ross.halliday at wtccommunications
Jun 22, 2012, 2:11 PM
Post #12 of 19
(1512 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: single static ip address for customer(s)
[In reply to]
|
|
> Thanks Ross. I've heard of pppoe but never used it. This is the first
> ISP I've ever worked for....tell then I was purely enterprise.
Oh, well... ISP is good times :) Lots more things to break!
> Perhaps at least
> it would make sense for my single static ip customers to be setup with
> pppoe
> so I could gain this flexibility huh? I wonder if the same would be
> said
> for any access technology group (dsl, cable modem, ftth) ? If so, I
> guess I
> would just need to know if I could implement pppoe on the end equipment
> we
> stick in the customer premise correct?
Correct. Throughout our network we run a bridged design to the subscriber. Calix B6/Occam BLCs are very friendly to this. We have many types of wireless, direct Ethernet, FTTH, and DSL subscribers all on PPPoE. A static IP for them is a monthly fee, and for customer service a simple click of a button. It's a very easy way to control IP allocation (though your route tables can end up with a lot of /32s), bandwidth plans, transfer quota, disabling for on-payment or to make them call for some reason, and so on. Also on the edge level you don't need to mess around with ARP, people plugging in routers backwards, etc... only have to allow two frame types.
> And the I guess I would need some
> sort of pppoe server/router in the core rcv'ing these request from the
> endpoints huh ? could you explain high level how to do.....would cisco
> router handle the pppoe at the hub? Can I do this redundantly in hub,
> like dual hub/spoke?
Yep, absolutely. 7200 is a great router for this job, not sure what the rich kids are playing with these days, 7201s perhaps? :-P At each Central Office we dump our subscribers into a 7204 running as a PPPoE LAC that terminates the oE part of things and dumps them into L2TP tunnels which run back to our LNS (a Redback SE400). However most Cisco routers can be used for this purpose as well. You can even use a 2800 for a low-end LAC if you like. I think the local Bell Canada has been using 3600s/3800s for a while. Another approach would be terminating the PPP and oE on the same device if you don't want to run L2TP all over the place.
There's a lot of documentation and configuration guides out there on this stuff, I strongly recommend a few afternoons with some gear and some info and playing around with it.
Cheers
Ross
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Halliday [mailto:ross.halliday [at] wtccommunications]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 3:04 PM
> To: 'Aaron'
> Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] single static ip address for customer(s)
>
> This is an ideal use case for PPPoE. We just return RADIUS attribute
> Framed-IP-Address to the access concentrator and off they go! As long
> as a
> subscriber can get to PPPoE they can get that IP... doesn't even need
> to be
> the same service type. IP allocation is as easy as a drop-down menu
> that
> selects from a block of reserved IPs.
>
> Personally I've never understood why DSL providers don't use PPPoE.
> DHCP
> just seems like so much hassle, even with Option 82
>
> Our next service level above that is a /30 or a /29 over T1, ethernet,
> etc.
>
> Cheers
> Ross
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> > bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Aaron
> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 2:42 PM
> > To: 'Gert Doering'; 'Andrew Jones'
> > Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] single static ip address for customer(s)
> >
> > Hi all, I'm the origin of this question (I'm not sure if I should be
> > admitting that or not) (lol)
> >
> > Did you'll think when I said" customers" that I meant customers with
> > networks ? (I guess I'm asking this now based on some of the
> > responses I've
> > seen) please forgive me if I wasn't clear enough initially....
> >
> > Please know that when I say "single static ip address for
> customer(s)"
> > in my
> > subject heading, I mean a residential dsl subscriber with a windows
> > computer sitting on his desk in his master bedroom and he bought a
> > single static ip address from me (the isp I work for). This is the
> > context of my question.
> >
> > So consider this....
> >
> > Guy with windows pc with single static ip on
> > it--------------dslam--------cisco 3750------cisco
> > 4500---------7609-----------internet
> >
> > I have a collapsed IP core architecture pretty much whereas the
> > default gateway for my customer is on the 7609.....so pretty flat
> from
> > customer all the way to my core gw (7609) that acts both as the def
> gw
> > for customers AND as the termination of an internet pos oc48...bam,
> > customer has one router hop and his in att cloud on the internet.
> >
> > we are gonna do this type of thing soon....
> >
> > Guy with windows pc with single static ip on
> > it--------------dslam--------cisco me3600x(pe)---mpls---cisco
> > asr9k(p)-----9k(p)-----(more
> > p's)----9k(pe)-------same7609-----------internet
> >
> > So I'm gonna have to do an mpls l2vpn (vpXs) to cause that single
> > static customer to maintain his single static ip such that I can
> > maintain bcast domain consistency back into the 7609 where that
> > original bcast domain for that subnet that the cutomer is on to
> remain
> > intact.
> >
> > I posed this question to y'all wondering if y'all know of anything
> > other isp's do to solve single static deals like this.
> >
> > But maybe the answer is exactly what I'm already planning on
> > doing....mpls l2vpn, etc.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Aaron
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck
> > [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 9:41 AM
> > To: Andrew Jones
> > Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] single static ip address for customer(s)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 03:02:58PM +1000, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > I think may I deleted the original post(s) in this thread, but has
> > anyone
> > mentioned LISP.
> > >
> > > Seems like a perfect use case for it.
> >
> > Yay, tunnels, to compensate for lack of routing clue.
> >
> > (Did I mention we changed one of our upstream providers due to
> > excessive MPLS tunneling, combined with excessive lack of clue?)
> >
> > Anyway. I don't see why this is supposed to be difficult, unless
> > you're dealing with /32- or /64-routes in the order of "50.000 or
> > more".
> >
> > - give every router a network block, announce that block as *block*
> > into
> > your internal routing (iBGP), do not announce more specifics
> >
> > - if that customer ever ends up on a different box, just permit the
> > /32
> >
> > - if most of the customers never move to different POPs, and you
> don't
> > have to split routers too often, customer churn will make sure
> that
> > most of your customers will still stick to the "aggregation
> router"
> >
> > - in case you really have to split a router into multiple routers
> due
> > to capacity reason, announce the aggregate from both, announce the
> > more specifics to the local "to core" router, limit propagation
> from
> > there. Yes, somewhat painful for the inital setup, or when you
> add
> > network blocks. Trivial if properly maintained and documented.
> >
> > gert
> > --
> > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
> >
> > //www.muc.de/~gert/
> > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
> > gert [at] greenie
> > fax: +49-89-35655025
> > gert [at] net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
|
signature.asc
