Re: Re[2]: Routed over this thing?

From: Eric Kagan <ekagan_at_axsne.com>
Date: Wed Oct 02 2002 - 21:46:32 EDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Troutman" <t@snoofer.com>
To: <owner-verizonisp@westnet.com>; "Eric Kagan" <ekagan@axsne.com>
Cc: <verizonisp@westnet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:08 PM
Subject: Re[2]: Routed over this thing?

>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Exactly right on all counts. If I'm getting this right, connections
> to the end users with single IP's with work just fine without RBE, just
> doing AAL5 encapsulation. But to route to them, RBE has to be
> configured?

What is your configuration now on the Cisco (Host router) - It must be
either IRB, RBE, PPoe, etc (see
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/dsl_prod/gsol_dsl/dsl_arch/g
dslarch.htm) as you are a bridge from Verizon. If Chris helped you with the
config I would imagine he shifted you toward RBE (from your routing
statements below it appears to be same as RBE config) - please see below for
a small clip to compare.

> The CPE is BroadMax LinkMax HSA-300A. It is supposed to work with
> LLCbridging.

What you are describing below is similar to what I saw with the Lucent
Cellpipe - it would work as a bridge but not router. Is it RFC1483 Bridging
IP LLC (not RFC1483 Routing !) You might want to try one of the routers I
mentioned (or if someone else has tested/confirmed to work with this
configuration.) Don't be mislead by vendors or Verizon Authorized CPE
Lists - they are thinking PPoe/bridge/modem mostly.

> Today, after verifying that this CPE worked as a bridge and
> passed traffic to the one IP of...
> ip route 66.250.201.4 255.255.255.255 ATM1/1/0.320
> We configured it for LLC Bridge and assigned that IP 66.250.201.4 to the
WAN side of the CPE.
> And then did this..
> ip route 66.250.202.0 255.255.255.248 66.250.201.4
>

Yes - this looks okay to me.

> But it didn't work, couldn't reach 66.250.201.4 WAN address at all...
> no arp, no routing... so maybe this is due to RBE not configured.
> If that's the case, does what was attempted look reasonably sane?

Yes - here is a clip of a config that is RBE: (Real IP changed - better to
not submit or advertise your real IP's as a rule even though this list
should be safe. If your config is similar to below then you are running
RBE. I would suggest trying different CPE equipment.

interface Loopback254
 description loopback for verizon dsl
 ip address 10.2.7.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface ATM1/0
 description connected to verizon atm ds3
 mac-address 0000.0c4c.e834
 no ip address
 no ip route-cache cef
 atm scrambling cell-payload
 no atm ilmi-keepalive
!
interface ATM1/0.301 point-to-point
 ip unnumbered Loopback254
 ip policy route-map private-net
 atm route-bridged ip
 pvc 1/301
  encapsulation aal5snap
 !
!
interface ATM1/0.302 point-to-point
 ip unnumbered Loopback254
 ip policy route-map private-net
 atm route-bridged ip
 pvc 1/302
  encapsulation aal5snap
 !
!Continued for each PVC.....
!
ip route 10.2.7.4 255.255.255.255 ATM1/0.301
ip route 10.2.7.5 255.255.255.255 ATM1/0.302

ip route 10.2.8.160 255.255.255.248 10.2.7.4
ip route 10.2.8.168 255.255.255.248 10.2.7.5

Thanks
Eric

>
> Thanks,
>
> Todd
>
> EK> Todd, Assuming you are talking about a Verizon ATM DS3 circuit for DSL
and
> EK> are using a Cisco router with ATM DS3 card to terminate I can shed
some
> EK> light. Ideally you want to be running RBE on the cisco (Routed,
Bridged
> EK> Encapsulation - hence allowing you to "route" over a "Bridge). We
originally
> EK> ran that other shitty configuration (IRB - yuk!) but quickly blew it
away
> EK> and converted to RBE. Since you talk about not having a real PVC for
the
> EK> customer I will assume you are one of us poor bastards in the East
that
> EK> Verizon doesn't have a properly configured network for and are getting
the
> EK> RFC1483 bridged Encaps through the Redbacks. Basically, to save you a
lot
> EK> of time and aggravation, you need to use a router for the CPE (not a
modem
> EK> or bridge) that supports RFC1483 Bridging (LLC). We have successfully
used
> EK> the Netopa 6100, 4541, Speedstream 5621, Caymen 3220 and Great Speed
GS1530.
> EK> We are currently doing this now with our customers. We basically give
them
> EK> a static WAN IP and they can either NAT that or we can route a subnet
to
> EK> them. It works like a charm. Hope this info helps. Let me know if
you have
> EK> any other questions. If I missed the boat on this one for you let me
know.
> EK> (Maybe I helped out someone else as well).
>
> EK> As a side note we have unsuccessfully tried the following CPE: (Lucent
> EK> Cellpipe, Cisco 673/675, - there might be more but I have blocked
them out
> EK> of my head). I would be interested in knowing what other ISP's are
using
> EK> for CPE so we could maybe create our own supported CPE config list.
>
> EK> Thanks
> EK> Eric
>
> EK> ----- Original Message -----
> EK> From: "Todd Troutman" <t@snoofer.com>
> EK> To: <verizonisp@westnet.com>
> EK> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:24 PM
> EK> Subject: Routed over this thing?
>
>
> >> First of all thanks much to everyone, especially Chris, for the
> >> help over the last few weeks, it's very much appreciated.
> >>
> >> This might be impossible but I thought I'd check with you guys and see
> >> if anyone had any ideas. So has anyone tried to offer a customer
> >> a block of IP's in a sort of pseudo routed type of a configuration?
> >> That is, without having a real PVC to the CPE but still offering a /28
> >> or /29? So that it at least looks to the customer like they've got
> >> some sort of real routed solution?
> >>
> >> This is a brain buster, Mike and I have been messing about with it
> >> today but haven't gotten it to work. Maybe it can't work?
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
>

Recent archives of the list can be found at
http://www.westnet.com/verizonisp/
Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to verizonisp-request@westnet.com to leave.
Received on Wed Oct 2 21:48:56 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 27 2003 - 13:27:16 EDT