You'd have to ask my senior network engineer about that, he does all the autoconfig scripts for the routers and Rodopi....I'll pass on your question to him.
John H. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue > John, > What are you doing to router subnets over PPPoE? > Are you assigning a RFC 1918 address with PPPoE, then routing the public > subnet to the CPE or something similar? Or are you doing something > entirely different? > > -Eric > > John Hokenson wrote: > > > You can route subnets over PPPoE if you want. > > > > JH > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Roger Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:39 AM > > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue > > > > > > > >>This is suddenly looking more attractive. I was going to persue routing > > > > each > > > >>customer and providing a subnet of IP addresses to each one. I think I'll > >>experiment with pppoe and see how it works out. > >> > >>Thanks for the info. > >>Roger > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Colin Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 11:59 AM > >>Subject: Re: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue > >> > >> > >> > >>>Because everything is tunneled over the PPP connection. Each client > >> > >>connects > >> > >>>via a dedicated tunnel to the PPP Server, which performs all the > > > > requests > > > >>on > >> > >>>teh clients behalf (for instance answering ARP requests - Proxy ARP's). > >> > >>It's > >> > >>>better to visualise a PPP session as a link between the customer and the > >> > >>PPP > >> > >>>Server, as opposed to the current way which is the Customer --> Access > >> > >>Point > >> > >>>then ---> NOC/Shaping system. To illustrate: > >>> > >>> > >>>Customer PC<=============================>ROUTER (Logical Layout in PPP) > >>>Customer PC<----->CPE<---->AP<---->SWITCH<---->ROUTER (Physical Layout) > >>> > >>>Because *All* client traffic is *forced* down the PPP tunnel (ICMP, et > >> > >>al), > >> > >>>you have full control over what your customers can and cannot do. For > >>>instance, when they reach the PPP Server (Access Concentrator) - All > >> > >>Netbios > >> > >>>(Windows File & Printer Sharing) can be blocked, all ICMP traffic could > > > > be > > > >>>blocked (if you wanted), All packets can be shaped so the customer can > >> > >>only > >> > >>>transmit/receive at the alloted bandwidth, you can also block virus > >>>prolifiration ports. If you are running a pure Layer 2 Network (I.e. teh > >>>only router is at your NOC), then this would be ideal because each > > > > client > > > >>>that connects will go through the PPPoE server at the NOC. Think of it > > > > as > > > >>a > >> > >>>transparent proxy server, Basically thats what it is. PPP is NOT IP > >> > >>traffic, > >> > >>>PPP is an encapsulation protocol (like a bucket which you can fill with > >> > >>many > >> > >>>things). > >>> > >>>Just for your info, 99.9% of routers support PPPoE, - Most DSL ISP's use > >>>PPPoE or PPPoA for authenticaing and controlling their customers. > > > > Because > > > >>>you have a fixed point which concentrates access, you have a high degree > >> > >>of > >> > >>>control over your network. Also, you can 'share' a PPPoE connection via > >>>Windows ICS - negating the need for cheapskates who don't want to buy a > >>>router. > >>> > >>>Regards > >>> > >>>Colin > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Roger Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:58 PM > >>>Subject: Re: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>How can PPPoE stop a client from sending out ICMP echo requests? If > > > > the > > > >>>>traffic gets dropped at the NOC queue then that customer can still tie > >> > >>up > >> > >>>>all the air time of the access point and bring the wireless side of > > > > the > > > >>>>network to it's knees. It keeps pinging whether it gets a response or > >> > >>not, > >> > >>>>whether the packets are dropped somewhere or not. > >>>> > >>>>I am looking into using PPPoE, I might set this up yet. > >>>> > >>>>Thanks, > >>>>Roger > >>>> > >>>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>>From: "Colin Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:24 AM > >>>>Subject: Re: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Or, C) Use PPPoE :) > >>>>> > >>>>>PPPoE overcomes all these problems, it also ensures you remove IP > >>> > >>>traffic > >>> > >>>>>from your client <-> AP wireless link (You tunnel everything over > >> > >>PPP). > >> > >>>>>Basically, if you use PPP you get to control the entire connection, > >> > >>from > >> > >>>>the > >>>> > >>>>>IP leasing (So the user hasn't gotta configure anything, cept press > >>>>>Next->Next->Next), dns servers, and netmask. In addition you get all > >> > >>the > >> > >>>>>logging functionality (if you auth to a radius server). The other > > > > (and > > > >>>the > >>> > >>>>>one I imagine you are most interested) is the ability to traffic > >> > >>limit. > >> > >>>>>Because all traffic *has* to go through the PPP Tunnel, your client > >> > >>can > >> > >>>>only > >>>> > >>>>>receive teh bandwidth you have designated him/her. So if one of the > >>>> > >>>>buggers > >>>> > >>>>>contracts a nasty strain of MSBLaST, and are paying for a 128/128 > >>>>>connection, then they will only be able to spew traffic out at > > > > 128K - > > > >>no > >> > >>>>>more, because the rest will get dropped at the NOC's queue. Also, it > >>> > >>>means > >>> > >>>>>clients can communicate with each other, even when Interlcient > >>>> > >>>>communication > >>>> > >>>>>is disabled - but only at the bandwidth they are paying for - So no > >> > >>one > >> > >>>>can > >>>> > >>>>>hog all the air bandwidth - Really is a fantastic System :) > >>>>> > >>>>>Regards > >>>>> > >>>>>Colin. > >>>>> > >>>>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>From: "Roger Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 5:04 AM > >>>>>Subject: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>One of the problems I seem to be facing frequently these days is > >> > >>that > >> > >>>a > >>> > >>>>>>single customer can get a virus and generate tremendous amounts of > >>>>> > >>>>>traffic, > >>>>> > >>>>>>which brings the whole network to a crawl. Normally bandwidth > >> > >>shaping > >> > >>>at > >>> > >>>>>the > >>>>> > >>>>>>NOC will limit the amount the customer can transmit, due to the > >>>>> > >>>>>Transmission > >>>>> > >>>>>>Control Protocol part of TCP/IP. But if it is something like the > >>>>> > >>>>>Nachi.worm > >>>>> > >>>>>>it is ping packets which do not have transmission control and can > > > > be > > > >>>>>spewed > >>>>> > >>>>>>out at tremendous rates that no bandwidth shaper can control. So > >>> > >>>what's > >>> > >>>>>the > >>>>> > >>>>>>solution to stop these slowdowns and outages caused by these > >> > >>viruses? > >> > >>>>>>A) Reduce the customer's functionality by insisting they use a > >> > >>router > >> > >>>or > >>> > >>>>>>firewall. > >>>>>>B) Have bandwidth shaping at the CPE. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Personally I prefer B.... but that seems to be expensive, usually. > >>>>>>Smartbridges, it might be something you can include in your Nexus > >>>> > >>>>product? > >>>> > >>>>>>Thanks, > >>>>>>Roger > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > >>>>>>To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > >>>>> > >>>>>smartBridges <yournickname> > >>>>> > >>>>>>To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type > > > > unsubscribe > > > >>>>>smartBridges) > >>>>> > >>>>>>Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > >>>>>To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > >>>> > >>>>smartBridges <yournickname> > >>>> > >>>>>To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > >>>> > >>>>smartBridges) > >>>> > >>>>>Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > >>>> > >>>>The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > >>>>To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > >>> > >>>smartBridges <yournickname> > >>> > >>>>To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > >>> > >>>smartBridges) > >>> > >>>>Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > >>>To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > >> > >>smartBridges <yournickname> > >> > >>>To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > >> > >>smartBridges) > >> > >>>Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > >> > >>The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > >>To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > > > > smartBridges <yournickname> > > > >>To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > > > > smartBridges) > > > >>Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > > > > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) > > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
