----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eugene Podoba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Hokenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "support" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue



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

The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges 
<yournickname>
To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges)
Archives: http://archives.part-15.org  

Reply via email to