Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (ASCEND) 6.1.7 and randomness of the Max IP address....



On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Neale Banks wrote:

> At 22:29 23/08/98 -0500, Rob Myers wrote:
> >I would guess it has something to do with OSPF and/or stacking.  We use
> >RADIUS to assign the route to the user and have both numbered and
> >unnumbered routes connecting to us.  Usually, customers using Pipelines
> >are set up using unnumbered routes and people w/ Ciscos are given numbered
> >routes.  Then we have the modem and NAT users that are randomly assigned
> >IPs.
> >
> >The IP address that the MAX broadcasts via traceroute (even if you
> >traceroute to the max itself) is the one that we assign to our unnumbered
> >Pipeline dial-in users.
> >
> >Here's a better explanation:
> >
> >Let's say the ethernet address of the MAX is 10.0.0.21.  I assign Joe
> >Pipeline User an IP range of 10.0.1.1/24.  We tell RADIUS to give the MAX
> >an IP address of 10.0.0.254/24 (i.e. "Ascend-PPP-Address = 10.0.0.254")
> >since there's no telling which box he hits.
> >
> >Whenever I traceroute to Joe or anyone else for that matter the MAX
> >reports its address as 10.0.0.254 (even if I report to the max).
> 
> Are you assigning the same address to multiple WAN interfaces?  Or put
> another way, are you assigning the same MAX interface to all unnumbered
> connections?

I am assigning the same address to all unnumbered connections, regardless
of which MAX they connect to.  This is accomplished using
"Ascend-PPP-Address" in RADIUS.  It has worked fine so far, and to be
honest it is still working, just not exactly the way I want it to. :)

The odd thing is that if I traceroute to a customer that is using a
numbered connection (a /30 type address) I get the address that our
unnumbered customers are using.

-Rob-





> There are (at least) three distinctions to what we are doing here:
> 
> 1) we are doing either complete numbered (i.e. a /30) or not assigning a MAX
> interface address at all.
> 2) we are not duplicating IP addresses on MAX WAN interfaces.
> 3) we are not assigning interface adresses via RADIUS.
> 
> Also, no OSPF or Stacking.
> 
> And, as I said, we cannot (yet ;-) see this problem/anomally.
> 
> >Hope that makes sense. :)
> 
> I think so ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> Neale.
> >
> 

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
References: