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

>>
>
> What is your configuration now on the Cisco (Host router) - It must be
> either IRB, RBE, PPoe, etc (see
> e.

Thanks for the RBE Config sample, yes, that's what we've got,
so we're running RBE and didn't know it : ) This is good news.

RFC 1483 Routing and LLC Bridging configuration (through a
web interface) look very very similar on this CPE so it'll have to
be checked out again. If this CPE does work, it's apparently very
cost effective stuff and I'll send the results to the list.

Thank you,

Todd

>
>
>> 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 22:43:45 2002