I'm thown a new way something has changed and doesn't play nice with something else. It's our "job", among other things, to make all the crap work together...

When I broke into what we now call IT 40+ years ago we spent most of our time building systems that had a direct payback to those who employed us. As time passed we spent more and more of our time building interfaces between products, both software and hardware, and less and less designing software for a specific business purpose.

Ten years ago, after a decade of dealing with the flimsy crap software of the major PC and server industries, I said goodbye to the constant frustration and waste of resources that has become IT and never looked back. I too was completely exhausted at doing nothing for my end customer other than patching together bundled "solutions" which didn't work with each other or meet the customer's requirements.

I think I heard the same sort of frustration in the broadcast engineering space as well.

 

[ScottJ]

I have 4 devices here that all use port 80 for HTTP. That leaves 3 devices to set up port/IP translation in a Cisco router, and if you have ever used a Cisco router, you know what a giant pain in the neck that is.

With an actual Cisco router it's not hard at all, but I assume you're talking about those Linksys routers that have the Cisco name on them now.

On a well-configured LAN there's no problem at all with multiple devices on port 80; they all have unique IP addresses, so the only trouble arises when you need to forward a port around your router's NAT. Despite how difficult the silly Linksys boxes make it, forwarding incoming port 49108 to 192.168.5.130:80 isn't really complex, and it gets the job done. It also keeps local users from having to type urls with hard-to-remember port numbers on the end.

I have about half a dozen devices on my home network with port 80 web interfaces ... as well as multiple machines running ssh that are all on port 22. With proper forwarding in place, it all works together nicely and is accessible from wherever I might be.

Scott

 

[greg.hahn]

Dear All Manufacturers:

When you so nicely include a very handy, convenient and versatile IP interface, please include a way to change the port that said interface uses. I have 4 devices here that all use port 80 for HTTP. That leaves 3 devices to set up port/IP translation in a Cisco router, and if you have ever used a Cisco router, you know what a giant pain in the neck that is. If we were all able to specify a port, I would already be done in the time it took me to type this.

Thank you,

Every engineer/ops person who has ever set up equipment with IP interfaces.

I don't understand the problem. Port 80 is the standard HTTP port. I don't know about Cisco per se, but Dlink, Linksys, Cradlepoint, and the Motorola whatchacallit router that AT&T supplies... it's not that hard to set up the Virtual Server table. I don't even know what I'm doing and could do 4 devices in about 5 minutes.

I think it's BETTER that everything uses port 80.

 

[stephend2]

mikrotik.

I swear by them. Easy enough to setup if you've ever used cisco, $40 mikrotik router has more functionality and faster than cisco 850 series.

I also do not run any port forwards on most of my networks unless they are required. I setup mikrotik routers for clients as a pptp server and setup connection on outside computers to connect. No port forwards, more secure, only get access to network if they can authenticate.

 

[ChiefOperator]

Let me echo the praise for the Mikrotik routers.

That's all I use. They are professional, enterprise gear sold at consumer prices. They are heavily deployed in the WISP and ISP market, which demands solid performance. I would say that they are equal to the higher end Cisco gear (not Linksys), which costs hundreds and hundreds of dollars. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I have a Mikrotik 450G that has been in 24/7/365 operation since August 2009. It hasn't hung or slowed down.

The routers support port forwarding, complex firewall rules, QoS, subnetting, NTP service, and just about anything else you can imagine.

I can't speak highly enough about them. Once you try one, you'll throw your Netgear and Linksys in the trash. Here is a Mikrotik 750G that will blow away the Netgear and Linksys stuff and it's only $69.

http://www.roc-noc.com/mikrotik/routerboard/rb750g.html

Here is the "higher end" model, a 450G for only $125

http://www.roc-noc.com/mikrotik/routerboard/rb450g-complete.html

Finally, here is the deal of the century: a five port gigabit managed switch for only $39.

http://www.roc-noc.com/mikrotik/routerboard/rb250gs.html


I use all three and couldn't be more pleased (note: I have no affiliation with Mikrotik; I only wish to spread the word about these router because they truly are that good)

 

[WNTIRadio]

How hard is it to simply put an option for a port for control on a device?

Sure I can NAT and do all of that. Yes I know how to port forward, do it all the time. It's just so much easier when I can set the ports up on each device, do the forwarding table and be done.

Yes, I want it simple and easy, saves time when taking care of multiple sites. And it allows me to set up the same ports for the same devices at different stations... e.g., all Instreamers are 3001 etc. no matter which place they're in.

 

[ChiefOperator]

How hard is it to simply put an option for a port for control on a device?

Sure I can NAT and do all of that. Yes I know how to port forward, do it all the time. It's just so much easier when I can set the ports up on each device, do the forwarding table and be done.

Yes, I want it simple and easy, saves time when taking care of multiple sites. And it allows me to set up the same ports for the same devices at different stations... e.g., all Instreamers are 3001 etc. no matter which place they're in.

Yes, you're right. It would be MUCH easier if those options were available.

 

[Kmagrill]

Yes, you're right. It would be MUCH easier if those options were available.

From a manufacturing perspective it's not such a simple thing as one might suppose. Most broadcast manufacturers use commercially made Webserver modules to speed up development time. After all, why reinvent the wheel, right? The problem, from a simple perspective is that there are often limitations imposed by the module makers that have to be followed. One of the common limitations is changing ports and mac addresses. So, why don't the module makers allow changing these things, you ask? Well, it turns out that adding a TCP/IP stack to an embedded chipset takes up quite a lot of space. In the case of modules designed 7 or 8 years ago, the stack already consumes 60 to 80% of the typical available space. When you add user functions like this, you have to create arrays and pointers to make it work, so you're adding hundreds or thousands of bytes of overhead to a product that is already short on space and the end user still hasn't loaded up their webpages yet. Pretty soon, the end user has no space for their own stuff, if you're not careful.

So, why do we use these modules, given the limitations? Mainly development cost. In November of 2010, we decided to embark on some ambitious networking projects that were beyond the capabilities of the module we had been using. Having been frustrated ourselves by the same sorts of limitations already mentioned, we decided to create our own embedded system so that we would have direct control of stack level functions. This frees us from the limitations imposed by someone else, but we still have to make the stack and everything else fit. In the final analysis, it took a couple of months to get rudimentary control of the stack and a whole year to really understand it well. It's been 16 months of continuous development and we're still learning things. It's not a task for the casual programmer. Realistically, the total cost, so far has probably been $50,000, mainly in man-hours. So, getting this kind of control ain't cheap. I'm convinced that it'll be worthwhile in the long run because now we can develop much more powerful features, but only time will tell if this was a good bet or not. It's certainly a lot less risky to use a commercially made module, so I completely understand why a lot of companies do that.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Thanks for the insight!!

 

[stephend2]

Mikrotik is great for sure, I as well cannot say it enough.

My day job is a wisp network engineer...

I have an x86 mikrotik at the core sitting on a 250mb fiber connection

I have wireless links out to various tower sites, the slowest of which is 40mb for a small site, 90+ for larger sites.

I have a 493g at every tower site with the exception of a few small repeater sites that have a 750 or 750gl.

If anyone needs some mikrotik help I'll be glad to show how to do basic tasks, there's a little more to them than plug in and turn it on like a consumer level router...

Stephen

 

[rorban]

Dear All Manufacturers:

When you so nicely include a very handy, convenient and versatile IP interface, please include a way to change the port that said interface uses. I have 4 devices here that all use port 80 for HTTP. That leaves 3 devices to set up port/IP translation in a Cisco router, and if you have ever used a Cisco router, you know what a giant pain in the neck that is. If we were all able to specify a port, I would already be done in the time it took me to type this.

Thank you,

Every engineer/ops person who has ever set up equipment with IP interfaces.

Current Orban products allow you to specify the port.

Bob Orban

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Yup! We appriciate that flexiblity on our end of the biz Bob! Thanks! I just hooked up a 8600 for a client this weekend. One thing that might make it a bit less overwelming for the first-time user of this new unit would be to provide a one-sheet that has the IP address info and really basic install info for the unit. The user interface can be a bit trying at first so some real basic stuff like setting composite out levels and setting input levels might be in order. Once I got to it, the basic setup wizard was pretty handy. I do think that the IP either should be easily published on the one-sheet or part of the initial setup. Most of us these days want to use that IP remote feature if we are lucky enough to have the internet at our site. I'm guessing most would want to at least connect directly via their laptop for some tweaks, etc. Thanks Bob!