Prev: bgp anycast addressing
Next: IP CLASSLESS not working
From: stephen on 6 May 2008 16:00
"Trendkill" <jpmason(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f784595c-7dfa-4535-ae4e-a2be03028ecf(a)d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 6, 1:41 pm, Merv <merv.hr...(a)rogers.com> wrote:
> > Do you need use of all 61 available address ?
> >
> > Becuase another option that one of the other responders proposed was
> > to put part of the space on the outside interface and part on the
> > inside
> >
> > like so
> >
> > int fa 0/0
> > description inside LAN interface
> > ip addr 70.x.x.98 255.255.255.224 ! default gateway
> >
> > int fa 0/1
> > description outside interface facing Verizon FIOS ONT
> > ip addr 70.x.x.66 255.255.255.224
> > ip proxy-arp ! to answer ARP requests from 70.x.x.1
> >
> > ip classless
> > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FastEthernet0/1 70.x.x.1
> >
> > You can use small block on outside and then add secondary address
> > blocks to inside if you want to go to the bother
>
> Yes, except you would need to ensure Verizon adds a route (or turn up
> a protocol) to ensure that they know how to get back into the second
> half of your range.

No - proxy ARP should take care of this is it is enabled on the cisco WAN
interface.

The cisco will repond to ARP requests where it is the preferred route to the
destination IP - in this case any IP addresses on the LAN side of the cisco.

You can map further blocks on the LAN with static routes to the LAN side
interface if the WAN side is only a small block such as a /30.

ip route 70.x.x.80 255.255.255.240 FastEth 0/0 for example maps another 16
addresses.

They would also need to turn up a secondary
> address, as .98/27 doesn't include .1 which is the gateway. You could
> turn up .68/30 with .69 as their secondary IP, .70 as your router, and
> then .96/27 on the inside interface. You'd lose .71-.95 unless you
> want to subinterface the router's connection back to the internal
> switch and trunk a /29, /28, and /27 instead. Although since Verizon
> doesn't seem to be able to do anything but transfer your calls, they
> probably won't turn up a secondary interface (even if its in your
> address range), and most likely will not add a static route for those
> subnets. May be worth a call though.....

Golden rule with a carrier who doesnt seem to have systems to do something,
is not to ask for anything non standard (ie not standard for them).

Even if you get it sorted and it works, can you get it to stay like that, or
will someone "fix" it for you when they notice ?

--
Regards

stephen_hope(a)xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl


From: Fletcher James on 5 May 2008 19:19
Merv,

That's exactly what we're planning on trying next.

As to calling Verizon: our problem is that FIOS was originally designed as a
consumer service, and the support & sales staff reflects that. There is no
such thing as specifying how a line is to be provisioned, or even asking a
support person how their network behaves. There is only three options when
you order a FIOS line: speed, static IP, and multiple IPs. You can only get
one block. That's what's programmed into the sales staff's system, and they
have no way of putting anything else into the computer.

When you ask tech questions, everyone says "well it works if you use the
Actiontec router we gave you." If you say "but we have a Cisco", they tell
you that they would be beyond their "legal boundaries" to discuss how it
might be programmed.

Why are we putting up with this? We are getting 30 MBit down, 15 MBit up
(and we do get that) and 61 IPs for $359.99/mo (vs our T1 which costs about
$750/mo.) We're the serious real Business FIOS location in our city, and
we're willing to do a bit of bleeding-edge work in order to get the
bandwidth.

"Merv" <merv.hrabi(a)rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ea849425-5063-48b8-a16b-a96f5b6c5642(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Oh I would definitely pick up the phone and call again ...
>
> I wonder if this would work:
>
> int fa 0/0
> description inside LAN interface
> ip addr 70.x.x.66 255.255.255.192 ! default gateway
>
> int fa 0/1
> description outside interface facing Verizon FIOS ONT
> ip addr <any IP address / some mask>
> ip proxy-arp ! to answer ARP requests from 70.x.x.1
>
> ip classless
> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 70.x.x.1
> ip route 70.x.x.1 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet0/1
>

From: Merv on 5 May 2008 19:26
On May 5, 7:19 pm, "Fletcher James" <fja...(a)levitjames.com> wrote:
> Merv,
>
> That's exactly what we're planning on trying next.
>
> As to calling Verizon: our problem is that FIOS was originally designed as a
> consumer service, and the support & sales staff reflects that. There is no
> such thing as specifying how a line is to be provisioned, or even asking a
> support person how their network behaves. There is only three options when
> you order a FIOS line: speed, static IP, and multiple IPs. You can only get
> one block. That's what's programmed into the sales staff's system, and they
> have no way of putting anything else into the computer.
>
> When you ask tech questions, everyone says "well it works if you use the
> Actiontec router we gave you." If you say "but we have a Cisco", they tell
> you that they would be beyond their "legal boundaries" to discuss how it
> might be programmed.
>
> Why are we putting up with this? We are getting 30 MBit down, 15 MBit up
> (and we do get that) and 61 IPs for $359.99/mo (vs our T1 which costs about
> $750/mo.) We're the serious real Business FIOS location in our city, and
> we're willing to do a bit of bleeding-edge work in order to get the
> bandwidth.



For that kind of speed I would be willing to figure out how to make
water flow uphill ...
From: Trendkill on 5 May 2008 19:44
On May 5, 7:26 pm, Merv <merv.hr...(a)rogers.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 7:19 pm, "Fletcher James" <fja...(a)levitjames.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Merv,
>
> > That's exactly what we're planning on trying next.
>
> > As to calling Verizon: our problem is that FIOS was originally designed as a
> > consumer service, and the support & sales staff reflects that.  There is no
> > such thing as specifying how a line is to be provisioned, or even asking a
> > support person how their network behaves.  There is only three options when
> > you order a FIOS line: speed, static IP, and multiple IPs.  You can only get
> > one block.  That's what's programmed into the sales staff's system, and they
> > have no way of putting anything else into the computer.
>
> > When you ask tech questions, everyone says "well it works if you use the
> > Actiontec router we gave you."  If you say "but we have a Cisco", they tell
> > you that they would be beyond their "legal boundaries" to discuss how it
> > might be programmed.
>
> > Why are we putting up with this?  We are getting 30 MBit down, 15 MBit up
> > (and we do get that) and 61 IPs for $359.99/mo (vs our T1 which costs about
> > $750/mo.)  We're the serious real Business FIOS location in our city, and
> > we're willing to do a bit of bleeding-edge work in order to get the
> > bandwidth.
>
> For that kind of speed I would be willing to figure out how to make
> water flow uphill ...

If Verizon is willing to put a secondary IP on their router/vlan
interface, I think you may have a not-so-ugly solution. If not, not
sure what else to tell you.
From: Dan Lanciani on 5 May 2008 22:34
In article <Ek0Tj.523$Ve.520(a)trnddc08>, "Fletcher James" <fjames(a)levitjames.com> writes:

| OPTION D: We could assign a PRIVATE address to the outside of our router --
| say, 10.1.1.1. But then, how would we direct traffic to our gateway? If we
| provide a default route just by interface
|
| ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FastEthernet0/1
|
| then it's got to ARP for every single outbound address. QUESTION: would the
| following solve that problem:
|
| ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 70.x.x.1
|
| ip route 70.x.x.1 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet0/1

Although it isn't often seen, you can specify the next hop directly on a
route to an interface:

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FastEthernet0/1 70.x.x.1

That's the approach I'd take, with proxy ARP enabled on the interface
to handle incoming traffic and an arbitrary address as you suggest in
option D. Depending on how you set up the inside routing you might
accidentally respond to ARPs for a few extra addresses, but then
Verizon shouldn't be ARPing for those addresses in the first place.

Dan Lanciani
ddl(a)danlan.*com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: bgp anycast addressing
Next: IP CLASSLESS not working