[c-nsp] PPPoE Session Limit?

[Graham Wooden]

Larry, I am still not following you on this. Apparently I didn't explain
something or I am missing the boat here.

You say reserved, you the pool?  Because that is what is using .200 to .253.
The first DSL 5 clients where pulling from that pool just fine.  They were
getting assigned .200 through .204.  Now, since that change, .205 has been
assigned.  So I am not sure why this.

#show ip local pool ppp
 Pool                     Begin           End             Free  In use
 ppp                      xx.xxx.xxx.200  xx.xxx.xxx.253    48       6


Now, I can see something making sense if the DSL's were using something
outside the pool, like .194 to .199 (6 addresses there) - but they weren't
being assigned those addresses (at least from what I can tell).

Oh well, it's working now. I guess that's all that matters.  Thanks for
helping me out!  Much appreciated.

-graham


On 4/10/06 3:06 PM, "Larry Smith" <lesmith at ecsis.net> wrote:

> On Monday 10 April 2006 12:53, Graham Wooden wrote:
>> But there was nothing in that netblock, other than the router itself, 200
>> to 253 being used for DSL clients.  The pool started at 200.
>> 
>> On 4/10/06 1:41 PM, "Larry Smith" <lesmith at ecsis.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday 10 April 2006 12:26, Graham Wooden wrote:
>>>> Holy cats - thanks Eugene and Joe.  That was it!
>>>> 
>>>> So, what's the relations between having the address on the loopback and
>>>> the '5' limit?
>>> 
>>> Hmmm, hard to say but looking at the netmask (192) and assigned/used
>>> addresses: 193 used, 200-253 reserved, looks like 5 or six IP left for
>>> assignment..... (depending upon what else is assigned in that netblock)
> 
> 
> Actually, the config you sent showed the virtual-template in that block (at
> 193), you say the router was (that makes two IP) and 200 through 253 are
> "reserved" which means you likely had "five" (5) ip addresses to "assign"
> from what was left (routers viewpoint, not mine)....