RE: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
Use ip unnumbered on the WAN interface to the Ethernet. Assign the Ether a legal and the PIX a legal and use the rest to your liking... That's how I setup my home connection; works great! -Original Message- From: Bikespace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 2:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059] Okey Dokey - understood. If you're just playing around that's fine. You may have a few options. You could use your /29 for the subnet between router and Pix, but then you lose two of your 6 available addresses for the router and the Pix. Although you can grab some of these back, for instance by using port redirection on the outside interface of the Pix, so that port 80 goes to one of your web servers and 53 to one of your DNS servers etc. The other 4 addresses can be set up as static NAT through the Pix. Use Global (outside) 1 interface for outgoing connections to save using one of your addresses for general PAT. You could use a private address between the router and the Pix and just route your /29 at the Pix, then do NAT from there. You don't lose any of the 8 addresses then. You could still do port redirection, so one IP address doesn't have to be one server. Do as before and chip off port 80 for your web, and 53 for DNS etc. Good Luck Bikespace ""Lamy Alexandre"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Because I would like pratice. I would like simulate an enterprise. > > Just for understand how is make in enterprise. I don't have 100 static IP, > but, anyway, I don't have 100 server. > > Example, Internet-->Enterprise infrastructure > > or > > Multi-site Enterprise-->Multi-site Enterprise... > > > Anyway, if have 2 DNS server, and 2 Web server, and 2 authentication server, > how make NAT/PAT? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71475&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
do you have a configuration example? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71190&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
Okey Dokey - understood. If you're just playing around that's fine. You may have a few options. You could use your /29 for the subnet between router and Pix, but then you lose two of your 6 available addresses for the router and the Pix. Although you can grab some of these back, for instance by using port redirection on the outside interface of the Pix, so that port 80 goes to one of your web servers and 53 to one of your DNS servers etc. The other 4 addresses can be set up as static NAT through the Pix. Use Global (outside) 1 interface for outgoing connections to save using one of your addresses for general PAT. You could use a private address between the router and the Pix and just route your /29 at the Pix, then do NAT from there. You don't lose any of the 8 addresses then. You could still do port redirection, so one IP address doesn't have to be one server. Do as before and chip off port 80 for your web, and 53 for DNS etc. Good Luck Bikespace ""Lamy Alexandre"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Because I would like pratice. I would like simulate an enterprise. > > Just for understand how is make in enterprise. I don't have 100 static IP, > but, anyway, I don't have 100 server. > > Example, Internet-->Enterprise infrastructure > > or > > Multi-site Enterprise-->Multi-site Enterprise... > > > Anyway, if have 2 DNS server, and 2 Web server, and 2 authentication server, > how make NAT/PAT? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71175&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
Because I would like pratice. I would like simulate an enterprise. Just for understand how is make in enterprise. I don't have 100 static IP, but, anyway, I don't have 100 server. Example, Internet-->Enterprise infrastructure or Multi-site Enterprise-->Multi-site Enterprise... Anyway, if have 2 DNS server, and 2 Web server, and 2 authentication server, how make NAT/PAT? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71133&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
With only a /29, you're not going to get far without using NAT/PAT. What is it that you are trying to do? Why don't you want to use NAT? There may be other suggestions we can make to overcome this. Bikespace ""Lamy Alexandre"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I need help for configure a Cisco 827 ADSL with a PIX 506 > > I have 1 static IP + a /29 subnet > > Anybody who help me? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71103&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
But, I have 6 static IP!!! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71091&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
How company procede when the workstation have a static IP? or with the server? I don't think is make with a NAT and PAT ?! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71092&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
Hi there, I assume you want to connect your ADSL router to the internet? Yes, then you have no other option than to use NAT. You were provided with one static IP address and this valid address is routable on the internet. Therefore you'll need typically an extended NAT to this address for all devices connected on your LAN. eg. ip nat inside source list 1 200.248.3.1 overload access-list 1 permit 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 where 200.248.3.1 is your static IP and the 192.168.1.0 is the LAN network. I suggest you use the CRWS tool and later when you are more familiar with the IOS you can do it yourself. Regards, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71087&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
Right! I want configure my 827 manually, not with CRWS. My connection is PPPoE with a static IP. Also, I don't want make NAT on my router. If possible, I don't want NAT on my PIX. example: DSL(static_ip)827-->Ethernet(static_ip)-->Outside(static_IP)506-->Inside(static_ip-if possible)-->my Network On my Network: Web Server FTP Server Exchange Server Terminal Server VPN with 2000 maybe IPsec with 2000 SSH I know, surely is more easy with DMZ, but the 506 have only 2 interface. Thanks! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71085&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
Wow this is a bit wide wouldn't you say? Give some more detail and I'm sure somebody would help you... Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71075&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Router 827 ADSL + PIX 506 configuration [7:71059]
I need help for configure a Cisco 827 ADSL with a PIX 506 I have 1 static IP + a /29 subnet Anybody who help me? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71059&t=71059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one 1720 with 2 ADSL load balancing or bounding 2 adsl [7:70966]
He, I would like to ask if somebody tried balance the traffic over 2 adsl (internet) in one router ( or bound them) to increase the bandwidth using only one ISP. ? Thanks for your help. Amalker ""Tim Champion"" escribis en el mensaje news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I have a situation whereby I want to perform load balancing across 2 links. > The problem is that the router which will have to perform the load balancing > learns one route via EIGRP and the other from a static route. I know how to > alter the administrative distance of the static route but I'm not sure on > how to tweak the metric. I guess I need to either increase the metric of the > static route of reduce the metric of the EIGRP route. > > Any suggestions would be appreciated. > > > Tim Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70966&t=70966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL over ISDN question [7:70676]
First of all you need Cisco IOS Software Release 12.2(13)ZH for adsl over isdn support. Cisco IOS Software Release 12.2(13)ZH is a short-lived, early deployment release that will be supported in the second release of Cisco IOS Software Release 12.3T. It supports the Cisco 831, 836, and 837 routers, and Cisco 1700 Series routers Check: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps380/prod_bulletin09186a0080 1746b0.html sh dsl int atm 0 is needed... -- 0x8 means that the modem is waiting to hear from CO. This probably means that you do not have a good connection to the central office. Check connection and make sure the correct cable is being used. ---0x10 means that the modem head from CO and now training. The CO is connected, and the modems are attempting to negotiate a connection. If it fails in this state then there is probably some incompatibility between the ADSL interface and the central office. Make sure the correct VPI/VCI is being used. --- 0x20 means that activation is completed and link is up. Regards De - Original Message - From: "dlci_16" To: Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 8:44 PM Subject: ADSL over ISDN question [7:70676] > Hello > i am having layer 1 problems in placing an 836 router for ADSL over ISDN, > the story so far ; > the LEDs of the ATM interface (Rx,Tx and CD) keep going on and > off(constantly, > yes i know, not good), > doing a #show ip int brief, obviously shows that both ATM0 and ATM0.1 are in > down state (they are not admin. down), > i have followed Cisco4s troubleshooting 'steps' from their website, from > checking if DSL port is plugged in correctly, checking correct powersupply, > placing dsl operating-mode in auto to checking if the circuit is tested (i > have placed an Alcatel SpeedTouch and it works), now i am running out of > options. > > a curious thing is when i issue a #debug atm event, i get the usual readout > for activation state changes, then : > "LOCAL:Max noise margin for power cutoff 31" > followed by a long list of bad news, "modem state 0x8", > on other adsl capable cisco routers(not over ISDN) i usually have dsl > power-cutback set at 0 at the interface ATM 0, > whereas with this router, i dont have this option. i tried to hunt for any > intel relating to what does this power-cutback 'feature' actually > do and if its related to this layer 1 problem and found nothing, maby i am > taking the wrong approach to figuering what > is wrong/missing, maby i should leave that Alcatel modem running and put that > cisco router back in the box > > thing is i dont know where to look anymore, > help? ;) > > > > sample of my config: > ! > vpdn enable > ! > vpdn-group pppoe > request-dialin > protocol pppoe > ! > interface Ethernet0 > ip address 192.168.0.210 255.255.255.0 > ip nat inside > ip tcp adjust-mss 1452 > ! > interface ATM0 > no ip address > no atm ilmi-keepalive > dsl operating-mode auto > ! > ! > interface ATM0.1 point-to-point > pvc 0/35 > pppoe-client dial-pool-number 1 > ! > ! > interface Dialer1 > mtu 1492 > ip address negotiated > ip nat outside > encapsulation ppp > dialer pool 1 > no cdp enable > ppp chap hostname xxx > ppp chap password 7 xxx > ppp pap sent-username xxx password 7 xxx > ! > ip nat inside source list 1 interface Dialer1 overload > ip classless > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer1 > ! > access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 > ! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70683&t=70676 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL over ISDN question [7:70676]
First of all you need Cisco IOS Software Release 12.2(13)ZH for adsl over isdn support. Cisco IOS Software Release 12.2(13)ZH is a short-lived, early deployment release that will be supported in the second release of Cisco IOS Software Release 12.3T. It supports the Cisco 831, 836, and 837 routers, and Cisco 1700 Series routers Check: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps380/prod_bulletin09186a0080 1746b0.html sh dsl int atm 0 is needed... a.. a.. 0x8 means that the modem is waiting to hear from CO. This probably means that you do not have a good connection to the central office. Check connection and make sure the correct cable is being used. a.. 0x10 means that the modem head from CO and now training. The CO is connected, and the modems are attempting to negotiate a connection. If it fails in this state then there is probably some incompatibility between the ADSL interface and the central office. Make sure the correct VPI/VCI is being used. a.. 0x20 means that activation is completed and link is up. Regards De - Original Message - From: "dlci_16" To: Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 8:44 PM Subject: ADSL over ISDN question [7:70676] > Hello > i am having layer 1 problems in placing an 836 router for ADSL over ISDN, > the story so far ; > the LEDs of the ATM interface (Rx,Tx and CD) keep going on and > off(constantly, > yes i know, not good), > doing a #show ip int brief, obviously shows that both ATM0 and ATM0.1 are in > down state (they are not admin. down), > i have followed Cisco4s troubleshooting 'steps' from their website, from > checking if DSL port is plugged in correctly, checking correct powersupply, > placing dsl operating-mode in auto to checking if the circuit is tested (i > have placed an Alcatel SpeedTouch and it works), now i am running out of > options. > > a curious thing is when i issue a #debug atm event, i get the usual readout > for activation state changes, then : > "LOCAL:Max noise margin for power cutoff 31" > followed by a long list of bad news, "modem state 0x8", > on other adsl capable cisco routers(not over ISDN) i usually have dsl > power-cutback set at 0 at the interface ATM 0, > whereas with this router, i dont have this option. i tried to hunt for any > intel relating to what does this power-cutback 'feature' actually > do and if its related to this layer 1 problem and found nothing, maby i am > taking the wrong approach to figuering what > is wrong/missing, maby i should leave that Alcatel modem running and put that > cisco router back in the box > > thing is i dont know where to look anymore, > help? ;) > > > > sample of my config: > ! > vpdn enable > ! > vpdn-group pppoe > request-dialin > protocol pppoe > ! > interface Ethernet0 > ip address 192.168.0.210 255.255.255.0 > ip nat inside > ip tcp adjust-mss 1452 > ! > interface ATM0 > no ip address > no atm ilmi-keepalive > dsl operating-mode auto > ! > ! > interface ATM0.1 point-to-point > pvc 0/35 > pppoe-client dial-pool-number 1 > ! > ! > interface Dialer1 > mtu 1492 > ip address negotiated > ip nat outside > encapsulation ppp > dialer pool 1 > no cdp enable > ppp chap hostname xxx > ppp chap password 7 xxx > ppp pap sent-username xxx password 7 xxx > ! > ip nat inside source list 1 interface Dialer1 overload > ip classless > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer1 > ! > access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 > ! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70681&t=70676 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL over ISDN question [7:70676]
Have this cisco modem ever worked on ur line? You said dsl over ISDN, is this an IDSL? I know that some modems aren't compatible w/the dslams, or the Card connecting the circuit at the CO. Ask the provider, see what their recommendation on the modems. - Original Message - From: "dlci_16" To: Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 1:44 PM Subject: ADSL over ISDN question [7:70676] > Hello > i am having layer 1 problems in placing an 836 router for ADSL over ISDN, > the story so far ; > the LEDs of the ATM interface (Rx,Tx and CD) keep going on and > off(constantly, > yes i know, not good), > doing a #show ip int brief, obviously shows that both ATM0 and ATM0.1 are in > down state (they are not admin. down), > i have followed Cisco4s troubleshooting 'steps' from their website, from > checking if DSL port is plugged in correctly, checking correct powersupply, > placing dsl operating-mode in auto to checking if the circuit is tested (i > have placed an Alcatel SpeedTouch and it works), now i am running out of > options. > > a curious thing is when i issue a #debug atm event, i get the usual readout > for activation state changes, then : > "LOCAL:Max noise margin for power cutoff 31" > followed by a long list of bad news, "modem state 0x8", > on other adsl capable cisco routers(not over ISDN) i usually have dsl > power-cutback set at 0 at the interface ATM 0, > whereas with this router, i dont have this option. i tried to hunt for any > intel relating to what does this power-cutback 'feature' actually > do and if its related to this layer 1 problem and found nothing, maby i am > taking the wrong approach to figuering what > is wrong/missing, maby i should leave that Alcatel modem running and put that > cisco router back in the box > > thing is i dont know where to look anymore, > help? ;) > > > > sample of my config: > ! > vpdn enable > ! > vpdn-group pppoe > request-dialin > protocol pppoe > ! > interface Ethernet0 > ip address 192.168.0.210 255.255.255.0 > ip nat inside > ip tcp adjust-mss 1452 > ! > interface ATM0 > no ip address > no atm ilmi-keepalive > dsl operating-mode auto > ! > ! > interface ATM0.1 point-to-point > pvc 0/35 > pppoe-client dial-pool-number 1 > ! > ! > interface Dialer1 > mtu 1492 > ip address negotiated > ip nat outside > encapsulation ppp > dialer pool 1 > no cdp enable > ppp chap hostname xxx > ppp chap password 7 xxx > ppp pap sent-username xxx password 7 xxx > ! > ip nat inside source list 1 interface Dialer1 overload > ip classless > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer1 > ! > access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 > ! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70678&t=70676 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL over ISDN question [7:70676]
Hello i am having layer 1 problems in placing an 836 router for ADSL over ISDN, the story so far ; the LEDs of the ATM interface (Rx,Tx and CD) keep going on and off(constantly, yes i know, not good), doing a #show ip int brief, obviously shows that both ATM0 and ATM0.1 are in down state (they are not admin. down), i have followed Cisco4s troubleshooting 'steps' from their website, from checking if DSL port is plugged in correctly, checking correct powersupply, placing dsl operating-mode in auto to checking if the circuit is tested (i have placed an Alcatel SpeedTouch and it works), now i am running out of options. a curious thing is when i issue a #debug atm event, i get the usual readout for activation state changes, then : "LOCAL:Max noise margin for power cutoff 31" followed by a long list of bad news, "modem state 0x8", on other adsl capable cisco routers(not over ISDN) i usually have dsl power-cutback set at 0 at the interface ATM 0, whereas with this router, i dont have this option. i tried to hunt for any intel relating to what does this power-cutback 'feature' actually do and if its related to this layer 1 problem and found nothing, maby i am taking the wrong approach to figuering what is wrong/missing, maby i should leave that Alcatel modem running and put that cisco router back in the box thing is i dont know where to look anymore, help? ;) sample of my config: ! vpdn enable ! vpdn-group pppoe request-dialin protocol pppoe ! interface Ethernet0 ip address 192.168.0.210 255.255.255.0 ip nat inside ip tcp adjust-mss 1452 ! interface ATM0 no ip address no atm ilmi-keepalive dsl operating-mode auto ! ! interface ATM0.1 point-to-point pvc 0/35 pppoe-client dial-pool-number 1 ! ! interface Dialer1 mtu 1492 ip address negotiated ip nat outside encapsulation ppp dialer pool 1 no cdp enable ppp chap hostname xxx ppp chap password 7 xxx ppp pap sent-username xxx password 7 xxx ! ip nat inside source list 1 interface Dialer1 overload ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer1 ! access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 ! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70676&t=70676 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: setup adsl 2621xm wic card [7:70185]
what will you configure? rfc 1483 routing, bridging, irb, pppoa, pppoe...? Check this for various conf options... http://www.cisco.com/pcgi-bin/Support/browse/index.pl?i=Technologies&f=1242 I think your layer 1 is already up? if not check this http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/794/wicadsl_lyr1.html Regards De - Original Message - From: "hugo" To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:18 PM Subject: setup adsl 2621xm wic card [7:70185] > hi i've a cisco 2621xm with a wic card adsl > i can't config the ATM > help me > thanks > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70187&t=70185 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
setup adsl 2621xm wic card [7:70185]
hi i've a cisco 2621xm with a wic card adsl i can't config the ATM help me thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70185&t=70185 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
Sounds interesting. I'm looking at the IntelliPop 5000. It looks like it's doing VDSL, and limited to 4000ft. This is probably only suitable for utilising copper pairs within a building. But it pipes data at up to 26Mbps. Cisco's G.SHDSL goes alot further but with lesser bandwidth. Does anyone know if there's a DSL NIC that can go into your PC, rather than having a CPE device? Also, I'm not too familiar with DSL, but does it allow a splitter facility which you can split your line for voice and data? Any ideas how much the Tutsys product costs? Albert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] NON Cisco, but hey .. tutsytems have a MTU pop (Multi Tenant User), basically its not multipoint but a chasis that can terminate numberous SDSL connections over existing copper pair. The use an eample of puytting one of these in the basement of a tenant appartment, then using the existing copper (telephony), you can provide access to all the users in the block (they need to have a splitter, but thats it!). Then you would have a single WAN (eg T1) from the chassis to a provider. Making use of dark copper / fibre (ie no signalling etc), is a great way to provide cheap point-to-point links between sites (within the distance limitations). Albert Lu wrote: > > Found it on cisco.com > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/800/prodlit/apcnf_an.htm > > Sounds great!! If only it could do multipoint rather than only > point-to-point, I guess you can't expect too much from a copper > pair. Maybe > cisco can come out with router with multiple g.shdsl interface. > > Albert > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 6:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch > [7:63711] > > > As Skarphedinsson told me before about the G.SHDSL 828, he was > completely > right. > > > Cisco 828 and SOHO 78 G.SHDSL routers offer an affordable > broadband WAN > access solution that can be carried over existing copper > telephone lines > (Dry one). The routers provide a symmetrical WAN connection at > speeds up to > 2.3 Mbps with a 20,000-foot distance limitation. > > > G.SHDSL standard allow two G.SHDSL routers to directly connect > with copper > wiring in a back-to-back configuration. This back-to-back > scenario allows > two Cisco 828 or Cisco SOHO 78 G.SHDSL routers to connect > without a DSLAM or > IP DSL Switch between the units. > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > Thanks for to Troy, Skarphedinsson, Steve Wilson and all. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:52 AM > Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch > [7:63711] > > I have read the MXL-2300 Brochure its really not complicated > like Cisco DSL > products cause to be honest I have lost in Cisco site searching > for the > right product to implement my solution , I am still interested > to look for > the equivalent product from Cisco, but if I did not find it > then I will go > for MXL-2300. > > > Thanks for help. > > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > > -Original Message- > From: Troy Leliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch > [7:63711] > > What you want to do is possibleinfact I demo'd something > similar. I > used the MXL-2300 from tut systems ... > > http://www.tutsys.com/mtu/products/ethernetworking/mxl_2300/index.cfm > > at anything under 3.5km you can get about 2MB. I haven't tried > it this > using any cisco kit, > > Ismail Al-Shelh wrote: > > > > I think I have to refine my question to be clearer > > > > Again > > > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > > away via DSL > > without any external service provider (phone company). > > > > > > Two dry copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office > > to the Branch > > office. > > > > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal: > > > > > > Clients PC--Ethernet-dsl router-dry pair of copper > > wiresdsl > > router---Ethernet--Clients PC. > > > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, Febr
RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
NON Cisco, but hey .. tutsytems have a MTU pop (Multi Tenant User), basically its not multipoint but a chasis that can terminate numberous SDSL connections over existing copper pair. The use an eample of puytting one of these in the basement of a tenant appartment, then using the existing copper (telephony), you can provide access to all the users in the block (they need to have a splitter, but thats it!). Then you would have a single WAN (eg T1) from the chassis to a provider. Making use of dark copper / fibre (ie no signalling etc), is a great way to provide cheap point-to-point links between sites (within the distance limitations). Albert Lu wrote: > > Found it on cisco.com > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/800/prodlit/apcnf_an.htm > > Sounds great!! If only it could do multipoint rather than only > point-to-point, I guess you can't expect too much from a copper > pair. Maybe > cisco can come out with router with multiple g.shdsl interface. > > Albert > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 6:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch > [7:63711] > > > As Skarphedinsson told me before about the G.SHDSL 828, he was > completely > right. > > > Cisco 828 and SOHO 78 G.SHDSL routers offer an affordable > broadband WAN > access solution that can be carried over existing copper > telephone lines > (Dry one). The routers provide a symmetrical WAN connection at > speeds up to > 2.3 Mbps with a 20,000-foot distance limitation. > > > G.SHDSL standard allow two G.SHDSL routers to directly connect > with copper > wiring in a back-to-back configuration. This back-to-back > scenario allows > two Cisco 828 or Cisco SOHO 78 G.SHDSL routers to connect > without a DSLAM or > IP DSL Switch between the units. > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > Thanks for to Troy, Skarphedinsson, Steve Wilson and all. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:52 AM > Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch > [7:63711] > > I have read the MXL-2300 Brochure its really not complicated > like Cisco DSL > products cause to be honest I have lost in Cisco site searching > for the > right product to implement my solution , I am still interested > to look for > the equivalent product from Cisco, but if I did not find it > then I will go > for MXL-2300. > > > Thanks for help. > > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > > -Original Message- > From: Troy Leliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch > [7:63711] > > What you want to do is possibleinfact I demo'd something > similar. I > used the MXL-2300 from tut systems ... > > http://www.tutsys.com/mtu/products/ethernetworking/mxl_2300/index.cfm > > at anything under 3.5km you can get about 2MB. I haven't tried > it this > using any cisco kit, > > Ismail Al-Shelh wrote: > > > > I think I have to refine my question to be clearer > > > > Again > > > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > > away via DSL > > without any external service provider (phone company). > > > > > > Two dry copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office > > to the Branch > > office. > > > > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal: > > > > > > Clients PC--Ethernet-dsl router-dry pair of copper > > wiresdsl > > router---Ethernet--Clients PC. > > > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:11 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] > > > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > > away via ADSL > > without any external service provider. > > Two copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to > > the Branch > > office. > > > > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal? > > > > Clients PC--Ethernet--837 ADSL-pair of copper wires837 > > ADSL---Ethernet--Clients PC > > > > > > > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63855&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
Found it on cisco.com http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/800/prodlit/apcnf_an.htm Sounds great!! If only it could do multipoint rather than only point-to-point, I guess you can't expect too much from a copper pair. Maybe cisco can come out with router with multiple g.shdsl interface. Albert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 6:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] As Skarphedinsson told me before about the G.SHDSL 828, he was completely right. Cisco 828 and SOHO 78 G.SHDSL routers offer an affordable broadband WAN access solution that can be carried over existing copper telephone lines (Dry one). The routers provide a symmetrical WAN connection at speeds up to 2.3 Mbps with a 20,000-foot distance limitation. G.SHDSL standard allow two G.SHDSL routers to directly connect with copper wiring in a back-to-back configuration. This back-to-back scenario allows two Cisco 828 or Cisco SOHO 78 G.SHDSL routers to connect without a DSLAM or IP DSL Switch between the units. Ismail Al-Shelh Thanks for to Troy, Skarphedinsson, Steve Wilson and all. -Original Message- From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:52 AM Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] I have read the MXL-2300 Brochure its really not complicated like Cisco DSL products cause to be honest I have lost in Cisco site searching for the right product to implement my solution , I am still interested to look for the equivalent product from Cisco, but if I did not find it then I will go for MXL-2300. Thanks for help. Ismail Al-Shelh -Original Message- From: Troy Leliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] What you want to do is possibleinfact I demo'd something similar. I used the MXL-2300 from tut systems ... http://www.tutsys.com/mtu/products/ethernetworking/mxl_2300/index.cfm at anything under 3.5km you can get about 2MB. I haven't tried it this using any cisco kit, Ismail Al-Shelh wrote: > > I think I have to refine my question to be clearer > > Again > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > away via DSL > without any external service provider (phone company). > > > Two dry copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office > to the Branch > office. > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal: > > > Clients PC--Ethernet-dsl router-dry pair of copper > wiresdsl > router---Ethernet--Clients PC. > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > Thanks for your help. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > away via ADSL > without any external service provider. > Two copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to > the Branch > office. > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal? > > Clients PC--Ethernet--837 ADSL-pair of copper wires837 > ADSL---Ethernet--Clients PC > > > > Ismail Al-Shelh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63854&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
Hi, Is this correct? Has anyone tried this before? If it's true, then it will really be great!! Imagine being able to replace frame relay, vpn for a office thats nearby and not have to pay a service provider on a regular basis for port/pvc/cir charges. Albert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 6:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] As Skarphedinsson told me before about the G.SHDSL 828, he was completely right. Cisco 828 and SOHO 78 G.SHDSL routers offer an affordable broadband WAN access solution that can be carried over existing copper telephone lines (Dry one). The routers provide a symmetrical WAN connection at speeds up to 2.3 Mbps with a 20,000-foot distance limitation. G.SHDSL standard allow two G.SHDSL routers to directly connect with copper wiring in a back-to-back configuration. This back-to-back scenario allows two Cisco 828 or Cisco SOHO 78 G.SHDSL routers to connect without a DSLAM or IP DSL Switch between the units. Ismail Al-Shelh Thanks for to Troy, Skarphedinsson, Steve Wilson and all. -Original Message- From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:52 AM Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] I have read the MXL-2300 Brochure its really not complicated like Cisco DSL products cause to be honest I have lost in Cisco site searching for the right product to implement my solution , I am still interested to look for the equivalent product from Cisco, but if I did not find it then I will go for MXL-2300. Thanks for help. Ismail Al-Shelh -Original Message- From: Troy Leliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] What you want to do is possibleinfact I demo'd something similar. I used the MXL-2300 from tut systems ... http://www.tutsys.com/mtu/products/ethernetworking/mxl_2300/index.cfm at anything under 3.5km you can get about 2MB. I haven't tried it this using any cisco kit, Ismail Al-Shelh wrote: > > I think I have to refine my question to be clearer > > Again > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > away via DSL > without any external service provider (phone company). > > > Two dry copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office > to the Branch > office. > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal: > > > Clients PC--Ethernet-dsl router-dry pair of copper > wiresdsl > router---Ethernet--Clients PC. > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > Thanks for your help. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > away via ADSL > without any external service provider. > Two copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to > the Branch > office. > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal? > > Clients PC--Ethernet--837 ADSL-pair of copper wires837 > ADSL---Ethernet--Clients PC > > > > Ismail Al-Shelh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63852&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
As Skarphedinsson told me before about the G.SHDSL 828, he was completely right. Cisco 828 and SOHO 78 G.SHDSL routers offer an affordable broadband WAN access solution that can be carried over existing copper telephone lines (Dry one). The routers provide a symmetrical WAN connection at speeds up to 2.3 Mbps with a 20,000-foot distance limitation. G.SHDSL standard allow two G.SHDSL routers to directly connect with copper wiring in a back-to-back configuration. This back-to-back scenario allows two Cisco 828 or Cisco SOHO 78 G.SHDSL routers to connect without a DSLAM or IP DSL Switch between the units. Ismail Al-Shelh Thanks for to Troy, Skarphedinsson, Steve Wilson and all. -Original Message- From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:52 AM Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] I have read the MXL-2300 Brochure its really not complicated like Cisco DSL products cause to be honest I have lost in Cisco site searching for the right product to implement my solution , I am still interested to look for the equivalent product from Cisco, but if I did not find it then I will go for MXL-2300. Thanks for help. Ismail Al-Shelh -Original Message- From: Troy Leliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] What you want to do is possibleinfact I demo'd something similar. I used the MXL-2300 from tut systems ... http://www.tutsys.com/mtu/products/ethernetworking/mxl_2300/index.cfm at anything under 3.5km you can get about 2MB. I haven't tried it this using any cisco kit, Ismail Al-Shelh wrote: > > I think I have to refine my question to be clearer > > Again > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > away via DSL > without any external service provider (phone company). > > > Two dry copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office > to the Branch > office. > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal: > > > Clients PC--Ethernet-dsl router-dry pair of copper > wiresdsl > router---Ethernet--Clients PC. > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > Thanks for your help. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > away via ADSL > without any external service provider. > Two copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to > the Branch > office. > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal? > > Clients PC--Ethernet--837 ADSL-pair of copper wires837 > ADSL---Ethernet--Clients PC > > > > Ismail Al-Shelh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63842&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
I would say the most simple cisco product for using the dry copper available in your environment would be the long range ethernet(LRE) products. The Catalyst LRE products will do 5Mbps @ 1524meters, but be quite sure of the distance and charactaristics of your copper. I haven't pushed LRE's distance and medium quality demands much so more digging would be in order. Good Luck, Darrell Newcomb Netswitch Technology Management http://www.netswitch.net ""Ismail Al-Shelh"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I have read the MXL-2300 Brochure its really not complicated like Cisco DSL > products cause to be honest I have lost in Cisco site searching for the > right product to implement my solution , I am still interested to look for > the equivalent product from Cisco, but if I did not find it then I will go > for MXL-2300. > > > Thanks for help. > > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > > -Original Message- > From: Troy Leliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] > > What you want to do is possibleinfact I demo'd something similar. I > used the MXL-2300 from tut systems ... > > http://www.tutsys.com/mtu/products/ethernetworking/mxl_2300/index.cfm > > at anything under 3.5km you can get about 2MB. I haven't tried it this > using any cisco kit, > > Ismail Al-Shelh wrote: > > > > I think I have to refine my question to be clearer > > > > Again > > > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > > away via DSL > > without any external service provider (phone company). > > > > > > Two dry copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office > > to the Branch > > office. > > > > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal: > > > > > > Clients PC--Ethernet-dsl router-dry pair of copper > > wiresdsl > > router---Ethernet--Clients PC. > > > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:11 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] > > > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > > away via ADSL > > without any external service provider. > > Two copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to > > the Branch > > office. > > > > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal? > > > > Clients PC--Ethernet--837 ADSL-pair of copper wires837 > > ADSL---Ethernet--Clients PC > > > > > > > > Ismail Al-Shelh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63837&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
I have read the MXL-2300 Brochure its really not complicated like Cisco DSL products cause to be honest I have lost in Cisco site searching for the right product to implement my solution , I am still interested to look for the equivalent product from Cisco, but if I did not find it then I will go for MXL-2300. Thanks for help. Ismail Al-Shelh -Original Message- From: Troy Leliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] What you want to do is possibleinfact I demo'd something similar. I used the MXL-2300 from tut systems ... http://www.tutsys.com/mtu/products/ethernetworking/mxl_2300/index.cfm at anything under 3.5km you can get about 2MB. I haven't tried it this using any cisco kit, Ismail Al-Shelh wrote: > > I think I have to refine my question to be clearer > > Again > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > away via DSL > without any external service provider (phone company). > > > Two dry copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office > to the Branch > office. > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal: > > > Clients PC--Ethernet-dsl router-dry pair of copper > wiresdsl > router---Ethernet--Clients PC. > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > Thanks for your help. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > away via ADSL > without any external service provider. > Two copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to > the Branch > office. > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal? > > Clients PC--Ethernet--837 ADSL-pair of copper wires837 > ADSL---Ethernet--Clients PC > > > > Ismail Al-Shelh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63834&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
What you want to do is possibleinfact I demo'd something similar. I used the MXL-2300 from tut systems ... http://www.tutsys.com/mtu/products/ethernetworking/mxl_2300/index.cfm at anything under 3.5km you can get about 2MB. I haven't tried it this using any cisco kit, Ismail Al-Shelh wrote: > > I think I have to refine my question to be clearer > > Again > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > away via DSL > without any external service provider (phone company). > > > Two dry copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office > to the Branch > office. > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal: > > > Clients PC--Ethernet-dsl router-dry pair of copper > wiresdsl > router---Ethernet--Clients PC. > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > Thanks for your help. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] > > I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) > away via ADSL > without any external service provider. > Two copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to > the Branch > office. > > > Is this design going to achieve my goal? > > Clients PC--Ethernet--837 ADSL-pair of copper wires837 > ADSL---Ethernet--Clients PC > > > > Ismail Al-Shelh > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63736&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
I think I have to refine my question to be clearer Again I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) away via DSL without any external service provider (phone company). Two dry copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to the Branch office. Is this design going to achieve my goal: Clients PC--Ethernet-dsl router-dry pair of copper wiresdsl router---Ethernet--Clients PC. Ismail Al-Shelh Thanks for your help. -Original Message- From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) away via ADSL without any external service provider. Two copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to the Branch office. Is this design going to achieve my goal? Clients PC--Ethernet--837 ADSL-pair of copper wires837 ADSL---Ethernet--Clients PC Ismail Al-Shelh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63724&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
Ismail, It does not look possible. Where are you getting the signalling, timing and IP addresses from? If you can build it on your test bench with just a pair of wires, best of luck. Steve Wilson Network Engineer -Original Message- From: Ismail Al-Shelh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 February 2003 13:11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711] I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) away via ADSL without any external service provider. Two copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to the Branch office. Is this design going to achieve my goal? Clients PC--Ethernet--837 ADSL-pair of copper wires837 ADSL---Ethernet--Clients PC Ismail Al-Shelh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63713&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
I would think that you would have to use the 828 G.SHDSL Router, not an 837 ADSL, as an ADSL connection requires an DSLAM to connect to, but the G.SHDSL is for point to point Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63712&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL Between Head Office and Remote Branch [7:63711]
I want to connect my branch office with my head office (1.5Km) away via ADSL without any external service provider. Two copper wires are laid physically from the Head Office to the Branch office. Is this design going to achieve my goal? Clients PC--Ethernet--837 ADSL-pair of copper wires837 ADSL---Ethernet--Clients PC Ismail Al-Shelh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63711&t=63711 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63498]
Strictly speaking, I didn't do the math and verify (since you specified "for example") the ip net block against your example subnet mask. You specified .248 as your mask before, now you're indicating it as /24 mask. Which ever it is, the point was this: If the ISP has assigned you a two-host subnet for the ADSL connection to them (Just like a Point-to-Point T1), and they've also assigned you a block of 8 addresses (1 used for Net boundary, 1 used for Broadcast, 1 used for the Router, 5 used for what ever you feel like), then you would follow the suggestions for addressing that I laid out. If you were assigned full Class C addresses for either the DSL Connection OR the "Client" Public block (which represents hosts like your WebServer via NAT), then simply put the /24 mask on each interface. For the ADSL connection itself though, that would be a gross waste of addresses. Also, if you were given TWO Class C blocks, then you could simply put one IP from the first block on your Dialer Interface, one IP from the same block on the Ethernet0 Interface, and one IP from the same block on the Outside Interface of the PIX. You'd then put 1 IP address from the second block on the Inside interface, and DHCP/STATIC Assign the rest of that block to any host on the Inside network (alternatively, if you had a PIX that had the DMZ NIC, you could put the second block on that, but the address assignment still applies in practice). This would work for the application of your web server hosting a max of 253 Unique .com/.net/.org/.whatever websites- each with its own unique public address (you can assign a whole class C to a single NIC). This would, of course be a waste of addresses if your web server is only hosting a couple of websites and you don't even have a LAN that uses all 254 addresses of that second public block. Doing Double-Nat is only really necessary (from my limited experience) for situations where you are trying to connect two LANs together that were previously numbered with the same net block/mask, i.e., LAN A and LAN B are on the 172.16.30.x/24 network. You have to introduce an additional router/firewall into the mix on ONE of the ends to make the connection work (whether it be GRE Tunneling from LAN to LAN, VPN Tunnel from LAN to LAN, etc.). I'm quite sure others will expand on or correct me where I'm not hitting the mark :) -Mark -Original Message- From: dlci dlci [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 4:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63498] I would like to thank everyone who helped out with my Pix horror picture show. This has aroused some possiblities where previously I couldn4t, lets say "see the trees from the forest"(or is it the other way around ;) However this has also brought up some questions about all your suggestions. ..the story so far: Network number: 200.10.10.136/30 So I use 200.10.10.138 255.255.255.0 since provide uses the other available IP Public IPs: 200.10.15.184/29 webserver is 200.10.15.189 Ok, following Mark4s tip I would put 200.10.10.138 255.255.255.0 on Dialer int. Mark then suggests "Put 200.10.15.184/29 on the Ethernet0 of the DSL Router..." and "Put 200.10.15.185/29 on the PIX Outside Interface..." umm, the IP on eth0 is my network number for public IP space, so, shouldn4t eth0 on router be 200.10.15.185/24 ? If so wouldn4t I be wasting 1 IP to get to the pix? Albert Lu suggests using ip unnumbered eth0, on the Dialer int, ok, then if I use 200.10.10.138/24 on eth0 on the router(ISP uses the other available IP) what other IP could I use on the pix eth0 (interface directly connected to router4s eth0)? Why wouldn4t I want to use NAT on both router and pix, and go with Kent Hundley suggestion? _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63518&t=63498 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63498]
I would like to thank everyone who helped out with my Pix horror picture show. This has aroused some possiblities where previously I couldn4t, lets say "see the trees from the forest"(or is it the other way around ;) However this has also brought up some questions about all your suggestions. ..the story so far: Network number: 200.10.10.136/30 So I use 200.10.10.138 255.255.255.0 since provide uses the other available IP Public IPs: 200.10.15.184/29 webserver is 200.10.15.189 Ok, following Mark4s tip I would put 200.10.10.138 255.255.255.0 on Dialer int. Mark then suggests "Put 200.10.15.184/29 on the Ethernet0 of the DSL Router..." and "Put 200.10.15.185/29 on the PIX Outside Interface..." umm, the IP on eth0 is my network number for public IP space, so, shouldn4t eth0 on router be 200.10.15.185/24 ? If so wouldn4t I be wasting 1 IP to get to the pix? Albert Lu suggests using ip unnumbered eth0, on the Dialer int, ok, then if I use 200.10.10.138/24 on eth0 on the router(ISP uses the other available IP) what other IP could I use on the pix eth0 (interface directly connected to router4s eth0)? Why wouldn4t I want to use NAT on both router and pix, and go with Kent Hundley suggestion? _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63498&t=63498 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63458]
Hi, Ideally, you should have the 827 using 'ip unumbered' on the ADSL (dialer) interface, so that it uses the ethernet interface as the ip address. This will allow the outside interface of the PIX to be in the public ip address range that you are allocated, no need for subnetting as suggestted as this will waste IP address. Once that is done, just do your standard NAT on you PIX with statics for your webservers etc, etc. If that isn't possible, then will have to do NAT on the router, and put statics on the router. The PIX will be doing no translation, so you can either use nat0 or static (you might need both), I prefer statics. Regards, Albert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of dlci_16 Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63458] Hello networkers, I am trying to "conjure up" a working config for an ADSL link with static IPs for a 827 series router, these public IPs are supposed to point to, say a webserver, that sits behind a pix firewall (which is directly connected to 827 router4s ethernet interface), problem is when I try to come up with a working config. I find myself getting into trouble. (The catch is, I need the webserver behind that pix.) Now this gets me using NAT twice to get a public IP from the internet through the router past the pix and into my webserver, I know it doesn4t sound right and obviously does not work either ;), Any help/clue/criticisms are most welcome ;) Ok, What it looks like so far: [internet] >[router] ->[pix] ->[lan/webserver] [827series]->[506E]--->[lan/webserver] IP addresses: For internet access I have 200.10.10.136 mask 255.255.255.0 Public IPs: 200.10.15.184 255.255.255.248 (for example) Public IP for my webserver is 200.10.15.189 Router 827: -- ! int eth0 ip address 192.168.0.200 255.255.255.255.0 ip nat inside ! int atm0 no ip address dsl operating-mode auto ! int atm0.1 point-to-point no ip address pvc 0/35 pppoe-cliente dial-pool-number 1 ! int dialer1 ip address 200.10.10.136 255.255.255.0 ip nat outside dialer pool 1 ! ip nat inside source list 1 interface dialer1 overload ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.30 80 200.10.15.189 80 extendable access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 ! ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 interface dialer1 ! PIX 506E: - ! nameif eth0 outside security0 nameif eth1 inside security 100 ! ip address outside 192.168.0.201 255.255.255.0 ip address inside 192.168.1.21 255.255.255.0 ! route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.200 1 ! global (outside) 1 192.168.0.202-192.168.0.248 nat (inside) 1 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 ! name 192.168.1.30 webserver ! static (inside,outside) 200.10.15.189 webserver ! access-list acl_out permit tcp any host 200.10.15.189 eq 80 ! access-group acl_out in interface outside ! Maby I am going about this the wrong way, maby there is still hope just by tweaking my static nat translation at the router. If you have reached this far, thank you for your time and effort. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63493&t=63458 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63458]
Just subnet your class c address space into 2 subnets. Make one of them the outside of the router, and one of them on the inside of the router, outside of pix, and just make sure your "subnetted" network has enough addresses for inside of the router, outside of pix, pix global address, and any static Nats to public servers on the network. Here is the breakdown 1. Edge router does NOT perform NAT. 2. Pix performs NAT. NO NAT NAT [internet] >[router]->subnetted network [pix] -->[lan/webserver] [827series]-> [506E]-->[lan/webserver] HTH, Brett Spunt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of dlci_16 Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63458] Hello networkers, I am trying to "conjure up" a working config for an ADSL link with static IPs for a 827 series router, these public IPs are supposed to point to, say a webserver, that sits behind a pix firewall (which is directly connected to 827 router4s ethernet interface), problem is when I try to come up with a working config. I find myself getting into trouble. (The catch is, I need the webserver behind that pix.) Now this gets me using NAT twice to get a public IP from the internet through the router past the pix and into my webserver, I know it doesn4t sound right and obviously does not work either ;), Any help/clue/criticisms are most welcome ;) Ok, What it looks like so far: [internet] >[router] ->[pix] ->[lan/webserver] [827series]->[506E]--->[lan/webserver] IP addresses: For internet access I have 200.10.10.136 mask 255.255.255.0 Public IPs: 200.10.15.184 255.255.255.248 (for example) Public IP for my webserver is 200.10.15.189 Router 827: -- ! int eth0 ip address 192.168.0.200 255.255.255.255.0 ip nat inside ! int atm0 no ip address dsl operating-mode auto ! int atm0.1 point-to-point no ip address pvc 0/35 pppoe-cliente dial-pool-number 1 ! int dialer1 ip address 200.10.10.136 255.255.255.0 ip nat outside dialer pool 1 ! ip nat inside source list 1 interface dialer1 overload ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.30 80 200.10.15.189 80 extendable access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 ! ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 interface dialer1 ! PIX 506E: - ! nameif eth0 outside security0 nameif eth1 inside security 100 ! ip address outside 192.168.0.201 255.255.255.0 ip address inside 192.168.1.21 255.255.255.0 ! route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.200 1 ! global (outside) 1 192.168.0.202-192.168.0.248 nat (inside) 1 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 ! name 192.168.1.30 webserver ! static (inside,outside) 200.10.15.189 webserver ! access-list acl_out permit tcp any host 200.10.15.189 eq 80 ! access-group acl_out in interface outside ! Maby I am going about this the wrong way, maby there is still hope just by tweaking my static nat translation at the router. If you have reached this far, thank you for your time and effort. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63481&t=63458 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63458]
A Couple of pointers from my humble experience (granted this is also provided from a very tired engineer that needs to go to bed :) ): Put 200.10.10.36/30 on the Dialer Interface. ... I think you need to be using the VPDN Group commands to get the DSL working. There are a couple of ways to connect to the ISP DSLAM, i.e., Dialer Interface with VPDN, or BVI interfaces (which is what I would expect with the scenario you describe utilizing the ADSL interface rather than a Service Provider DSL Modem and a PPPoE compliant Eth0 interface). If you go with BVI interface config, then put the 200.10.10.36/30 on the BVI interface. Put 200.10.15.184/29 on the Ethernet0 of the DSL Router... Put 200.10.15.185/29 on the PIX Outside Interface... Do NAT on the PIX ONLY. Static NAT for the Web Server with another one of those IPs in the block you have been issued, or PAT to the Webserver with Port Redirection. Default Route to the DSL Router on the PIX, Default Route to the Upstream provider on the DSL Router. Seems like a pretty straight forward config for both devices. HTH's. Mark -Original Message- From: dlci_16 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 7:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63458] Hello networkers, I am trying to "conjure up" a working config for an ADSL link with static IPs for a 827 series router, these public IPs are supposed to point to, say a webserver, that sits behind a pix firewall (which is directly connected to 827 router4s ethernet interface), problem is when I try to come up with a working config. I find myself getting into trouble. (The catch is, I need the webserver behind that pix.) Now this gets me using NAT twice to get a public IP from the internet through the router past the pix and into my webserver, I know it doesn4t sound right and obviously does not work either ;), Any help/clue/criticisms are most welcome ;) Ok, What it looks like so far: [internet] >[router] ->[pix] ->[lan/webserver] [827series]->[506E]--->[lan/webserver] IP addresses: For internet access I have 200.10.10.136 mask 255.255.255.0 Public IPs: 200.10.15.184 255.255.255.248 (for example) Public IP for my webserver is 200.10.15.189 Router 827: -- ! int eth0 ip address 192.168.0.200 255.255.255.255.0 ip nat inside ! int atm0 no ip address dsl operating-mode auto ! int atm0.1 point-to-point no ip address pvc 0/35 pppoe-cliente dial-pool-number 1 ! int dialer1 ip address 200.10.10.136 255.255.255.0 ip nat outside dialer pool 1 ! ip nat inside source list 1 interface dialer1 overload ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.30 80 200.10.15.189 80 extendable access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 ! ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 interface dialer1 ! PIX 506E: - ! nameif eth0 outside security0 nameif eth1 inside security 100 ! ip address outside 192.168.0.201 255.255.255.0 ip address inside 192.168.1.21 255.255.255.0 ! route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.200 1 ! global (outside) 1 192.168.0.202-192.168.0.248 nat (inside) 1 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 ! name 192.168.1.30 webserver ! static (inside,outside) 200.10.15.189 webserver ! access-list acl_out permit tcp any host 200.10.15.189 eq 80 ! access-group acl_out in interface outside ! Maby I am going about this the wrong way, maby there is still hope just by tweaking my static nat translation at the router. If you have reached this far, thank you for your time and effort. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63480&t=63458 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63458]
Change this: ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.30 80 200.10.15.189 80 extendable to something like: ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.0.30 80 200.10.15.189 80 extendable -The inside from the 827's perspective needs to be something in the 192.168.0.x address space And change this: static (inside,outside) 200.10.15.189 webserver to something like: static (inside,outside) 192.168.0.30 webserver -From the PIX's perspective, the outside address of the webserver is going to be something in the 192.168.0.x range, just as from the 827's perspective, 192.168.0.x is the inside range. HTH, Kent On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 20:33, dlci_16 wrote: > Hello networkers, > > I am trying to "conjure up" a working config for an ADSL link with static IPs > for a 827 series router, > these public IPs are supposed to point to, say a webserver, that sits behind > a > pix firewall > (which is directly connected to 827 router4s ethernet interface), > problem is when I try to come up with a working config. I find myself > getting into trouble. > (The catch is, I need the webserver behind that pix.) > Now this gets me using NAT twice to get a public IP from > the internet through the router past the pix and into my webserver, > I know it doesn4t sound right and obviously does not work either ;), > Any help/clue/criticisms are most welcome ;) > Ok, > What it looks like so far: > > > [internet] >[router] ->[pix] ->[lan/webserver] > [827series]->[506E]--->[lan/webserver] > > > IP addresses: > For internet access I have 200.10.10.136 mask 255.255.255.0 > Public IPs: 200.10.15.184 255.255.255.248 (for example) > Public IP for my webserver is 200.10.15.189 > > > Router 827: > -- > > ! > int eth0 > ip address 192.168.0.200 255.255.255.255.0 > ip nat inside > ! > int atm0 > no ip address > dsl operating-mode auto > ! > int atm0.1 point-to-point >no ip address >pvc 0/35 > pppoe-cliente dial-pool-number 1 > ! > int dialer1 > ip address 200.10.10.136 255.255.255.0 > ip nat outside > dialer pool 1 > ! > ip nat inside source list 1 interface dialer1 overload > ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.30 80 200.10.15.189 80 extendable > access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 > ! > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 interface dialer1 > ! > > > PIX 506E: > - > > ! > nameif eth0 outside security0 > nameif eth1 inside security 100 > ! > ip address outside 192.168.0.201 255.255.255.0 > ip address inside 192.168.1.21 255.255.255.0 > ! > route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.200 1 > ! > global (outside) 1 192.168.0.202-192.168.0.248 > nat (inside) 1 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 > ! > name 192.168.1.30 webserver > ! > static (inside,outside) 200.10.15.189 webserver > ! > access-list acl_out permit tcp any host 200.10.15.189 eq 80 > ! > access-group acl_out in interface outside > ! > > > Maby I am going about this the wrong way, > maby there is still hope just by tweaking my static nat translation at the > router. > If you have reached this far, thank you for your time and effort. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63476&t=63458 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL and PIX puzzle [7:63458]
Hello networkers, I am trying to "conjure up" a working config for an ADSL link with static IPs for a 827 series router, these public IPs are supposed to point to, say a webserver, that sits behind a pix firewall (which is directly connected to 827 router4s ethernet interface), problem is when I try to come up with a working config. I find myself getting into trouble. (The catch is, I need the webserver behind that pix.) Now this gets me using NAT twice to get a public IP from the internet through the router past the pix and into my webserver, I know it doesn4t sound right and obviously does not work either ;), Any help/clue/criticisms are most welcome ;) Ok, What it looks like so far: [internet] >[router] ->[pix] ->[lan/webserver] [827series]->[506E]--->[lan/webserver] IP addresses: For internet access I have 200.10.10.136 mask 255.255.255.0 Public IPs: 200.10.15.184 255.255.255.248 (for example) Public IP for my webserver is 200.10.15.189 Router 827: -- ! int eth0 ip address 192.168.0.200 255.255.255.255.0 ip nat inside ! int atm0 no ip address dsl operating-mode auto ! int atm0.1 point-to-point no ip address pvc 0/35 pppoe-cliente dial-pool-number 1 ! int dialer1 ip address 200.10.10.136 255.255.255.0 ip nat outside dialer pool 1 ! ip nat inside source list 1 interface dialer1 overload ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.30 80 200.10.15.189 80 extendable access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 ! ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 interface dialer1 ! PIX 506E: - ! nameif eth0 outside security0 nameif eth1 inside security 100 ! ip address outside 192.168.0.201 255.255.255.0 ip address inside 192.168.1.21 255.255.255.0 ! route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.200 1 ! global (outside) 1 192.168.0.202-192.168.0.248 nat (inside) 1 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 ! name 192.168.1.30 webserver ! static (inside,outside) 200.10.15.189 webserver ! access-list acl_out permit tcp any host 200.10.15.189 eq 80 ! access-group acl_out in interface outside ! Maby I am going about this the wrong way, maby there is still hope just by tweaking my static nat translation at the router. If you have reached this far, thank you for your time and effort. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63458&t=63458 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question of design (2 ADSL load balanced & VPN) [7:60630]
i know it can be done with Multilink through a virtual template with ppp, not sure for dsl. a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I've got a remote location with two ADSL lines terminating on a 2620, each > line has a separate subnet of legal IPs. Connected to the 2620 is a PIX. > I'd like to setup a VPN from this location to our central location. I'd > also like to load balance the two DSL lines (I was thinking CEF). > > Question: > Would it be wise to create two tunnels on each interface to the router and > use a private network from the ethernet of the router back Or terminate > the VPN on the PIX and carry a public IP to the outside interface of the > PIX? (my concern with the latter is utilization of both DSL lines equally). > > > --- > \ > Internet router--pix--- > / > --- > > > Thanks, > Mike J. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60933&t=60630 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question of design (2 ADSL load balanced & VPN) [7:60630]
I've got a remote location with two ADSL lines terminating on a 2620, each line has a separate subnet of legal IPs. Connected to the 2620 is a PIX. I'd like to setup a VPN from this location to our central location. I'd also like to load balance the two DSL lines (I was thinking CEF). Question: Would it be wise to create two tunnels on each interface to the router and use a private network from the ethernet of the router back Or terminate the VPN on the PIX and carry a public IP to the outside interface of the PIX? (my concern with the latter is utilization of both DSL lines equally). --- \ Internetrouter--pix--- / --- Thanks, Mike J. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60630&t=60630 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL QUESTION with 3600/2600 routers [7:59805]
Depends on whether the primary motive is cost or reliability, and where this is at geographically. Typically business class dsl is pricier but more reliable, and dsl offerings vary by region/country. In the US, I like to refer people to www.dslreports.com to see what they qualify for. Speakeasy has a hi quality product. Brian - Original Message - From: "Simon Watson" To: Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 2:26 PM Subject: ADSL QUESTION with 3600/2600 routers [7:59805] > Hi All Long time no speak hope everyone is having a blessed Christmas I've > a Client who has a WAN network comprising of a Cisco 3660(centre) & > several 2600's (currently each WAN link is a 256k lease line, each line > will soon be upgraded to LES10 Circuits). The client has ISDN backup on > all their sites but are looking to replace this with a ADSL Solution. What > is the best ADSL Solution should I recommend for my client.Many > Thanks Simon. > > > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59810&t=59805 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL QUESTION with 3600/2600 routers [7:59805]
""Simon Watson"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi All Long time no speak hope everyone is having a blessed Christmas I've > a Client who has a WAN network comprising of a Cisco 3660(centre) & > several 2600's (currently each WAN link is a 256k lease line, each line > will soon be upgraded to LES10 Circuits). The client has ISDN backup on > all their sites but are looking to replace this with a ADSL Solution. What > is the best ADSL Solution should I recommend for my client.Many > Thanks Simon. !) what versions or varieties of DSL is available for each of your client sites? Gotta check with the telco. 2) what is the nature of the data flow? I.e. distributed? centralized? mix of both? 3) once you know the answers to both of these items, then you can start looking at a design. In some cases, you might want to terminate the DSL on a WIC card on the router. In other cases you might want a standalone DSL router. PS. in some areas you can terminate DSL to an ATM circuit at the central site. this might be a solution worth examining, as well. that way, your data does not touch the internet, and you don't have to bring VPN's into the mix. > > > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59809&t=59805 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL QUESTION with 3600/2600 routers [7:59805]
Hi All Long time no speak hope everyone is having a blessed Christmas I've a Client who has a WAN network comprising of a Cisco 3660(centre) & several 2600's (currently each WAN link is a 256k lease line, each line will soon be upgraded to LES10 Circuits). The client has ISDN backup on all their sites but are looking to replace this with a ADSL Solution. What is the best ADSL Solution should I recommend for my client.Many Thanks Simon. STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59805&t=59805 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL problem [7:59776]
I have got three sites. Scenario Explanation : SIte A has a 1721 router with a ADSL connection. It has a ATM module and a ethernet 10/100 port. Ethernet port is connected to the LAN. SIte B and SIte c has 801 routers with a ISDN module and LAN module. Onthe ISDN DSL is configured. VPN connection is used to transfer data across. Problem: >From site B there is excellent ping of less than 112ms to the site A. Now when a computer in site B tries to establish VPN connectivity to a server in Site A it takes more than 5 minutes to come up. the config is checked and its fine in both the routers. can someody tell me the problem. thnz nerdv Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59776&t=59776 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL Vs. SDSL [7:54909]
We do use Verizon as well as several others. It IS possible to have ADSL with the same up and down. SDSL isn't be definition just the same bi-directional throughput speed. I have with Verizon as well as SWB ADSL customers who get the same up and down speed. They are, however, still held by the limits of ADSL. IE wire distance from the telco. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55038&t=54909 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL Vs. SDSL [7:54909]
The information afterwards is not my words. I got it off of www.examnotes.net. It was written by a guy that frequents their forums who works in the telecom industry, doing work related to WAN type installations, including DSL. Here's what he said about the subject: ADSL. Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line. A term for one-way T1 transmission of signals to the home over the plain old, single twisted-pair wiring already going to homes. ADSL modems attach to twisted pair copper wiring. ADSL is often provisioned with greater downstream than upstream rates (hence "asymmetric"). These rates are dependent on the distance a user is from the central office and may vary from as high as 9 Mbps to as low as 384 Kbps. HDSL. High bit-rate Digital Subscriber Line. The oldest of the DSL technologies, HDSL continues to be used by telephone companies deploying T1 lines at 1.5 Mbps and requires two twisted pairs. IDSL. ISDN Digital Subscriber Line. IDSL provides up to 144-Kbps transfer rates in each direction and can be provisioned on any ISDN capable phone line. Unlike ADSL and other DSL technologies, IDSL can be deployed regardless of the distance the user is from the central office. RADSL. Rate Adaptive Digital Subscriber Line. Using modified ADSL software, RADSL makes it possible for modems automatically and dynamically to adjust their transmission speeds. This often allows for good data rates for customers residing greater distances from the CO. SDSL. Single-line Digital Subscriber Line or Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line. A modified HDSL software technology, SDSL is intended to provide 1.5 Mbps in both directions over a single twisted pair. However, the distance over which this can be achieved is less than 8,000 feet. VDSL. Very high-rate Digital Subscriber Line. The newest of the DSL technologies, VDSL can offer speeds up to 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream. Similar to SDSL, the gain in speed can be achieved only at short distances. These maximum speeds can be achieved only up to 1,000 feet. Sometimes also called broadband digital subscriber line (BDSL). xDSL. A generic term for the suite of digital subscriber line (DSL) services, where the "x" can be replaced with any of a number of letters. See also DSL, ADSL, HDSL, IDSL, MDSL, RADSL, SDSL, VDSL. ""Brian Zeitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have 2 Verizon DSL lines, one is 1.5M down/128k up. The second is > 768k/768k up and down. They both have dynamic IPs. My question is; Are > these > both ADSL lines? My boss thinkins the one 768k/768k is SDSL. I dont > think it > is, first of all, both lines have the same modem. If the one like was > ADSL, > and the other was SDSL there would be a different kind of modem. Or does > SDSL require a modem at all? These are both Verizon lines, but i am > confused > on the naming. On my order it says they are both ADSL lines. Any input > would > be appreciated, is my boss right, or am I right? > > > > According to verizon's website ( I don't take this as the final word > however) > > > > What is the difference between DSL technologies such as SDSL, ADSL, > IDSL, etc.? > > Most small businesses are connected to an asymmetric (ADSL) line. ADSL > matches the Internet utilization of most users by providing higher > downstream capacity for browsing or downloading. Symmetric DSL (SDSL) > is a variation of ADSL, but provides the user with the same speed for > both downstream and upstream applications. Verizon Online Business DSL > portfolio of DSL speeds provides our Business customers with solutions > that meet their specific Internet application needs. > > > > Ok that being said, why can i use the same modem on the ADSL line and > the SDSL line. Why do they make specific > > modems for SDSL if they are both the same technology? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Brian Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54917&t=54909 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL Vs. SDSL [7:54909]
I have 2 Verizon DSL lines, one is 1.5M down/128k up. The second is 768k/768k up and down. They both have dynamic IPs. My question is; Are these both ADSL lines? My boss thinkins the one 768k/768k is SDSL. I dont think it is, first of all, both lines have the same modem. If the one like was ADSL, and the other was SDSL there would be a different kind of modem. Or does SDSL require a modem at all? These are both Verizon lines, but i am confused on the naming. On my order it says they are both ADSL lines. Any input would be appreciated, is my boss right, or am I right? According to verizon's website ( I don't take this as the final word however) What is the difference between DSL technologies such as SDSL, ADSL, IDSL, etc.? Most small businesses are connected to an asymmetric (ADSL) line. ADSL matches the Internet utilization of most users by providing higher downstream capacity for browsing or downloading. Symmetric DSL (SDSL) is a variation of ADSL, but provides the user with the same speed for both downstream and upstream applications. Verizon Online Business DSL portfolio of DSL speeds provides our Business customers with solutions that meet their specific Internet application needs. Ok that being said, why can i use the same modem on the ADSL line and the SDSL line. Why do they make specific modems for SDSL if they are both the same technology? Thanks, Brian Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54909&t=54909 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco 806 ADSL Router and Covad [7:53724]
Mark W. Odette II wrote: > If you don't do the WIC-1ADSL, you will need the ISP's DSL modem, and a > 1700 or 2600 series router with the WIC-1ENET module (supports PPPoE if > needed). > > The WIC-1ENET seems to be compatible with most DSL implementations... > but you also can get away with any Cisco router that the IOS supports > PPPoE (I think 12.2.2 and up, but maybe 12.1.5T... check Feature > Navigator for more details). Careful with that. The WIC-1ENET is only supported in the 1700; not in the 2600 series, last I looked. Regards, Marco. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54260&t=53724 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco 806 ADSL Router and Covad [7:53724]
Guy- I don't know if there are any specific restrictions, but ADSL is ADSL from what I've experienced. You just have to work with the ISP to ensure you are both on the same page about VPI/VCI parameters, and whether or not you need to activate bridging on the router to translate the ATM packets to Ethernet. Beyond that, it should be a piece of cake... but no guarantees. The 1700 & 2600 series routers have a WIC that should work for you (WIC-1ADSL)(which means you won't need the ISP's "DSL Modem". If you don't do the WIC-1ADSL, you will need the ISP's DSL modem, and a 1700 or 2600 series router with the WIC-1ENET module (supports PPPoE if needed). The WIC-1ENET seems to be compatible with most DSL implementations... but you also can get away with any Cisco router that the IOS supports PPPoE (I think 12.2.2 and up, but maybe 12.1.5T... check Feature Navigator for more details). Also note that, in my experience, if you are being assigned a block of IP's, then the PPPoE is a non-issue, and you don't usually have to configure the VPDN parameters on the router rather you just treat it like a P-t-P connection, and assign your ip addy to the Ethernet interface, etc., etc. Hope this helps. Mark -Original Message- From: Lupi, Guy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 2:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cisco 806 ADSL Router and Covad [7:53724] Ok, not the 806 because that is dual Ethernet, should have checked the product description more carefully. Does anyone know if Cisco sells an ADSL router that will work with Covad's ADSL service? -Original Message- From: Lupi, Guy Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cisco 806 ADSL Router and Covad [7:53724] Does anyone know if this ADSL router is compatible with Covad's ADSL service? Couldn't find it on Cisco's website. Thanks. Guy H. Lupi Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54256&t=53724 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco 806 ADSL Router and Covad [7:53724]
Ok, not the 806 because that is dual Ethernet, should have checked the product description more carefully. Does anyone know if Cisco sells an ADSL router that will work with Covad's ADSL service? -Original Message- From: Lupi, Guy Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cisco 806 ADSL Router and Covad [7:53724] Does anyone know if this ADSL router is compatible with Covad's ADSL service? Couldn't find it on Cisco's website. Thanks. Guy H. Lupi Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53743&t=53724 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cisco 806 ADSL Router and Covad [7:53724]
Does anyone know if this ADSL router is compatible with Covad's ADSL service? Couldn't find it on Cisco's website. Thanks. Guy H. Lupi Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53724&t=53724 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multilink PPPOE on ADSL [7:53473]
I think I was wrong, the problem is not the DSLAM, but the BAS ... so does the BAS support this ? ""Stephane Litkowski"" a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi all, > > Does someone (especially in France) try to aggregate two ADSL lines using > Multilink PPPoE ? > Does Cisco PPPoE client support this ? Does Freebsd support this ? Does the > DSLAMs (in France) support this feature ? > > Thanks for help, > > Stephane Litkowski Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53474&t=53473 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Multilink PPPOE on ADSL [7:53473]
Hi all, Does someone (especially in France) try to aggregate two ADSL lines using Multilink PPPoE ? Does Cisco PPPoE client support this ? Does Freebsd support this ? Does the DSLAMs (in France) support this feature ? Thanks for help, Stephane Litkowski Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53473&t=53473 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Link [7:52978]
Rarely is DSL used in a dedicated point-to-point manner...though it is possible on a large campus between buildings. Most ADSL connections are akin to a T1 line between you and your provider since you have, more or less, a dedicated copper run between your house/business and your service provider's DSLAM. Once it hits the edge of your service provider cloud, the copper goes into the DSLAM and out a high-speed connection (OC3, DS3, etc) to an access concentrator. From the access concentrator, it traverses the service provider's backbone this is why ADSL is more accurately described as a packet-switched connection. Since ATM is at layer 2 think of ATM connections (an example of a packet switched connection) except remember that now the ATM can traverse your copper phone lines. Finally, the traffic will hit other autonomous systems (the Internet) from your provider's backbone. Regards, Jason Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53013&t=52978 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL Link [7:52978]
Hi ADSL (assym Digital subscriber line) is used to deliver high rate data over ordinary phonelines. A new modulation technique called DMT Discrete multitone allows the hight speed ADSL facilitates the simultaneous use of normal phones ervisces ISDN and high speed transmissions ADSL can also run over future fibre cabels. Haakon Claassen EMEA - IT Transport Services -WAN Cisco Systems De Kleetlaan 6b - Pegasus Park B-1831 Diegem (Belgium) -Original Message- From: Ashok C Braganza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: dinsdag 10 september 2002 14:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL Link [7:52978] Can someone tell me What you call ADSL link? Is is it known as Dedicated line (like lease line) ? Thanks ashok Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=52981&t=52978 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL Link [7:52978]
Can someone tell me What you call ADSL link? Is is it known as Dedicated line (like lease line) ? Thanks ashok Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=52978&t=52978 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL routers [7:51250]
the 827 can do many things, including 3DES and firewall feature set, but supports only RIP and EIGRP -->No fair, mine doesn't support EIGRP. Only RIP. The 827 looks like it supports all of the routing protocols but when you enter them it always reads "unknown routing protocol". (Except for RIP.) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51489&t=51250 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL routers [7:51250]
Cisco 1751 with ADSL WIC is the least expensive choice. If you play your cards right, you could pick one up on Ebay WITH the DSP chip included so that you could also play around with Voice Shtuff! Granted your port density isn't the greatest, but the NM-xx is quite expensive just to add extra functionality. If you don't care about voice, and other flexible options down the road, a 1720 with an ADSL WIC will also do just fine. HTHs, Mark Odette II -Original Message- From: Brian Zeitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL routers [7:51250] Can anyone suggest a good router to get for ADSL? I want to utilize a full IOS, and not a dumbed down version. Or should I just go with a 2600 with an ADSL card. This firewall will be for a home connection, but I am the type to mess around with the routers, try to do different things with Pix firewalls, security, servers and whatnot. I know netgear routers work well for some people, but I want to use my router as something functional and as educational at the same time. What would be the cheapest way to go for an ADSL router, with full IOS capabilities. Thanks in advance Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51268&t=51250 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL routers [7:51250]
define "full" the 827 can do many things, including 3DES and firewall feature set, but supports only RIP and EIGRP. no fun finding that out the hard way. :-> I like your idea about the 26xx with the DSL WIC. I've used the DSL WICs in production for customer networks ( on the 1720 series ) and have been quite pleased, except for that one hardware failure in Fresno. And Cisco TAC identified the problem as hardware and replaced the card very quickly indeed. Chuck -- TANSTAAFL "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" Robert A. Heinlein may his soul grumble in peace ""Brian Zeitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Can anyone suggest a good router to get for ADSL? I want to utilize a > full IOS, and not a dumbed down version. Or should I just go with a 2600 > with an ADSL card. This firewall will be for a home connection, but I am > the type to mess around with the routers, try to do different things > with Pix firewalls, security, servers and whatnot. I know netgear > routers work well for some people, but I want to use my router as > something functional and as educational at the same time. What would be > the cheapest way to go for an ADSL router, with full IOS capabilities. > > > > Thanks in advance Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51291&t=51250 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL routers [7:51250]
Can anyone suggest a good router to get for ADSL? I want to utilize a full IOS, and not a dumbed down version. Or should I just go with a 2600 with an ADSL card. This firewall will be for a home connection, but I am the type to mess around with the routers, try to do different things with Pix firewalls, security, servers and whatnot. I know netgear routers work well for some people, but I want to use my router as something functional and as educational at the same time. What would be the cheapest way to go for an ADSL router, with full IOS capabilities. Thanks in advance Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51250&t=51250 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL - unable to reach URL's [7:50068]
What OS is he using? XP has the PPPoE stuff built in it. Just like you add a dial up connection, you can add a ADSL connection. -Original Message- From: Derrick Monahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL - unable to reach URL's [7:50068] I have been setting up a DSL connection for a home user, but he is currently unable to reach ANY website. I am able to ping IP addresses of servers on the internet and get a reply. But, neither IE nor Netscape is able to reach a single page (via IP or Name). The DHCP servers gives his adapter an IP address and gateway of the same address. The subnet is a /24. He is using the PPPoE adapter and no router or firewall exists at his site. I hardcoded the DNS server addresses to ensure DNS name resolution, but this did not fix anything. If you have any recommendations please reply. This should be a simple task to complete, but obviously I am missing something. Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50259&t=50068 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: PPPOE/ADSL on a PIX [7:50133]
I am running it on a cisco 515 UR with a 4-ethernet extension without any problems. -Original Message- From: Brian Zeitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: mardi 30 juillet 2002 17:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PPPOE/ADSL on a PIX [7:50133] I know 6.2(2) supports PPPoE, but has anyone successfully used it on a PIX 515 or any other model Pix? The documentation says it only is supported on the 506 and 501. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50246&t=50133 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PPPOE/ADSL on a PIX [7:50133]
I know 6.2(2) supports PPPoE, but has anyone successfully used it on a PIX 515 or any other model Pix? The documentation says it only is supported on the 506 and 501. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50133&t=50133 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL - unable to reach URL's [7:50068]
Chances are this is NOT a DNS issue. Try to PING www.cisco.com by name and see if you get name resolution. If you resolve the name to an address then DNS is not at fault here. I believe that your issue is more likely caused by an MTU problem. PPPOE requires 8 bytes of overhead and so your MTU now must be set to 1492 or less. The reason you can PING anything you want to is that your IP stack will typically use a small transmission size for ICMP (PING) by default. You can test this by typing "ping /?" on a Windows host to get the correct syntax and then change the transmission size to 1500 and see if the PING still works like it did. -Original Message- From: Derrick Monahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL - unable to reach URL's [7:50068] I have been setting up a DSL connection for a home user, but he is currently unable to reach ANY website. I am able to ping IP addresses of servers on the internet and get a reply. But, neither IE nor Netscape is able to reach a single page (via IP or Name). The DHCP servers gives his adapter an IP address and gateway of the same address. The subnet is a /24. He is using the PPPoE adapter and no router or firewall exists at his site. I hardcoded the DNS server addresses to ensure DNS name resolution, but this did not fix anything. If you have any recommendations please reply. This should be a simple task to complete, but obviously I am missing something. Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50081&t=50068 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL - unable to reach URL's [7:50068]
Be sure that he is allowing the DNS port through on the DSL router. ""Derrick Monahan"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have been setting up a DSL connection for a home user, but he is currently > unable to reach ANY website. I am able to ping IP addresses of servers on > the internet and get a reply. But, neither IE nor Netscape is able to reach > a single page (via IP or Name). > > The DHCP servers gives his adapter an IP address and gateway of the same > address. The subnet is a /24. He is using the PPPoE adapter and no router or > firewall exists at his site. I hardcoded the DNS server addresses to ensure > DNS name resolution, but this did not fix anything. > > If you have any recommendations please reply. This should be a simple task > to complete, but obviously I am missing something. > > Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50073&t=50068 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL - unable to reach URL's [7:50068]
I have been setting up a DSL connection for a home user, but he is currently unable to reach ANY website. I am able to ping IP addresses of servers on the internet and get a reply. But, neither IE nor Netscape is able to reach a single page (via IP or Name). The DHCP servers gives his adapter an IP address and gateway of the same address. The subnet is a /24. He is using the PPPoE adapter and no router or firewall exists at his site. I hardcoded the DNS server addresses to ensure DNS name resolution, but this did not fix anything. If you have any recommendations please reply. This should be a simple task to complete, but obviously I am missing something. Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50068&t=50068 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LAN(ADSL) to LAN(ADSL) VPN Router Config [7:47085]
Here is a "in production" example of a 2610 one static Internet IP using a split-tunnel to a dynamic IP 1720 with basically the same config; except the ip on the dialer is "ip address negotiated". -TV hostname 2610 ! ! ! clock timezone EST -5 clock summer-time EST recurring ip subnet-zero no ip source-route no ip rcmd domain-lookup ! ! ! no ip bootp server ip ssh time-out 120 ip ssh authentication-retries 3 vpdn enable ! vpdn-group pppoe request-dialin protocol pppoe ! ! crypto isakmp policy 1 hash md5 authentication pre-share crypto isakmp key whatever address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! crypto ipsec transform-set dynamictunnel esp-des esp-md5-hmac crypto mib ipsec flowmib history tunnel size 200 crypto mib ipsec flowmib history failure size 200 ! crypto dynamic-map br1map 10 set transform-set dynamictunnel match address 125 ! ! crypto map maptrans 10 ipsec-isakmp dynamic br1map ! ! interface ATM0/0 description dsl interface no ip address atm vc-per-vp 256 no atm ilmi-keepalive atm voice aal2 aggregate-svc upspeed-number 0 bundle-enable dsl operating-mode auto no fair-queue hold-queue 224 in ! interface ATM0/0.1 point-to-point pvc 0/35 pppoe-client dial-pool-number 1 ! ! interface Ethernet0/0 description inside Main Network ip address 192.168.28.1 255.255.255.0 no ip redirects ip nat inside half-duplex no cdp enable ! interface Dialer0 description Internet IP via pppoe and dsl ip address Inetaddress 255.255.255.0 ip access-group 180 in ip mtu 1492 ip nat outside encapsulation ppp dialer pool 1 no cdp enable ppp authentication pap callin ppp chap password 7 blahblah ppp pap sent-username blah password 7 blalalla crypto map maptrans ! ip nat inside source route-map nonat interface Dialer0 overload ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.28.250 25 Inetaddress 25 extendable ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer0 no ip http server ip pim bidir-enable ! access-list 125 permit ip 192.168.28.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.30.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 130 deny ip 192.168.28.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.30.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 130 permit ip 192.168.28.0 0.0.0.255 any access-list 180 permit ip 192.168.30.0 0.0.1.255 any log access-list 180 deny ip 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 any log access-list 180 deny ip 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 any log access-list 180 deny ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any log access-list 180 deny ip 127.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any log access-list 180 deny ip 255.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any log access-list 180 deny ip 224.0.0.0 7.255.255.255 any log access-list 180 deny tcp any any eq ident log access-list 180 deny tcp any any eq 135 log access-list 180 deny tcp any any eq 137 log access-list 180 deny tcp any any eq 138 log access-list 180 deny tcp any any eq 139 log access-list 180 deny udp any any eq 135 log access-list 180 deny udp any any eq netbios-ns log access-list 180 deny udp any any eq netbios-dgm log access-list 180 deny udp any any eq netbios-ss log access-list 180 deny tcp any any eq 161 log access-list 180 deny udp any any eq snmp log access-list 180 deny tcp any any eq 162 log access-list 180 deny udp any any eq snmptrap log access-list 180 permit udp host 128.118.25.3 eq ntp any log access-list 180 deny udp any any eq ntp log access-list 180 permit ip any any log no cdp run ! route-map nonat permit 10 match ip address 130 ! ""KM Reynolds"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi all, > > I have been trying to search CCO and the archives( think the links are down > at the moment) for a IpSec VPN LAN (1720 with ADSL) to LAN (1720 with ADSL) > router configuration using Pre-share keys. Can someone post or point where > I can find this specfic configuration. I have not configured a ADSL > interface and would like to understand this better. > > K Reynolds > > _ > Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47108&t=47085 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LAN(ADSL) to LAN(ADSL) VPN Router Config [7:47085]
Hi all, I have been trying to search CCO and the archives( think the links are down at the moment) for a IpSec VPN LAN (1720 with ADSL) to LAN (1720 with ADSL) router configuration using Pre-share keys. Can someone post or point where I can find this specfic configuration. I have not configured a ADSL interface and would like to understand this better. K Reynolds _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47085&t=47085 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ppp multilink over adsl????? [7:44704]
I heard someplace, maybe on this list, about using "dry pair" for DSL connections between two points. Attach a DSL device like an 827 at each end and voila! In such a case, I wonder. Especially now that you can create a virtual multilink interface, rather than have to go through the old virtual template method. Why not? ""MADMAN"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I think your correct. Most people that have DSL terminate at a > provider and I know of no providers that provide DSL-ppp-multilink. We > do have several customers that do control both sides, use DSL for > employee remote access and some use it for backup but again none have > tried the multilink but I suspect it's possible. > > Dave > > Michael Williams wrote: > > > > I'm going to hazzard a guess here and see what others think of my > theory. > > > > For PPP Multilink to work you need it enabled at both ends. with > > point-to-point T1s or ISDN this isn't a problem because you (usually) > > control both ends But with ADSL, you only control one end (unless this > > is the wierd point-to-point DSL that's being offered that I've just never > > heard of). So I don't think this would be possible, because your DSL > > provider would treat each connection separately (attempt to give an IP, > > etc).. > > > > Anyone's thoughts? > > > > Mike W. > -- > David Madland > Sr. Network Engineer > CCIE# 2016 > Qwest Communications Int. Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 612-664-3367 > > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44784&t=44704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ppp multilink over adsl????? [7:44704]
I think your correct. Most people that have DSL terminate at a provider and I know of no providers that provide DSL-ppp-multilink. We do have several customers that do control both sides, use DSL for employee remote access and some use it for backup but again none have tried the multilink but I suspect it's possible. Dave Michael Williams wrote: > > I'm going to hazzard a guess here and see what others think of my theory. > > For PPP Multilink to work you need it enabled at both ends. with > point-to-point T1s or ISDN this isn't a problem because you (usually) > control both ends But with ADSL, you only control one end (unless this > is the wierd point-to-point DSL that's being offered that I've just never > heard of). So I don't think this would be possible, because your DSL > provider would treat each connection separately (attempt to give an IP, > etc).. > > Anyone's thoughts? > > Mike W. -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44757&t=44704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ppp multilink over adsl????? [7:44704]
I'm going to hazzard a guess here and see what others think of my theory. For PPP Multilink to work you need it enabled at both ends. with point-to-point T1s or ISDN this isn't a problem because you (usually) control both ends But with ADSL, you only control one end (unless this is the wierd point-to-point DSL that's being offered that I've just never heard of). So I don't think this would be possible, because your DSL provider would treat each connection separately (attempt to give an IP, etc).. Anyone's thoughts? Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44724&t=44704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ppp multilink over adsl????? [7:44704]
Guys, Will anybody know is ppp multilink is possible over an adsl link and does it work similar to isdn? Regards, George. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44704&t=44704 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Pix 515 on ADSL Help! :) [7:44346]
Brian,
add the following to your config, and then try your pings again.
---
PIX#(config) conduit permit icmp any any
---
I believe your PPPoE connection is working, as proof from your output below:
>>PPPoE Tunnel and Session Information (Total tunnels=1 sessions=1)
>> Tunnel id 0, 1 active sessions
>> time since change 6015 secs
>> Remote MAC Address 00:00:00:xx
>> 1010 packets sent, 1023 received, 12641 bytes sent, 0 received
>> Remote MAC is 00:00:
>>Session state is SESSION_UP
>> Time since event change 7687 secs, interface outside
>> PPP interface id is 1
>> 1010 packets sent, 1023 received, 12641 bytes sent, 0 received
HTHs,
Mark
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Brian Zeitz
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 8:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pix 515 on ADSL Help! :) [7:44346]
Well, I upgraded my pix 515 to 6.2. I am kind of new to firewalls,
besides I can't use the PDM. "This version of PDM does not officially
support PIX 6.2(1). Please upgrade PDM.", I guess this is a good reason
to learn the command line in pix. I cant ping theISPs DNS servers from
the PDM. Any way to test if my Username and password is working for ADSL
?
My ISP (verizon, requires a U/P for PPPoE, I am not sure if it is
accepting the password. The modem lights are all green.
Anyhow, it's saying UP/UP, and I have the link up, but I am not sure how
to check if my PPPOE password is working. I am using CHAP, maybe this is
not right.
I donno, it looks like its working, but I cant get outside, even if I
use the DHCP Server feature. I am also wondering if failover is going to
work with ADSL, which is another issue. Keep in mind I am not sure if
the 515 will even work with ADSL as someone pointed out, it may not be
supported although I am running Pix 6.2(1)
My question is how can I test that my PPPoE required Username and
password are correct, and I am authenticated. I am now working on
getting Debug PPPoE to see maybe if I can find out if this is working.
Any pointers would be helpful.
mydev# show vpdn username
vpdn username vez2bxe password
mydev# show vpdn group verz1
vpdn group verz1 request dialout pppoe
vpdn group verz1 localname vez2vbxe
vpdn group verz1 ppp authentication chap
mydev# show vpdn pppinterface
PPP virtual interface id = 1
PPP authentication protocol is CHAP
Server ip address is 10.10.26.10
Our ip address is 151.22.13.12
Transmitted Pkts: 1096, Received Pkts: 1109, Error Pkts: 0
MPPE key strength is None
MPPE_Encrypt_Pkts: 0, MPPE_Encrypt_Bytes: 0
MPPE_Decrypt_Pkts: 0, MPPE_Decrypt_Bytes: 0
Rcvd_Out_Of_Seq_MPPE_Pkts: 0
mydev(config)# show int e0
interface ethernet0 "outside" is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is i82559 ethernet, address is 0.000.
IP address 151.22.13.13, subnet mask 255.255.255.255
MTU 1492 bytes, BW 1 Kbit half duplex
1410 packets input, 84908 bytes, 0 no buffer
Received 464 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants
0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort
1305 packets output, 272926 bytes, 0 underruns
0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets
0 babbles, 0 late collisions, 0 deferred
1 lost carrier, 0 no carrier
input queue (curr/max blocks): hardware (128/128) software (0/1)
output queue (curr/max blocks): hardware (0/1) software (0/1)
vesdev.com(config)#
mydev# show vpdn
%No active L2TP tunnels
%No active PPTP tunnels
PPPoE Tunnel and Session Information (Total tunnels=1 sessions=1)
Tunnel id 0, 1 active sessions
time since change 6015 secs
Remote MAC Address 00:00:00:xx
1010 packets sent, 1023 received, 12641 bytes sent, 0 received
Remote MAC is 00:00:
Session state is SESSION_UP
Time since event change 7687 secs, interface outside
PPP interface id is 1
1010 packets sent, 1023 received, 12641 bytes sent, 0 received
usage: debug pppoe {error|packet|event}
Usage: [no] debug icmp trace
[no] debug packet [src [netmask ]]
[dst [netmask ]]
[[proto icmp]|[proto tcp [sport ] [dport ]]
|[proto udp [sport ] [dport d_p]] [rx|tx|both]
[no] debug sqlnet
[no] debug crypto ipsec|isakmp|ca
[no] debug dhcpc detail|error|packet
[no] debug dhcpd event|packet
[no] debug vpdn error|event|packet
[no] debug ppp error|io|uauth|chap|upap|negotiation
[no] debug pppoe error|packet|event
[no] debug ssh
[no] debug h323 h225|h245|ras asn|event
[no] debug fover
[no] debug rtsp
[no] debug fixup
[no] debug rip
[no] debug pdm history
[no] debug ssl [cipher|device]
[no] debug dns
[no] debug sip
Pix 515 on ADSL Help! :) [7:44346]
Well, I upgraded my pix 515 to 6.2. I am kind of new to firewalls,
besides I can't use the PDM. "This version of PDM does not officially
support PIX 6.2(1). Please upgrade PDM.", I guess this is a good reason
to learn the command line in pix. I cant ping theISPs DNS servers from
the PDM. Any way to test if my Username and password is working for ADSL
?
My ISP (verizon, requires a U/P for PPPoE, I am not sure if it is
accepting the password. The modem lights are all green.
Anyhow, it's saying UP/UP, and I have the link up, but I am not sure how
to check if my PPPOE password is working. I am using CHAP, maybe this is
not right.
I donno, it looks like its working, but I cant get outside, even if I
use the DHCP Server feature. I am also wondering if failover is going to
work with ADSL, which is another issue. Keep in mind I am not sure if
the 515 will even work with ADSL as someone pointed out, it may not be
supported although I am running Pix 6.2(1)
My question is how can I test that my PPPoE required Username and
password are correct, and I am authenticated. I am now working on
getting Debug PPPoE to see maybe if I can find out if this is working.
Any pointers would be helpful.
mydev# show vpdn username
vpdn username vez2bxe password
mydev# show vpdn group verz1
vpdn group verz1 request dialout pppoe
vpdn group verz1 localname vez2vbxe
vpdn group verz1 ppp authentication chap
mydev# show vpdn pppinterface
PPP virtual interface id = 1
PPP authentication protocol is CHAP
Server ip address is 10.10.26.10
Our ip address is 151.22.13.12
Transmitted Pkts: 1096, Received Pkts: 1109, Error Pkts: 0
MPPE key strength is None
MPPE_Encrypt_Pkts: 0, MPPE_Encrypt_Bytes: 0
MPPE_Decrypt_Pkts: 0, MPPE_Decrypt_Bytes: 0
Rcvd_Out_Of_Seq_MPPE_Pkts: 0
mydev(config)# show int e0
interface ethernet0 "outside" is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is i82559 ethernet, address is 0.000.
IP address 151.22.13.13, subnet mask 255.255.255.255
MTU 1492 bytes, BW 1 Kbit half duplex
1410 packets input, 84908 bytes, 0 no buffer
Received 464 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants
0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort
1305 packets output, 272926 bytes, 0 underruns
0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets
0 babbles, 0 late collisions, 0 deferred
1 lost carrier, 0 no carrier
input queue (curr/max blocks): hardware (128/128) software (0/1)
output queue (curr/max blocks): hardware (0/1) software (0/1)
vesdev.com(config)#
mydev# show vpdn
%No active L2TP tunnels
%No active PPTP tunnels
PPPoE Tunnel and Session Information (Total tunnels=1 sessions=1)
Tunnel id 0, 1 active sessions
time since change 6015 secs
Remote MAC Address 00:00:00:xx
1010 packets sent, 1023 received, 12641 bytes sent, 0 received
Remote MAC is 00:00:
Session state is SESSION_UP
Time since event change 7687 secs, interface outside
PPP interface id is 1
1010 packets sent, 1023 received, 12641 bytes sent, 0 received
usage: debug pppoe {error|packet|event}
Usage: [no] debug icmp trace
[no] debug packet [src [netmask ]]
[dst [netmask ]]
[[proto icmp]|[proto tcp [sport ] [dport ]]
|[proto udp [sport ] [dport d_p]] [rx|tx|both]
[no] debug sqlnet
[no] debug crypto ipsec|isakmp|ca
[no] debug dhcpc detail|error|packet
[no] debug dhcpd event|packet
[no] debug vpdn error|event|packet
[no] debug ppp error|io|uauth|chap|upap|negotiation
[no] debug pppoe error|packet|event
[no] debug ssh
[no] debug h323 h225|h245|ras asn|event
[no] debug fover
[no] debug rtsp
[no] debug fixup
[no] debug rip
[no] debug pdm history
[no] debug ssl [cipher|device]
[no] debug dns
[no] debug sip
[no] debug skinny
[no] debug access-list
[no] debug radius [session|all|user ]
[no] debug ntp
[adjust|authentication|events|loopfilter|packets|params|
select|sync|validity]
[no] debug ils
[no] debug igmp
[no] debug mfwd
mydev#
mydev# debug pppoe
usage: debug pppoe {error|packet|event}
Usage: [no] debug icmp trace
[no] debug packet [src [netmask ]]
[dst [netmask ]]
[[proto icmp]|[proto tcp [sport ] [dport ]]
|[proto udp [sport ] [dport d_p]] [rx|tx|both]
[no] debug sqlnet
[no] debug crypto ipsec|isakmp|ca
[no] debug dhcpc detail|error|packet
[no] debug dhcpd event|packet
[no] debug vpdn error|event|packet
[no] debug ppp error|io|uauth|chap|upap|negotiation
[no] debug pppoe error|packet|event
[no] debug ssh
[no
Re: ADSL - WIC & 1600???? [7:44042]
Nope, 1700, 2600, 3600, 3700. Dave "Jablonski, Michael" wrote: > > Is it possible to get the ADSL WIC running on a 1600 router? > > ~~~ > Michael Jablonski > ABN AMRO Asset Management Holdings, Inc. > 161 North Clark St. > 9th Flr > Chicago, IL 60601-2468 > PH: 312.884.2996 > FAX: 312.278.5550 > ~~~ > > > This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be > privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify the sender > by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any > unauthorized use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part > is strictly prohibited. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to > change. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (including its group companies) shall not be > responsible nor liable for the proper and complete transmission of the > information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its > receipt or damage to your system. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (or its group > companies) does not guarantee that the integrity of this communication > has been maintained nor that this communication is free of viruses, > interceptions or interference. > -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44072&t=44042 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL - WIC & 1600???? [7:44042]
Support (or lack thereof) would be an IOS issue. You might want to check the Release Notes for the latest IOS versions. About a year ago I stuck a ISDN BRI WIC in a 1604? that already had a built-in BRI port. The router wouldn't recognize it. @#!! My point being that just because it fits doesn't mean that it will function. > -Original Message- > From: Jablonski, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Looking through Cisco's site; they don't officially say you > can use the ADSL > wic in a 1600 (then again, they don't say you cannot). But I was > wondering if there was any type of upgrade/patch that would work? > > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Cotts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > I just did a quick look on Cisco's price list. That module is > not listed for > the 1600 but is for the 1700. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jablonski, Michael > > Is it possible to get the ADSL WIC running on a 1600 router? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44059&t=44042 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL - WIC & 1600???? [7:44042]
Looking through Cisco's site; they don't officially say you can use the ADSL wic in a 1600 (then again, they don't say you cannot). But I was wondering if there was any type of upgrade/patch that would work? -Original Message- From: Daniel Cotts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:41 AM To: 'Jablonski, Michael'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL - WIC & 1600 [7:44042] I just did a quick look on Cisco's price list. That module is not listed for the 1600 but is for the 1700. > -Original Message- > From: Jablonski, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 10:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: ADSL - WIC & 1600 [7:44042] > > > Is it possible to get the ADSL WIC running on a 1600 router? > > > ~~~ > Michael Jablonski > ABN AMRO Asset Management Holdings, Inc. > 161 North Clark St. > 9th Flr > Chicago, IL 60601-2468 > PH: 312.884.2996 > FAX: 312.278.5550 > ~~~ > > -- > -- > This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be > privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify > the sender > by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any > unauthorized use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part > is strictly prohibited. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to > change. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (including its group companies) > shall not be > responsible nor liable for the proper and complete > transmission of the > information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its > receipt or damage to your system. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (or its group > companies) does not guarantee that the integrity of this > communication > has been maintained nor that this communication is free of viruses, > interceptions or interference. > -- > -- This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to change. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (including its group companies) shall not be responsible nor liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (or its group companies) does not guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that this communication is free of viruses, interceptions or interference. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44058&t=44042 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL - WIC & 1600???? [7:44042]
I just did a quick look on Cisco's price list. That module is not listed for the 1600 but is for the 1700. > -Original Message- > From: Jablonski, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 10:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: ADSL - WIC & 1600 [7:44042] > > > Is it possible to get the ADSL WIC running on a 1600 router? > > > ~~~ > Michael Jablonski > ABN AMRO Asset Management Holdings, Inc. > 161 North Clark St. > 9th Flr > Chicago, IL 60601-2468 > PH: 312.884.2996 > FAX: 312.278.5550 > ~~~ > > -- > -- > This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be > privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify > the sender > by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any > unauthorized use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part > is strictly prohibited. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to > change. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (including its group companies) > shall not be > responsible nor liable for the proper and complete > transmission of the > information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its > receipt or damage to your system. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (or its group > companies) does not guarantee that the integrity of this > communication > has been maintained nor that this communication is free of viruses, > interceptions or interference. > -- > -- Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44054&t=44042 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL - WIC & 1600???? [7:44042]
Is it possible to get the ADSL WIC running on a 1600 router? ~~~ Michael Jablonski ABN AMRO Asset Management Holdings, Inc. 161 North Clark St. 9th Flr Chicago, IL 60601-2468 PH: 312.884.2996 FAX: 312.278.5550 ~~~ This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to change. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (including its group companies) shall not be responsible nor liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (or its group companies) does not guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that this communication is free of viruses, interceptions or interference. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44042&t=44042 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT Re: SDSL vs ADSL [7:33144]
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Ramesh c wrote: > Folks, > > 1)Whats difference between ADSL and SDSL? adsl is asymmetric, so sownload speed exceeds upload, this is less expensive. sdsl is often marketed as business class because upload and download speeds are equal. Servers are sometimes more tolerated on sdsl. > 2)Can I have 2Pcs connected over ADSL or SDSL(Like Windows NT RAS)? Typically 1 endd is an isp, so the other end is the user. Assuming nat is allowed or you have multiple ips, use as many puters as you like. > 3)Does ADSL or SDSL need special telephone line or the existing line is > sufficient? sdsl requires its own line, adsl can be used with a splitter over an existing line. Finally see www.dslreports.com to see what is available for you. > > > Cheers > R Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=33148&t=33144 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SDSL vs ADSL [7:33144]
Folks, 1)Whats difference between ADSL and SDSL? 2)Can I have 2Pcs connected over ADSL or SDSL(Like Windows NT RAS)? 3)Does ADSL or SDSL need special telephone line or the existing line is sufficient? Cheers R Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=33144&t=33144 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Solved: VPN over PPPoE ADSL [7:31089]
Disregard this errant post. I posted this a week ago and it was still in my outbox and it accidentally got sent again. This issue was resolved with an upgrade from 12.1 to 12.2.2XK. The 12.1 version of code we were running in the 827 did not pass-thru IPSec. Bruce ""Bruce Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have a customer that has an ADSL line which uses PPPoE. They can establish > a VPN Tunnel, but the throughput drops to below 28KBS and the only packets > that seem to be able to traverse the tunnel are ICMP Pings. I was told that > there is a problem with establishing VPNs over a PPPoE ADSL connection. Is > this true and if it is what is the issue? > > Bruce Williams > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31090&t=31089 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VPN over PPPoE ADSL [7:31089]
I have a customer that has an ADSL line which uses PPPoE. They can establish a VPN Tunnel, but the throughput drops to below 28KBS and the only packets that seem to be able to traverse the tunnel are ICMP Pings. I was told that there is a problem with establishing VPNs over a PPPoE ADSL connection. Is this true and if it is what is the issue? Bruce Williams mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31089&t=31089 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with VPN over PPPoE ADSL [7:30723]
a wild guess, packet frag issues? Try to ping with larger packets to test this.. Brian "Sonic" Whalen Success = Preparation + Opportunity On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Bruce Williams wrote: > I have a customer with an ADSL line which uses PPPoE. They are able to > establish a VPN tunnel over the DSL line, but they are only able to ping > through the tunnel. TCP, UDP and other higher protocols will not work. I > heard that there is an issue with doing VPNs over PPPoE ADSL. Does anyone > know what the issue is and if there is a solution? > > Bruce Williams > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30734&t=30723 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problem with VPN over PPPoE ADSL [7:30723]
I have a customer with an ADSL line which uses PPPoE. They are able to establish a VPN tunnel over the DSL line, but they are only able to ping through the tunnel. TCP, UDP and other higher protocols will not work. I heard that there is an issue with doing VPNs over PPPoE ADSL. Does anyone know what the issue is and if there is a solution? Bruce Williams mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30723&t=30723 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL Configuration with PBI in San Jose [7:29366]
I have enhanced ADSL service with PBI here in San Jose and have purchased a 1751 with the WIC1ADSL. Do I need any information from PBI to configure ADSL support? Has any list member in the Bay Area configured ADSL with PBI? I've seen some sample configurations but do not know if they apply to PBI here... Thanks! -- James D. Wilson, CCDA, MCP Sr. Network/Security Engineer "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29366&t=29366 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL question [7:29175]
oh, and btw, the bridging commands mentioned are plain wrong (or should I say unnecessary), and would at best, achieve nothing. Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29325&t=29175 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL question [7:29175]
I sould give support to a customer who is testing DHCP out of his local lan. He has a cisco 1750 and he provided me the configuration. In my humble opionion there is something wrong in the configuration I'm sending you below, and I'd like to have your opinion. I don't understand the ADSL solution. It is not RFC1483 bridging or routing, it is not PPPoA or PPPoE. Can anybody give me his/her opinion? Thanks in advance. TP interface ATM0 mtu 1024 no ip address no ip mroute-cache atm vc-per-vp 256 no atm ilmi-keepalive pvc 1/40 vbr-rt 64 64 4 encapsulation aal5mux ppp dialer dialer pool-member 1 ! dsl operating-mode auto bridge-group 1 ! interface FastEthernet0 ip address x 255.255.255.240 no ip redirects no ip mroute-cache speed auto no cdp enable ! interface Dialer0 mtu 1024 bandwidth 128 ip unnumbered FastEthernet0 encapsulation ppp no ip route-cache ip tcp header-compression iphc-format no ip mroute-cache no keepalive dialer pool 1 dialer-group 1 fair-queue 64 256 1000 no cdp enable bridge-group 1 ip rtp header-compression iphc-format ip rtp priority 16384 16383 48 ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer0 no ip http server ip pim bidir-enable ! ! bridge 1 protocol ieee call rsvp-sync ! voice-port 1/0 cptone GR timeouts initial 5 timeouts interdigit 3 ! voice-port 1/1 ! no mgcp timer receive-rtcp ! mgcp profile default ! dial-peer cor custom ! ! ! gateway ! ! line con 0 speed 115200 line aux 0 line vty 0 4 login ! no scheduler allocate ntp clock-period 17180542 ntp server source FastEthernet0 prefer end Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29175&t=29175 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco 827 ADSL Emergency Help [7:27945]
Based on what little we have to go off, I have experienced a similar problem with the Cisco 675. It was caused by the Code Red virus. It ended up needing 3 things:latest flash, web interface disabled and a command that would automatically reconnect if the provider lost signal11. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Shawn Xu Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 11:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cisco 827 ADSL Emergency Help [7:27945] Hi, Who has Cisco 827 ADSL router experience, please help. This is a real emergency, not only today is Sunday I am still on the site to figure out what is going on here, but also the company complains too much because they can not remotely access. The problem is like this: After you reboot the 827, everything is working fine, all the interfaces are up, but you don't know how long it will last, sometimes a few of hours, sometimes one hour, sometimes maybe 5 to 6 hours, then no Internet. When you show interface at this time, all the inerfaces are still up except virtual-access1 line protocol which was down. Any idea? and is there anything related to my configuration file (please see the attached for the file)? Thank you so much in advance. Shawn Xu _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp sh run Building configuration... Current configuration : 2420 bytes ! version 12.1 no parser cache no service single-slot-reload-enable no service pad service timestamps debug datetime msec localtime show-timezone service timestamps log datetime msec localtime show-timezone service password-encryption ! hostname dethomas ! logging buffered 4096 debugging logging rate-limit console 10 except errors enable password 7 05585058741F1D51 ! username admin password 7 0255520C5E555C79 clock summer-time eastern recurring ip subnet-zero no ip finger ip domain-name golden.net ip name-server 199.166.210.2 ip name-server 199.166.210.5 ! ip dhcp pool CLIENT ! no ip bootp server no ip dhcp-client network-discovery vpdn enable no vpdn logging ! vpdn-group 1 request-dialin protocol pppoe ! ! ! ! interface Ethernet0 ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 ip accounting output-packets ip nat inside no cdp enable ! interface ATM0 mtu 1492 no ip address no atm ilmi-keepalive atm ilmi-pvc-discovery pvc 0/35 protocol pppoe pppoe-client dial-pool-number 1 ! bundle-enable dsl operating-mode auto hold-queue 224 in ! interface Dialer1 mtu 1492 ip address negotiated ip nat outside encapsulation ppp ip tcp adjust-mss 1422 dialer pool 1 dialer-group 1 no cdp enable ppp authentication pap callin ppp pap sent-username [EMAIL PROTECTED] password 7 0601002D484B07 ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer1 no ip http server ! ip nat inside source list 101 interface Dialer1 overload ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.4 5631 209.183.136.31 5631 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.9 443 209.183.136.31 443 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.9 389 209.183.136.31 389 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.9 709 209.183.136.31 709 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.2 1433 209.183.136.31 1433 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.2 710 209.183.136.31 710 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.2 701 209.183.136.31 701 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.2 700 209.183.136.31 700 extendable access-list 98 permit any access-list 101 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 any no cdp run snmp-server engineID local 0009020196A499EB snmp-server community rescue RO 98 ! line con 0 exec-timeout 120 0 login local transport input none stopbits 1 line vty 0 4 access-class 98 in exec-timeout 0 0 password 7 15415D5B5179787C login local ! scheduler max-task-time 5000 end Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27948&t=27945 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cisco 827 ADSL Emergency Help [7:27945]
Hi, Who has Cisco 827 ADSL router experience, please help. This is a real emergency, not only today is Sunday I am still on the site to figure out what is going on here, but also the company complains too much because they can not remotely access. The problem is like this: After you reboot the 827, everything is working fine, all the interfaces are up, but you don't know how long it will last, sometimes a few of hours, sometimes one hour, sometimes maybe 5 to 6 hours, then no Internet. When you show interface at this time, all the inerfaces are still up except virtual-access1 line protocol which was down. Any idea? and is there anything related to my configuration file (please see the attached for the file)? Thank you so much in advance. Shawn Xu _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp sh run Building configuration... Current configuration : 2420 bytes ! version 12.1 no parser cache no service single-slot-reload-enable no service pad service timestamps debug datetime msec localtime show-timezone service timestamps log datetime msec localtime show-timezone service password-encryption ! hostname dethomas ! logging buffered 4096 debugging logging rate-limit console 10 except errors enable password 7 05585058741F1D51 ! username admin password 7 0255520C5E555C79 clock summer-time eastern recurring ip subnet-zero no ip finger ip domain-name golden.net ip name-server 199.166.210.2 ip name-server 199.166.210.5 ! ip dhcp pool CLIENT ! no ip bootp server no ip dhcp-client network-discovery vpdn enable no vpdn logging ! vpdn-group 1 request-dialin protocol pppoe ! ! ! ! interface Ethernet0 ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 ip accounting output-packets ip nat inside no cdp enable ! interface ATM0 mtu 1492 no ip address no atm ilmi-keepalive atm ilmi-pvc-discovery pvc 0/35 protocol pppoe pppoe-client dial-pool-number 1 ! bundle-enable dsl operating-mode auto hold-queue 224 in ! interface Dialer1 mtu 1492 ip address negotiated ip nat outside encapsulation ppp ip tcp adjust-mss 1422 dialer pool 1 dialer-group 1 no cdp enable ppp authentication pap callin ppp pap sent-username [EMAIL PROTECTED] password 7 0601002D484B07 ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer1 no ip http server ! ip nat inside source list 101 interface Dialer1 overload ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.4 5631 209.183.136.31 5631 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.9 443 209.183.136.31 443 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.9 389 209.183.136.31 389 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.9 709 209.183.136.31 709 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.2 1433 209.183.136.31 1433 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.2 710 209.183.136.31 710 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.2 701 209.183.136.31 701 extendable ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.2 700 209.183.136.31 700 extendable access-list 98 permit any access-list 101 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 any no cdp run snmp-server engineID local 0009020196A499EB snmp-server community rescue RO 98 ! line con 0 exec-timeout 120 0 login local transport input none stopbits 1 line vty 0 4 access-class 98 in exec-timeout 0 0 password 7 15415D5B5179787C login local ! scheduler max-task-time 5000 end Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27945&t=27945 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Connect ADSL via BGP [7:24412]
Hello , Guys...
I met a problem in my new case
The HQ is using Cisco 3640 connected two ATM E1
and there is seven branch office connected with two ADSL (One is primary
use , one is backup use)
Now , the situation is , how can I config the router with running BGP...
In the condition of is I don't need to do anything when the primary circuit
is down , all of the traffic will
automatic transfer to the backup circuit.
Is there anyone has this experenice can share with me ?
or anyone knows how to config the HQ router and branch router ?
Best Regards .
Please reply to my mail... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~/e|\|a6Z|0Cz\ }J&~\
&xie
wk|pGuxr
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24412&t=24412
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL/BVI problems solved! [7:23631]
> After much experimentation and much frustration, I finally solved the > problem with my BVI interface. It turns out that removing the default > route pointing at the BVI1 interface and replacing it with a default route > pointing at the next-hop IP address fixed the problem. How does your router know where to route traffic ? The default route was pointing to x.x.x.26 (when the traffic got there, it knew not where to go). At the next hop, whatever device was there, used its routing table to forward traffic further. > I'm not totally clear on why this made a difference, but it did. As soon > as that change was made, I could reach the IP assigned to the BVI interface > from hosts out in the world, and general connectivity was enabled. Wild. Routing, its a beautiful thing :) > If someone can explain to me why a next-hop static route vs an interface > static route made a difference, I'd appreciate it. .26 did not have a routing table (it was you). Had .26 been another router on the network, it would have worked fine. BTW (what was the next hop , .25 ?) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23634&t=23631 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ADSL/BVI problems solved! [7:23631]
>I finally got it through my thick head that it was a *bridged* connection, >and set up IRB. > >Sure enough, I was then able to ping the next hop address with packets >sourced from the public IP I was given. However, I seem to be unable to >hit anything outside that particular subnet, and I'm not sure why. If I >try and ping www.yahoo.com, for instance, I get no response. This is true >if I ping from the internal network (and thus NAT) or if I ping sourced >from the BVI interface (avoiding NAT). After much experimentation and much frustration, I finally solved the problem with my BVI interface. It turns out that removing the default route pointing at the BVI1 interface and replacing it with a default route pointing at the next-hop IP address fixed the problem. I'm not totally clear on why this made a difference, but it did. As soon as that change was made, I could reach the IP assigned to the BVI interface from hosts out in the world, and general connectivity was enabled. Wild. If someone can explain to me why a next-hop static route vs an interface static route made a difference, I'd appreciate it. Thanks Ben Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23631&t=23631 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL/BVI problems [7:23535]
At 2:27 PM -0400 10/19/01, Mark Odette II wrote: >Ben, >I could be wrong, and you're using a new angle I've never seen before on >implementing NAT, >But I think your problem is this: > >You need to specify a NAT Pool, and the Access-List 152 is applied to that >pool, rather than what you're trying to do. > >This is what I mean. > >ip nat pool Name-of-Pool 216.162.122.Y 216.162.122.Z netmask 255.255.255.248 >ip nat inside source list 152 pool Name-of-Pool overload I think the NAT config I'm using is valid; I've been using it (and variations on that theme) for while with no problem. The access list tells the router to NAT traffic from 192.168.10.0/24. Since I have only the one public IP, and it is assigned to the interface, there's no NAT pool to configure, so I configure NAT overload on the interface itself. While my public IP is part of that /29, I only get one IP out of that /29. Other customers of the ISP are using other IPs in that subnet. Ben Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23560&t=23535 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL/BVI problems [7:23535]
Ben, I could be wrong, and you're using a new angle I've never seen before on implementing NAT, But I think your problem is this: You need to specify a NAT Pool, and the Access-List 152 is applied to that pool, rather than what you're trying to do. This is what I mean. ip nat pool Name-of-Pool 216.162.122.Y 216.162.122.Z netmask 255.255.255.248 ip nat inside source list 152 pool Name-of-Pool overload Note: Y and Z are Start and End of IP block, chosen by your preference if you want to also use statics out of your block. This may be why you are not getting return traffic. NAT is broken. -Mark Odette II StellarConnection Services -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ben Hockenhull Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 11:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL/BVI problems [7:23535] I finally got it through my thick head that it was a *bridged* connection, and set up IRB. Sure enough, I was then able to ping the next hop address with packets sourced from the public IP I was given. However, I seem to be unable to hit anything outside that particular subnet, and I'm not sure why. If I try and ping www.yahoo.com, for instance, I get no response. This is true if I ping from the internal network (and thus NAT) or if I ping sourced from the BVI interface (avoiding NAT). It all works fine if I use the external ADSL bridge. Ideas? Relevant config: ! ! bridge irb ! ! ! ! interface ATM0/0 mtu 1500 no ip address atm vc-per-vp 256 no atm auto-configuration no atm ilmi-keepalive bundle-enable dsl operating-mode auto ! interface ATM0/0.1 point-to-point pvc valuenet 0/35 encapsulation aal5snap ! bridge-group 1 ! interface FastEthernet0/0 description Internal Network ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0 ip nat inside speed 100 full-duplex ! interface BVI1 ip address 216.162.122.26 255.255.255.248 ip nat outside ! ip nat inside source list 152 interface BVI1 overload ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 BVI1 ! access-list 152 permit ip 192.168.10.0 0.0.0.255 any ! bridge 1 protocol ieee bridge 1 route ip ATM0/0 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is DSLSAR (with Alcatel ADSL Module) MTU 1500 bytes, sub MTU 1500, BW 160 Kbit, DLY 12800 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ATM, loopback not set Encapsulation(s): AAL5 AAL2, PVC mode 23 maximum active VCs, 256 VCs per VP, 1 current VCCs VC idle disconnect time: 300 seconds Last input 00:05:08, output 00:00:01, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters 00:07:49 Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0 Queueing strategy: None 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 10 packets input, 1102 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 291 packets output, 14241 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out ATM0/0.1 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is DSLSAR (with Alcatel ADSL Module) MTU 1500 bytes, BW 160 Kbit, DLY 12800 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ATM 5 packets input, 586 bytes 277 packets output,13639 bytes 0 OAM cells input, 0 OAM cells output BVI1 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is BVI, address is .0cfa.4c54 (bia ..) Internet address is 216.162.122.26/29 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1 Kbit, DLY 5000 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 Last input never, output never, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters never Queueing strategy: fifo Output queue 0/0, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 0 packets input, 0 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 136 packets output, 8592 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23551&t=23535 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADSL/BVI problems [7:23535]
I finally got it through my thick head that it was a *bridged* connection, and set up IRB. Sure enough, I was then able to ping the next hop address with packets sourced from the public IP I was given. However, I seem to be unable to hit anything outside that particular subnet, and I'm not sure why. If I try and ping www.yahoo.com, for instance, I get no response. This is true if I ping from the internal network (and thus NAT) or if I ping sourced from the BVI interface (avoiding NAT). It all works fine if I use the external ADSL bridge. Ideas? Relevant config: ! ! bridge irb ! ! ! ! interface ATM0/0 mtu 1500 no ip address atm vc-per-vp 256 no atm auto-configuration no atm ilmi-keepalive bundle-enable dsl operating-mode auto ! interface ATM0/0.1 point-to-point pvc valuenet 0/35 encapsulation aal5snap ! bridge-group 1 ! interface FastEthernet0/0 description Internal Network ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0 ip nat inside speed 100 full-duplex ! interface BVI1 ip address 216.162.122.26 255.255.255.248 ip nat outside ! ip nat inside source list 152 interface BVI1 overload ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 BVI1 ! access-list 152 permit ip 192.168.10.0 0.0.0.255 any ! bridge 1 protocol ieee bridge 1 route ip ATM0/0 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is DSLSAR (with Alcatel ADSL Module) MTU 1500 bytes, sub MTU 1500, BW 160 Kbit, DLY 12800 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ATM, loopback not set Encapsulation(s): AAL5 AAL2, PVC mode 23 maximum active VCs, 256 VCs per VP, 1 current VCCs VC idle disconnect time: 300 seconds Last input 00:05:08, output 00:00:01, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters 00:07:49 Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0 Queueing strategy: None 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 10 packets input, 1102 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 291 packets output, 14241 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out ATM0/0.1 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is DSLSAR (with Alcatel ADSL Module) MTU 1500 bytes, BW 160 Kbit, DLY 12800 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ATM 5 packets input, 586 bytes 277 packets output,13639 bytes 0 OAM cells input, 0 OAM cells output BVI1 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is BVI, address is .0cfa.4c54 (bia ..) Internet address is 216.162.122.26/29 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1 Kbit, DLY 5000 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 Last input never, output never, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters never Queueing strategy: fifo Output queue 0/0, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 0 packets input, 0 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 136 packets output, 8592 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23535&t=23535 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL config [7:23456]
by default the router is not a bridge. so yes, bridging must be enabled. look, my DSL provider put a bridge in my house. I plug the ethernet side into a hub, and anything I plug into that hub has my public IP numbers. same as your old configuration. If your ISP is bridging to you then so far as I know, based on how I have configured things that plug into Pacific Bell Internet's bridged connections, bridging must be enabled and on the DSL side of things there needs be a bridging configuration. I use IRB and the BVI, because my customers tend to have private IP's on the inside, and we are doing some form of VPN tunnels. Other ISP's may do things differently. I can only relate my own limited experience here. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ben Hockenhull Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL config [7:23456] >the carrier DSL bridge? You would plug the Ethernet output into a hub or >switch, plug your other end stations into that hub or switch, and number >everything according to the IP scheme your carrier provides. You should be >doing the same on your Cisco box. I can only speak to what I have done >personally, but my understanding is that you would bridge on the DSL link, >and the public IP address would either go on the ethernet link or the BVI. Well, the way it was set up, the provided DSL bridge plugs into an ethernet interface designated as external, the internal network was on another ethernet interface, I set the public IP on the public ethernet interface, enable NAT, and things Just Work. I'm trying to get rid of the bridge for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the bridge doesn't drop line protocol on the ethernet port when the DSL link goes down, so my dial-backup never triggers. I'm still unclear on why I need to set up bridging, unless I need to be sending BPDUs to the DSLAM or something. If the ADSL interface is configured with the PVC information and has an IP, why can't it just encapsulate the frames and send them down the wire without the benefit of an explicit bridge-group? The DSL bridge that was in place simply performed media conversion in the first place. What am I missing? Thanks Ben Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23486&t=23456 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL config [7:23456]
>the carrier DSL bridge? You would plug the Ethernet output into a hub or >switch, plug your other end stations into that hub or switch, and number >everything according to the IP scheme your carrier provides. You should be >doing the same on your Cisco box. I can only speak to what I have done >personally, but my understanding is that you would bridge on the DSL link, >and the public IP address would either go on the ethernet link or the BVI. Well, the way it was set up, the provided DSL bridge plugs into an ethernet interface designated as external, the internal network was on another ethernet interface, I set the public IP on the public ethernet interface, enable NAT, and things Just Work. I'm trying to get rid of the bridge for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the bridge doesn't drop line protocol on the ethernet port when the DSL link goes down, so my dial-backup never triggers. I'm still unclear on why I need to set up bridging, unless I need to be sending BPDUs to the DSLAM or something. If the ADSL interface is configured with the PVC information and has an IP, why can't it just encapsulate the frames and send them down the wire without the benefit of an explicit bridge-group? The DSL bridge that was in place simply performed media conversion in the first place. What am I missing? Thanks Ben Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23474&t=23456 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL config [7:23456]
some comments / questions below: -Original Message- From: Ben Hockenhull [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 6:46 PM To: Chuck Larrieu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ADSL config [7:23456] At 6:22 PM -0700 10/18/01, Chuck Larrieu wrote: >the following was taken from a working configuration. I do not have the >bridging configuration handy, but I have bridged using DSL successfully. > >to bridge you need to configure IRB and create a BVI that will have your >public IP address. It will also be the interface for NAT outside. The DSL >link will be part of the bridge-group. Do I need to bridge, though? It seems to me, and maybe I'm being dumb, that I should be able to configure the pertinent details on the interface, bring it up, and things should work. I'm not clear on why I'd need to use CRB or IRB at all. CL: the DSL device should bridge - yes. what would you do if you were using the carrier DSL bridge? You would plug the Ethernet output into a hub or switch, plug your other end stations into that hub or switch, and number everything according to the IP scheme your carrier provides. You should be doing the same on your Cisco box. I can only speak to what I have done personally, but my understanding is that you would bridge on the DSL link, and the public IP address would either go on the ethernet link or the BVI. >I also notice that you do not have your encapsulation set. I've never been >clear when or where this is required, so I always throw it in there. I went ahead and set the encap: interface ATM0/0 mtu 1500 no ip address atm vc-per-vp 256 no atm ilmi-keepalive bundle-enable dsl operating-mode auto ! interface ATM0/0.1 point-to-point mtu 1500 ip address 216.162.122.26 255.255.255.248 pvc valuenet 0/35 encapsulation aal5snap ! ! And debug output remains the same. It's also interesting that if I ping the IP I assigned to the interface from an outside host, I get debug output, so the packets are making it to the interface. However, the ping never sees replies. >also - your debug output is showing VPI 0 and VCI 23. is your telco of any >help providing you with the proper pvc info? VPI is 0, VCI is 35. The debug output shows 0x23 for the VCI, which is hex, and converts to decimal 35. CL: DOH! Here's the output of a sho int, in case that reveals anything useful: CL: your ATM/DSL side is working fine. I believe the problem will be corrected at the very least by making the DSL link part of a bridge group and putting the public IP on the ethernet. My preference would be to use a BVI, but that's just me ;-> ATM0/0 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is DSLSAR (with Alcatel ADSL Module) MTU 1500 bytes, sub MTU 1500, BW 160 Kbit, DLY 12800 usec, reliability 248/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ATM, loopback not set Encapsulation(s): AAL5 AAL2, PVC mode 23 maximum active VCs, 256 VCs per VP, 1 current VCCs VC idle disconnect time: 300 seconds Last input 00:03:51, output 00:07:32, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters 04:39:53 Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0 Queueing strategy: None 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 100 packets input, 10932 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 59 packets output, 4782 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 4 interface resets 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out ATM0/0.1 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is DSLSAR (with Alcatel ADSL Module) Internet address is 216.162.122.26/29 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 160 Kbit, DLY 12800 usec, reliability 248/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ATM 100 packets input, 10932 bytes 34 packets output,2152 bytes 0 OAM cells input, 0 OAM cells output Thanks Ben Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23468&t=23456 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL config [7:23456]
At 6:22 PM -0700 10/18/01, Chuck Larrieu wrote: >the following was taken from a working configuration. I do not have the >bridging configuration handy, but I have bridged using DSL successfully. > >to bridge you need to configure IRB and create a BVI that will have your >public IP address. It will also be the interface for NAT outside. The DSL >link will be part of the bridge-group. Do I need to bridge, though? It seems to me, and maybe I'm being dumb, that I should be able to configure the pertinent details on the interface, bring it up, and things should work. I'm not clear on why I'd need to use CRB or IRB at all. >I also notice that you do not have your encapsulation set. I've never been >clear when or where this is required, so I always throw it in there. I went ahead and set the encap: interface ATM0/0 mtu 1500 no ip address atm vc-per-vp 256 no atm ilmi-keepalive bundle-enable dsl operating-mode auto ! interface ATM0/0.1 point-to-point mtu 1500 ip address 216.162.122.26 255.255.255.248 pvc valuenet 0/35 encapsulation aal5snap ! ! And debug output remains the same. It's also interesting that if I ping the IP I assigned to the interface from an outside host, I get debug output, so the packets are making it to the interface. However, the ping never sees replies. >also - your debug output is showing VPI 0 and VCI 23. is your telco of any >help providing you with the proper pvc info? VPI is 0, VCI is 35. The debug output shows 0x23 for the VCI, which is hex, and converts to decimal 35. Here's the output of a sho int, in case that reveals anything useful: ATM0/0 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is DSLSAR (with Alcatel ADSL Module) MTU 1500 bytes, sub MTU 1500, BW 160 Kbit, DLY 12800 usec, reliability 248/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ATM, loopback not set Encapsulation(s): AAL5 AAL2, PVC mode 23 maximum active VCs, 256 VCs per VP, 1 current VCCs VC idle disconnect time: 300 seconds Last input 00:03:51, output 00:07:32, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters 04:39:53 Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0 Queueing strategy: None 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 100 packets input, 10932 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 59 packets output, 4782 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 4 interface resets 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out ATM0/0.1 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is DSLSAR (with Alcatel ADSL Module) Internet address is 216.162.122.26/29 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 160 Kbit, DLY 12800 usec, reliability 248/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ATM 100 packets input, 10932 bytes 34 packets output,2152 bytes 0 OAM cells input, 0 OAM cells output Thanks Ben Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23464&t=23456 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ADSL config [7:23456]
the following was taken from a working configuration. I do not have the bridging configuration handy, but I have bridged using DSL successfully. to bridge you need to configure IRB and create a BVI that will have your public IP address. It will also be the interface for NAT outside. The DSL link will be part of the bridge-group. I also notice that you do not have your encapsulation set. I've never been clear when or where this is required, so I always throw it in there. also - your debug output is showing VPI 0 and VCI 23. is your telco of any help providing you with the proper pvc info? interface ATM0 no ip address no ip directed-broadcast no atm auto-configuration no atm ilmi-keepalive no atm address-registration no atm ilmi-enable bundle-enable hold-queue 224 in ! interface ATM0.1 point-to-point bridge-group 1 no ip directed-broadcast pvc PROVIDED BY TELCO encapsulation aal5snap ! HTH Chuck ! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ben Hockenhull Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ADSL config [7:23456] I have an ADSL link that works fine with an ADSL bridge plugged into it. I'm trying to make it work with a 1750 and a WIC-1ADSL and can't seem to make it happen. Has anyone done this, and if so, do you have a sample working config? The cisco docs that cover bridged DSL aren't appropriate, as I wish to configure NAT on this interface, not transparently bridge between fastether0/0 and atm0/0 Relevant config from the router: interface ATM0/0 mtu 1500 no ip address atm vc-per-vp 256 no atm ilmi-keepalive bundle-enable dsl operating-mode auto ! interface ATM0/0.1 point-to-point mtu 1500 ip address 216.162.122.26 255.255.255.248 pvc valuenet 0/35 ! ! Output of a sho atm pvc: VCD / Peak Avg/Min Burst Interface Name VPI VCI Type Encaps SC Kbps Kbps Cells Sts 0/0.1 valuenet 035 PVCSNAP UBR 160 UP When I try to ping the next hop address from an extended ping that specifies this interface as the soruce interface, I get the following, while debugging all sorts of atm-related parameters: Oct 18 16:41:09.288 CDT: ATM0/0.1(O): VCD:0x1 VPI:0x0 VCI:0x23 DM:0x0 SAP: CTL:03 OUI:00 TYPE:0800 Length:0x70 Oct 18 16:41:09.288 CDT: 4500 0064 00E1 FF01 153F D8A2 7A1A D8A2 7A19 0800 35FA 0D39 26F0 Oct 18 16:41:09.288 CDT: 2306 F120 ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:09.292 CDT: ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:09.292 CDT: ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:09.292 CDT: Oct 18 16:41:09.292 CDT: Oct 18 16:41:09.292 CDT: cdlsar_safe_start: idb = 0x81E4A698, cos_queue = 0x8250F750 Oct 18 16:41:09.304 CDT: ATM0/0 RX(81E02458),size 12 [. Oct 18 16:41:11.288 CDT: ATM0/0.1(O): VCD:0x1 VPI:0x0 VCI:0x23 DM:0x0 SAP: CTL:03 OUI:00 TYPE:0800 Length:0x70 Oct 18 16:41:11.288 CDT: 4500 0064 00E2 FF01 153E D8A2 7A1A D8A2 7A19 0800 2E29 0D3A 26F0 Oct 18 16:41:11.288 CDT: 2306 F8F0 ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:11.288 CDT: ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:11.292 CDT: ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:11.292 CDT: Oct 18 16:41:11.292 CDT: Oct 18 16:41:11.292 CDT: cdlsar_safe_start: idb = 0x81E4A698, cos_queue = 0x8250F750. Oct 18 16:41:13.288 CDT: ATM0/0.1(O): VCD:0x1 VPI:0x0 VCI:0x23 DM:0x0 SAP: CTL:03 OUI:00 TYPE:0800 Length:0x70 Oct 18 16:41:13.288 CDT: 4500 0064 00E3 FF01 153D D8A2 7A1A D8A2 7A19 0800 2658 0D3B 26F0 Oct 18 16:41:13.288 CDT: 2307 00C0 ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:13.288 CDT: ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:13.292 CDT: ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:13.292 CDT: Oct 18 16:41:13.292 CDT: Oct 18 16:41:13.292 CDT: cdlsar_safe_start: idb = 0x81E4A698, cos_queue = 0x8250F750. Oct 18 16:41:15.288 CDT: ATM0/0.1(O): VCD:0x1 VPI:0x0 VCI:0x23 DM:0x0 SAP: CTL:03 OUI:00 TYPE:0800 Length:0x70 Oct 18 16:41:15.288 CDT: 4500 0064 00E4 FF01 153C D8A2 7A1A D8A2 7A19 0800 1E87 0D3C 26F0 Oct 18 16:41:15.288 CDT: 2307 0890 ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:15.288 CDT: ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:15.292 CDT: ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD Oct 18 16:41:15.292 CDT: Oct 18 16:41:15.292 CDT: Oct 18 16:41:15.292 CDT: cdlsar_safe_start: idb = 0x81E4A698, cos_queue = 0x8250F750. Oct 18 16:41:17.288 CDT: ATM0/0.1(O): VCD:0x1 VPI:0x0 VCI:0x23 DM:0x0 SAP: CTL:03 OUI:00 TYPE:0800 Length:0x70 Oct 18 16:41:17.288 CDT: 4500 0064 00E5 FF01 153B D8A2
