<div dir="ltr">Jose,<br><br>The ip:route= attribute is more or less the same as the Framed-Route option, but allows some more tricks, such as adding a "tag XXX" at the end of the command, and then using this tag as a match criteria for redistribution into some other routing protocol.<br>
<br>In general, running a routing protocol with many peers from a router would reduce the scalability, as you would introducing another cpu hungry process... If you have many peers, and you tune down the hello timers, you may affect the CPU load of the device.<br>
<br>Arie<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Jose Bejarano <<a href="mailto:Jose.Bejarano@gmx.net">Jose.Bejarano@gmx.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Arie,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the info!<br>
Our customers are still complaining that in some scenarios the backup function doesnt work:<br>
ISDN + FSR and /or another PPP session using in both cases a separate cisco router.<br>
We are already downloading static routes using Radius cisco AV-Pairs "Framed-Route" + "Framed-IP"<br>
Is there any difference using 'cisco-avpair = "ip:route=' ?<br>
We are still thinking that routing functionality would improve the overall performance but scalability<br>
is an issue here. Any other options ?<br>
<br>
Thanks again,<br>
Jose<br>
<br>
-------- Original-Nachricht --------<br>
> Datum: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:07:50 +0300<br>
> Von: "Arie Vayner" <<a href="mailto:ariev@vayner.net">ariev@vayner.net</a>><br>
> An: "Jose Bejarano" <<a href="mailto:Jose.Bejarano@gmx.net">Jose.Bejarano@gmx.net</a>><br>
> CC: <a href="mailto:cisco-bba@puck.nether.net">cisco-bba@puck.nether.net</a><br>
> Betreff: Re: [cisco-bba] Dynamic routing over L2TP LNS<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
> Jose,<br>
><br>
> I would suggest thinking about other means of implementing what you need<br>
> instead of a routing protocol between the CPE and the LNS.<br>
> The scalability of routing protocols is not really at the same level as<br>
> the<br>
> number of PPP sessions per LNS (which may be 1000's).<br>
><br>
> Are you aware of the option to download static route entries from RADIUS<br>
> as<br>
> part of the user's profile? This would allow you to basically get the same<br>
> static route on any LNS the user connects to. If they have a failure, and<br>
> the PPP session goes down, the route would be also withdrawn, and then<br>
> readvertised from the backup connection.<br>
> The backup could be another dynamic PPP session (using the same mechanism)<br>
> or could be a floating route with a lower preference metric (or higher...<br>
> depends on how implemented).<br>
><br>
> Take a look here:<br>
> <a href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2/security/configuration/guide/scfathen.html" target="_blank">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2/security/configuration/guide/scfathen.html</a><br>
><br>
> You should be looking for the 'cisco-avpair = "ip:route=' examples.<br>
><br>
> Would this work, or am I missing some critical part of the design?<br>
><br>
> Arie<br>
><br>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Jose Bejarano <<a href="mailto:Jose.Bejarano@gmx.net">Jose.Bejarano@gmx.net</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Hi Arie,<br>
> ><br>
> > thanks, yeap, using a routing protocol between the LNS and CPE, users<br>
> are<br>
> > then entering the L3 MPLS/VPN (using vrf Radius attributes). The idea is<br>
> to<br>
> > improve convergence and backup functions<br>
> > adding a routing protocol. Unfortunately there is no much info about.<br>
> QoS<br>
> > LNS<--->CPE is of course another big issue and we are thinking to use<br>
> > per-session QoS using Radius...<br>
> > Any experience would be appreciated !<br>
> ><br>
> > Cheers,<br>
> > Jose<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Am 11.07.2008 um 19:56 schrieb Arie Vayner:<br>
> ><br>
> > Jose,<br>
> ><br>
> > Are you asking about using a routing protocol between the LNS and the<br>
> > remote user's CPE, or are you talking about redistributing the addresses<br>
> > assigned to the PPP session (either the /32 or a static route) into the<br>
> VPN?<br>
> ><br>
> > Arie<br>
> ><br>
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Jose Bejarano <<a href="mailto:Jose.Bejarano@gmx.net">Jose.Bejarano@gmx.net</a>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> Hi,<br>
> >><br>
> >> we are terminating via L2TP our PPPoE users on a 7206vxr with npe-g1.<br>
> >> Customers are then terminating these sessions in a VRF using Radius<br>
> >> attributes.<br>
> >> Now we are planning to introduce dynamic routing functionality:<br>
> >> RIP,OSPF,BGP...<br>
> >> Any info/experiences/ideas/tips with using routing protocols over L2TP<br>
> ?<br>
> >><br>
> >> Thanks in advance,<br>
> >> Jose<br>
> >> --<br>
> >> GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!<br>
> >> Jetzt dabei sein:<br>
> >> <a href="http://www.shortview.de/wasistshortview.php?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx" target="_blank">http://www.shortview.de/wasistshortview.php?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx</a><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> cisco-bba mailing list<br>
> >><br>
> >> <a href="mailto:cisco-bba@puck.nether.net">cisco-bba@puck.nether.net</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> <a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba</a><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > cisco-bba mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:cisco-bba@puck.nether.net">cisco-bba@puck.nether.net</a><br>
> > <a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba</a><br>
> ><br>
<br>
</div></div><font color="#888888">--<br>
Psssst! Schon das coole Video vom GMX MultiMessenger gesehen?<br>
Der Eine für Alle: <a href="http://www.gmx.net/de/go/messenger03" target="_blank">http://www.gmx.net/de/go/messenger03</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>