[c-nsp] LNS question asr 1002

[Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr]

Hello,

Didn't know about this, I will definetly give it a look. Given it need IOS
XE to run, I believe it needs an ASR platform to run (just like OP
requested).

I'm used to doing this the old way with 7200VXR series ;-)

Thanks for the hint.

Best regards.

Y.



2014-08-18 19:22 GMT+02:00 Arie Vayner (avayner) <avayner at cisco.com>:

> Actually, there is a solution for that... It's called ODAP and it allows
> your LNS to pull address pools from a server.
> So you can have smaller pools (like /25's or /24's) assigned from the
> server and announced as aggregates.
> Even a /25 is better than 128x/32's
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/ios_xe/ipaddr/configuration/guide/xe_3s/iad_xe_3s_book/iad_dhcp_sod_apm_xe.html
>
> It has been a while since I played with it, but the concept should be
> mostly the same.
>
> Arie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr [mailto:youssef at 720.fr]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:17
> To: Arie Vayner (avayner)
> Cc: Mike; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] LNS question asr 1002
>
> Hello Arie,
>
> I hear you and your arguments are perfectly understandable. The only
> downside I see with per-LNS pool is lack of redundancy in case of hardware
> failure.
>
> In previous companies I worked for, PPPoL2TP used to terminate randomly on
> a pool of LNS based on a radius Round Robin algorithm. Excellent for
> balancing sessions evenly (or not) but the one downside is that you have to
> re-announce /32s inside your BGP domain. If you RRs can handle it, then why
> not do it...
>
> I guess that this isn't a problem for small to medium sized ISPs, but
> that's a different song for big ones.
>
> Again, it'll all depends on your business case and pre-requisits.
>
> Best regards.
>
>
>
> > Le 18 août 2014 à 18:50, "Arie Vayner (avayner)" <avayner at cisco.com> a
> écrit :
> >
> > You may actually want to look at summarizing this. The best practice
> would be to have a per-LNS pool (either locally managed or from RADIUS) and
> advertise the summary from the LNS up to the network.
> > You may need to redistribute also connected routes for "fixed IP"
> services where a user may have a custom IP from the RADIUS.
> >
> > Not summarizing means that every connection (and disconnection) is a BGP
> update driving your CPU utilization across the BGP domain...
> >
> >
> > Arie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf
> > Of Mike
> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 09:23
> > To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] LNS question asr 1002
> >
> >
> >> On 08/17/2014 08:24 PM, Edwardo Garcia wrote:
> >> Secondly, how does one handle running two LNS servers? How does the
> >> border router know which edge (LNS) to forward too for a particular
> >> IP?
> >
> >     I do it with iBGP where my router is advertising individual /32's.
> > Yes it makes the route tables longer but it works well in my
> environment. YMMV.
> >
> > Mike-
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>



-- 
Youssef BENGELLOUN-ZAHR