As an MSP, Are You Overcomplicating Your Customers’ Network for Wireless Internet Access?

All-In-One Routers Are Network Overkill

All-In-One Routers sound great on paper and look like a great value proposition when making a purchasing or deployment decision. They have a feature-rich bulleted list of modern-day protocols and security standards that indeed should be present in most wired and wireless internet solutions for both home and business. If a customer is starting from scratch with no network components already in place, and actually needs a wired or wireless internet connection solution built from the ground up, this may be a time and a place to evaluate the election of an all-in-one router as a starting point, depending on the specific need.

However, as any managed service provider often discovers upon interface with the client, this is rarely the case. Herein lies the issue. All-in-one routers are often victims of their own completeness, and contribute to the overlap / overkill quandary outlined in this section. As one may expect in a catch-all solution, All-In-One Routers have their own Firewall / NAT (Network Address Translation), WAP (Wireless Application Protocol), and many more features and protocols that are typically already in place within the customer’s existing network setup.

In addition to creating waste, these additional layers of networking complexity oftentimes create the unintended harmful reality of becoming vectors for network security penetration points, which, regrettably, shouldn’t even be required to be present for the base function of being a simple gateway to the internet at large (in other words, a modem).

Multiple Routing Operating Systems: Less Is More

If your client’s wired or wireless internet solution contains multiple routing operating systems anywhere in the network chain, this is one of the primary issues you will want to resolve if the goal is to provide managed internet services with the least amount of failure points and the highest uptime (with a side benefit of this being less service calls to you and your staff).

As you likely already know from previous customer support journeys, competing operating systems – either stacked or even if one is turned off and laying dormant – is time and possibly money wasted. Double the operating systems equals double the security vulnerabilities, double the software updates, double the incompatibility issues, double the obsolescence life cycles, double the patch needs, and… well, let’s just call it double the headache and leave it at that. 

Software Bloat Is Bad For Business

On both sides of the MSP relationship, unnecessarily numerous software systems are never going to end well. First, software has always, will always, and never fails to… need and receive updates. Constantly. And seemingly always at the wrong time. Oftentimes these software systems require network slowdown and even reboots in order to resume normal network operation.

The tragic aspect of this is that oftentimes these software systems are overridden by others, or completely turned off and never used. Nevertheless, they still require updates and maintenance. So as an MSP, the question is simple: Will more or less software systems in a network benefit the customer and their expectation of always-on, always-functioning network connectivity? It’s always less.

But the question is also two-fold: Will more or less software systems on a customer’s network benefit us as the MSP? The answer is decidedly less: less moving parts, security vectors, manpower, and expertise required to manage the account. So whenever constructing a blueprint for managed internet service, this priority must be observed when making both hardware and software decisions for both wired and wireless networks. 

Nothing In Life, Or Networking, Is Free: Cascading Costs For Either You Or Your Customers

Expounding on the issue of software bloat, the above issue of software bloat, and beyond the cost of time associated with navigating their inherent problems, some of these software systems have more overt and outright costs. Whether through one-time (if you’re lucky) or recurring (usually the case) subscription pricing, or more hidden costs such as compatibility requirements for network components that may limit and essentially heighten the barrier for entry when deploying a network, it approaches absurdity to be paying subscription or licensing fees for system software that is entirely unneeded, and furthermore represents a security and performance liability in many such cases, as we’ll highlight below. Whether these costs get passed onto the customer, or eaten by the MSP, it’s suboptimal and comes couched with its own security issues for another article. Let’s solve the problem by removing the problem to begin with?

Poorly Planned Protocols: An Imperfect Path

Having multiple layers of networking protocols like NAT (Network Address Translation) and DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) repeated at different junctures in a single network can introduce several drawbacks. Avoiding these complications and removing them as network vulnerabilities and liabilities is no small feat for any user or even the managed service provider themselves. And of course, doing so takes resources and expertise, or more plainly: it takes time and money. Here are just some of the myriad issues that can plague any wired or wireless network when multiple layers of duplicated or tiered networking protocols compete with, hinder, or negate an optimal network architecture:

Presence of multiple NAT systems in a network:

• Increased Complexity: Managing multiple NAT instances can complicate network design and troubleshooting, as each instance may require distinct configurations and policies.
• Latency and Performance Issues: Each NAT instance processes packets, which can add latency and overhead, especially in high-traffic scenarios. This can degrade overall network performance.
• Complicated Port Forwarding: Setting up port forwarding across multiple NAT instances can be cumbersome and may lead to configuration errors, making it difficult to expose services reliably.
• Addressing Conflicts: Using multiple NAT layers can lead to conflicts, particularly with overlapping address spaces, making it challenging to track and manage IP address allocations.
• Troubleshooting Challenges: Diagnosing connectivity issues can be more difficult when multiple NAT instances are involved. Identifying where a failure occurs—whether in the inner or outer NAT instance—can be confusing.
• Impact on Protocols: Some applications, especially those relying on certain protocols (like SIP or FTP), may struggle with multiple NAT layers due to their reliance on specific port configurations or IP addresses.
• Limited Scalability: Each NAT instance can impose restrictions on how many devices can be managed, potentially limiting scalability and leading to IP address exhaustion.
• Security Risks: Misconfigurations in multiple NAT instances can expose the network to security vulnerabilities. A poorly secured NAT instance can allow unintended access to internal resources.
• Dependency on Configuration Consistency: Ensuring consistent and correct configurations across multiple NAT instances is critical. Any discrepancies can lead to unexpected behavior or connectivity issues.
• Incompatibility with Certain Services: Some services may not work well or may require special configurations to function correctly through multiple NAT instances, complicating service deployment.

Presence of multiple DHCP configurations in a network:

• IP Address Conflicts: If multiple DHCP servers are configured to assign addresses from overlapping ranges, devices may receive the same IP address, leading to conflicts and connectivity issues.
• Inconsistent Configuration: Different DHCP servers may have varied configurations (e.g., lease times, options), which can create inconsistencies in network settings for clients, complicating management.
• Complex Troubleshooting: Identifying and resolving issues can be more challenging with multiple DHCP servers. Network administrators may need to invest man-hours and essentially payroll to determine which server is providing incorrect configurations or causing conflicts before any meaningful troubleshooting can even transpire.
• Redundancy Issues: Without proper coordination (e.g., using DHCP failover), multiple servers may operate independently, leading to potential service disruptions if one server fails.
• Management Overhead: Maintaining multiple DHCP servers requires additional administrative effort, including ensuring that they are synchronized and that their configurations are consistent.
• Increased Latency: If DHCP servers are suboptimally streamlined within the network, client devices may experience increased latency in obtaining their IP addresses, particularly in larger networks.
• Scalability Concerns: As the layers of DHCP increases, managing them effectively can become cumbersome, potentially leading to misconfigurations or resource limitations.
• Broadcast Traffic: DHCP relies on broadcast messages, and multiple servers can increase the amount of broadcast traffic, which may affect network performance, especially in larger environments.
• Security Risks: Having multiple DHCP servers increases the attack surface. Unauthorized or rogue DHCP servers could be introduced, leading to security vulnerabilities like DHCP spoofing or man-in-the-middle attacks.
• Limited Integration: Some network services may expect a single DHCP server. Having multiple instances can complicate integration with other network management or monitoring tools.