[WISPA] PPPoE Concentrator Redundancy
I’ll try to paint the picture a little more now on this. We are getting a new feed at a separate location from where our current fiber is at. The idea is to traverse our existing network and utilize both routers as edge routers and concentrators, and to get them to load balance between the two if possible. We definitely need the load-balancing performed on the internet connection part. Currently we have ImageStream routers for what we’re trying to accomplish. 1 is currently in use and acts as our edge/concentrator with BGP failover between our two upstreams. The two upstreams are currently in the same location but we’re dropping our DS3 for this other circuit at another location. What would you guys recommended doing to the ImageStreams to get them to effectively load balance the internet and still handle the PPPoE? Thanks in advance, -Tim From: Blake Covarrubias bl...@beamspeed.commailto:bl...@beamspeed.com Date: November 2, 2010 23:59:16 PDT To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] PPPoE Concentrator Redundancy Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org I assume you're using MikroTik. You can run multiple PPPoE servers on a single Ethernet segment. The client will send its PPPoE Active Discovery Initiation (PADI) packet, and both servers will reply with their PPPoE Active Discovery Offer (PADO). The client will then select which AC it wants to use based off of which AC replied first, AC name, service name, or any combination thereof. http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/PPPoE#Stages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-Point_Protocol_over_Ethernet#Server_to_client:_Offer_.28PADO.29 Posting on Cisco mailing list regarding PPPoE AC redundancy. http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-bba/2005-April/000477.html Juniper's PPPoE AC implementation has a 'delay' feature in its 'Service Name Tables' which allow an administrator to explicitly set an AC as backup. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.1/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-network-interfaces/topic-40403.html#jd0e116783 Because MikroTik doesn't support this 'delay' you'd really end up just load balancing your clients across the two AC's. Not a bad solution and it still provides some level of redundancy. -- Blake Covarrubias On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:36 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote: Cross posting from another list for different opinions.. We're looking to have more than one PPPoE Concentrator available so that if one goes down due to catastrophic failure, the customers associated to that concentrator will rollover to the next one. However, the concern is that because the initial connection is layer 2 that both concentrators may see the same connection attempt and authenticate both. Is there a real effective way of having two concentrators that either load balance or provide redundancy? Thanks, `S WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] PPPoE Concentrator Redundancy
Per my engineer: The Internet side load balancing will still be performed by BGP with an iBGP connection between the two edge routers. As long as both locations are L2 bridged, PPPoE will provide load balancing as Blake outlined. There will probably be some latency difference between the two routers as they're in different physical locations and clients will most likely choose the router that's closest to them as it will be the first to reply. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tim McNabb Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:36 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] PPPoE Concentrator Redundancy I'll try to paint the picture a little more now on this. We are getting a new feed at a separate location from where our current fiber is at. The idea is to traverse our existing network and utilize both routers as edge routers and concentrators, and to get them to load balance between the two if possible. We definitely need the load-balancing performed on the internet connection part. Currently we have ImageStream routers for what we're trying to accomplish. 1 is currently in use and acts as our edge/concentrator with BGP failover between our two upstreams. The two upstreams are currently in the same location but we're dropping our DS3 for this other circuit at another location. What would you guys recommended doing to the ImageStream's to get them to effectively load balance the internet and still handle the PPPoE? Thanks in advance, -Tim From: Blake Covarrubias bl...@beamspeed.com Date: November 2, 2010 23:59:16 PDT To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] PPPoE Concentrator Redundancy Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org I assume you're using MikroTik. You can run multiple PPPoE servers on a single Ethernet segment. The client will send its PPPoE Active Discovery Initiation (PADI) packet, and both servers will reply with their PPPoE Active Discovery Offer (PADO). The client will then select which AC it wants to use based off of which AC replied first, AC name, service name, or any combination thereof. http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/PPPoE#Stages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-Point_Protocol_over_Ethernet#Server_to _client:_Offer_.28PADO.29 Posting on Cisco mailing list regarding PPPoE AC redundancy. http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-bba/2005-April/000477.html Juniper's PPPoE AC implementation has a 'delay' feature in its 'Service Name Tables' which allow an administrator to explicitly set an AC as backup. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.1/information-products/topic-c ollections/config-guide-network-interfaces/topic-40403.html#jd0e116783 Because MikroTik doesn't support this 'delay' you'd really end up just load balancing your clients across the two AC's. Not a bad solution and it still provides some level of redundancy. -- Blake Covarrubias On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:36 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote: Cross posting from another list for different opinions.. We're looking to have more than one PPPoE Concentrator available so that if one goes down due to catastrophic failure, the customers associated to that concentrator will rollover to the next one. However, the concern is that because the initial connection is layer 2 that both concentrators may see the same connection attempt and authenticate both. Is there a real effective way of having two concentrators that either load balance or provide redundancy? Thanks, `S WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3236 - Release Date: 11/03/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] PPPoE Concentrator Redundancy
Cross posting from another list for different opinions.. We're looking to have more than one PPPoE Concentrator available so that if one goes down due to catastrophic failure, the customers associated to that concentrator will rollover to the next one. However, the concern is that because the initial connection is layer 2 that both concentrators may see the same connection attempt and authenticate both. Is there a real effective way of having two concentrators that either load balance or provide redundancy? Thanks, `S WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] PPPoE Concentrator Redundancy
Scott, Typically in this scenario I would recommend one of two things: 1) Use an MPLS VLL/L2-psuedowire with a secondary failover endpoint on one side. Only some equipment vendors implement this (Juniper being one of them) 2) Use a PPPoE pado delay. Set one BRAS to be some decent amount higher delay in sending out PADO packets. Any decent BRAS should support this. This does not include Mikrotik to my knowledge. With a Cisco BRAS you can use the following command in a BBA group in 12.4T+: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/bbdsl/configuration/guide/bba_pppoe_sss.html Regards, Patrick Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 11:36:01PM -0700, Scott Vander Dussen wrote: Cross posting from another list for different opinions.. We're looking to have more than one PPPoE Concentrator available so that if one goes down due to catastrophic failure, the customers associated to that concentrator will rollover to the next one. However, the concern is that because the initial connection is layer 2 that both concentrators may see the same connection attempt and authenticate both. Is there a real effective way of having two concentrators that either load balance or provide redundancy? Thanks, `S WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] PPPoE Concentrator Redundancy
I assume you're using MikroTik. You can run multiple PPPoE servers on a single Ethernet segment. The client will send its PPPoE Active Discovery Initiation (PADI) packet, and both servers will reply with their PPPoE Active Discovery Offer (PADO). The client will then select which AC it wants to use based off of which AC replied first, AC name, service name, or any combination thereof. http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/PPPoE#Stages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-Point_Protocol_over_Ethernet#Server_to_client:_Offer_.28PADO.29 Posting on Cisco mailing list regarding PPPoE AC redundancy. http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-bba/2005-April/000477.html Juniper's PPPoE AC implementation has a 'delay' feature in its 'Service Name Tables' which allow an administrator to explicitly set an AC as backup. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.1/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-network-interfaces/topic-40403.html#jd0e116783 Because MikroTik doesn't support this 'delay' you'd really end up just load balancing your clients across the two AC's. Not a bad solution and it still provides some level of redundancy. -- Blake Covarrubias On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:36 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote: Cross posting from another list for different opinions.. We're looking to have more than one PPPoE Concentrator available so that if one goes down due to catastrophic failure, the customers associated to that concentrator will rollover to the next one. However, the concern is that because the initial connection is layer 2 that both concentrators may see the same connection attempt and authenticate both. Is there a real effective way of having two concentrators that either load balance or provide redundancy? Thanks, `S WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] PPPoE Concentrator Redundancy
Thx both of you for the replies. We're using ImageStream routers. I've considered the two running in parallel and whoever responds first thing- but it seems like a router reboot or equipment failure or whatever would totally throw off the load balancing aspect of things from which its never really recover unless both routers were rebooted at the same time. Not a huge deal since I'm really after redundancy here, not load balancing. Just wondering how the big boys who use pppoe have their redundancy built out- I'm guessing something like the delay method. Thanks, ‘S --- Sent mobile (and probably one handed while driving!) On Nov 3, 2010, at 0:00, Blake Covarrubias bl...@beamspeed.com wrote: I assume you're using MikroTik. You can run multiple PPPoE servers on a single Ethernet segment. The client will send its PPPoE Active Discovery Initiation (PADI) packet, and both servers will reply with their PPPoE Active Discovery Offer (PADO). The client will then select which AC it wants to use based off of which AC replied first, AC name, service name, or any combination thereof. http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/PPPoE#Stages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-Point_Protocol_over_Ethernet#Server_to_client:_Offer_.28PADO.29 Posting on Cisco mailing list regarding PPPoE AC redundancy. http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-bba/2005-April/000477.html Juniper's PPPoE AC implementation has a 'delay' feature in its 'Service Name Tables' which allow an administrator to explicitly set an AC as backup. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.1/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-network-interfaces/topic-40403.html#jd0e116783 Because MikroTik doesn't support this 'delay' you'd really end up just load balancing your clients across the two AC's. Not a bad solution and it still provides some level of redundancy. -- Blake Covarrubias On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:36 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote: Cross posting from another list for different opinions.. We're looking to have more than one PPPoE Concentrator available so that if one goes down due to catastrophic failure, the customers associated to that concentrator will rollover to the next one. However, the concern is that because the initial connection is layer 2 that both concentrators may see the same connection attempt and authenticate both. Is there a real effective way of having two concentrators that either load balance or provide redundancy? Thanks, `S WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
