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/
