[nsp] Assign multiple Static IP addresses via Cisco AVPairs to Dialup connection (Was: Provide routable IP over dynamic assigned remotelink)

[Dave [Hawk-Systems]]

Anyone else able to comment on this thread?

Assigning multiple routable IP addresses to a dialup analog or digital
connection...
(using non-routable IP block for demonstration only)

>> >> Assuming that is doable (from a RADIUS perspective it isn't
>difficult), how
>> >> would we assign multiple IP addresses if the client needed it.
>> >
>> >Doing this from RADIUS, you would add in Framed-Route (attrib 22)
>> >as needed.  For example, let's say that your client gets the
>> >IP address 10.0.0.1 and the subnet 10.0.0.0/29.  Then you
>> >would give him a Framed-IP-Address of 10.0.0.1 and a
>> >Framed-Route of (if I have this right) "10.0.0.0/29 10.0.0.1".
>> >This should dynamically install a temporary static route
>> >on the NAS as needed.
>
>> Lost me a bit here...
>
>> 	Framed-IP-Address = 10.0.0.190
>> 	Framed-IP-Netmask = 255.255.255.254
>
>> would assign 2 addresses, 10.0.0.190 and 10.0.0.191 correct?
>
>Might work!
>
>The way I'd put this rather than "assign 2 addresses" is:
>Framed-IP-Address assigns the address (i.e. the IPCP peer's
>address.)  Framed-IP-Netmask determines the route that will
>be installed in our routing table when IPCP comes up.  However
>I don't know whether Framed-IP-Netmask will also have the
>effect of taking 10.0.0.191 out of the RADIUS address pool.
>
>The reason why I mentioned Framed-Route instead is that
>it seems clearer and more general to me.
>
>> ...and (staying in our "ip local pool default 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.192")
>
>> 	Framed-IP-Address = 10.0.0.188
>> 	Framed-IP-Netmask = 255.255.255.252
>
>> would assign 4 addresses, 10.0.0.188 through .191 to the user
>interface correct?
>
>> Does the Framed-Routing Avoid having to use two of the IPs for Address and
>> Broadcast and just assign both to the interface with the same
>broadcast as the
>> rest of the NAS?
>
>Um, that's a bit of a complicated topic.  I think it's possible
>to hand out two addresses to a remote client rather than wasting
>an address for the subnet and another for the directed broadcast,
>but this might hinge on things like the client not knowing what
>is mask "really" is, and having directed broadcasts enabled on
>the central site and who knows what.  As far as I'm concerned,
>you can always use host routes to provide the route granularity
>you want, although of course there's scalability to worry about.
>
>> Little beyond my routing knowledge with this.
>
>> Dave
>
>I'm at the limit of my routing (and RADIUS!) knowledge here, too.
>Perhaps someone with some actual experience will chime in here.

thanks for the input.  Anyone have experience, information, or live config doing
this who can shed some light?

Appreciated,

Dave