[cisco-bba] Using more than one IP Local Pool

[Andrew K.]

I would like to say thank you for sharing this information.  I've been 
looking for a way to hold all my pools in a central location instead of 
having to double/triple up on pool sizes in order to account for an LNS 
failure.

Andrew.


On 7/5/2017 11:29 AM, Arie Vayner wrote:
> Cisco has an interesting feature called ODAP (On Demand Address 
> Pools). The idea is that the router will go and request additional 
> pools from a DHCP server whenever a utilization threshold has been 
> hit. It also has the capablity to release pools back (on router 
> restart or if utilization went down).
>
> I do not think it is widely implemented, but I have implemented it in 
> the past and it works.
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/net_mgmt/access_registrar/1-7/user/guide/odap.html
> https://youtu.be/V7Qc25B-51I
>
> Tnx
> Arie
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:35 AM Krzysztof Adamski <k-list at adamski.org 
> <mailto:k-list at adamski.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 08:23 +0100, James Bensley wrote:
>     > On 4 July 2017 at 22:41, Juergen Marenda <cnsp at marenda.net
>     <mailto:cnsp at marenda.net>> wrote:
>     > >> You don't need to have a contiguous IP block in an IP Pool.
>     You can simply
>     > >> do something like this:
>     > >>
>     > >> TestBNG(config)# ip local pool dynamic-dsl 192.168.0.0
>     192.168.255.255
>     > >> TestBNG(config)# ip local pool dynamic-dsl 172.16.0.0
>     172.31.255.255
>     > >> TestBNG(config)# ip local pool dynamic-dsl 10.0.0.0
>     10.255.255.255
>     > >
>     > > Remember that there exists an special IPv4 Address-range for
>     "Carrier Grade
>     > > NAT".
>     > >
>     > > Why not assign fixed (real) IPv4/32 for each dial-up account ?
>     > >
>     > > Just my 0.01 $
>     > >
>     > > Juergen.
>     >
>     > We use static IPs for all xDSL customers/sites, one problem we have
>     > from this is that each LNS (depending on which one the customer
>     > connects to) is announcing loads of /32's into our iBGP that aren't
>     > aggregatable/summary routes, which they would be if we had a unique
>     > pool per LNS. We have thousands of extra routes in our iBGP
>     because of
>     > this, it's not a major issues but still not ideal.
>     >
>     > Cheers,
>     > James.
>
>     You can have each LNS aggregate part of the address space, then when a
>     customer with IP that matches the aggregate lands on this LNS
>     customers /32 won't be advertised, but when the customer lands on a
>     different LNS /32 will go into your iBGP. Depending on luck you could
>     cut in half the number of /32 in your iBGP.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     cisco-bba mailing list
>     cisco-bba at puck.nether.net <mailto:cisco-bba at puck.nether.net>
>     https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-bba/attachments/20170705/5b614d24/attachment.html>