From: simon hart (simon.hart@btinternet.com)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 15:54:28 GMT-3
Tim,
No this is not non-standard (a double negative there so I will try again).
This is standard.
Prior to 12.2 (2)T Cisco IOS only supported access support for PPPoE .
That meant that the client (host) initiated a PPPoE session to a cisco
router. The pppoe-client dial-pool-number now allows a Cisco router to act
as a host. This is useful if you have a group of hosts that need
connectivity across the Wide Area, but are using Ethernet as the transport
mechanism.
The configuration you were using was based upon Access server commands being
used at both ends. I am a little surprised that it works in that manner.
The link below helps to explain this in further detail
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122
t/122t2/ftpppoec.htm
Incidentally I missed out an important command. On the dialer interface you
need to put a dialer-group command in order to initiate the session through
interesting traffic (the same as you would with ISDN). However i am pretty
sure I have managed to get this working without the dialer-group command
HTH
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
ccie2be
Sent: 01 June 2005 19:32
To: 'simon hart'; 'Group Study'
Subject: RE: PPP over Ethernet
Hey Simon,
I used the test command Partha mentioned in his post and now everything
works fine. Is that a "non-standard" way to make this work?
And, what you're showing me below is the "preferred" way of configuring
this?
BTW, as I mentioned in my original post, I based my config on the example I
found on the Doc-CD. I found that example in the section on Broadband (in
the same vicinity as the ppp over ATM info is found.) In that section I
didn't see anything at all like what you're showing below. Is an example of
your config somewhere on the Doc-CD also? Have a link?
Thanks for the info. I try your config shortly.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
simon hart
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:37 PM
To: ccie2be; Group Study
Subject: RE: PPP over Ethernet
Hi Tim,
The configuration is different for each end, effectively one end calls the
other. This as you can see is different from PPP over F/R
So you need on the distant end (R4) the following config
interface e0/1
pppoe enable
pppoe-client dial-pool 1
Interface Dialer 1
ip address 137.1.4.4 255.255.255.0
dialer pool 1
encapsulation ppp
Also you will need encapsulation ppp on your Virtual Template on R3
HTH
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
ccie2be
Sent: 01 June 2005 17:23
To: Group Study
Subject: PPP over Ethernet
Hi guys,
Here's the problem:
r3 e0/1 <---------------------------------------> e0/1 R4
^ ^
| |
137.1.3.3/24 |
137.1.4.4
I assume this should work the same way as ppp over f/r which also allows 2
different ip subnets over the same physical link. So, I figured pppoe was
the way to go but this isn't working so maybe pppoe isn't the way to do
this. Any thoughts on this approach are welcomed.
I configured pppoe exactly as shown on the Doc-cd.
Here's the config from 1 side. The other side is the same except for ip
address:
vpdn enable
!
vpdn-group 1
accept-dialin
protocol pppoe
virtual-template 1
pppoe limit per-mac 50
interface Ethernet0/1
no ip address
half-duplex
pppoe enable
interface Virtual-Template1
mtu 1492
ip address 137.1.3.3 255.255.255.0
sh vpdn
%No active L2TP tunnels
%No active L2F tunnels
%No active PPTP tunnels
%No active PPPoE tunnels
sh ip int brief
Ethernet0/1 unassigned YES unset up
up
Virtual-Access1 unassigned YES unset up
up
Virtual-Template1 137.1.3.3 YES manual down
down
Virtual-Access2 unassigned YES unset down
down
sh ip route
Gateway of last resort is not set
137.1.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 137.1.37.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0
I get similar output from these show commands on the other side of the link.
I also checked that both ethernet interfaces are connected to the same 3550
and in the same vlan.
Anyone have any ideas?
TIA, Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:43:40 GMT-3