Routing for Verizon FIOS -- Reward for answer

Routing for Verizon FIOS -- Reward for answer
NewsGroups | Search | Tools
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 comp.dcom.sys.cisco  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Routing for Verizon FIOS -- Reward for answer Fletcher James 05-03-2008
Posted by Fletcher James on May 5, 2008, 7:19 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Merv,

That's exactly what we're planning on trying next.

As to calling Verizon: our problem is that FIOS was originally designed as a
consumer service, and the support & sales staff reflects that. There is no
such thing as specifying how a line is to be provisioned, or even asking a
support person how their network behaves. There is only three options when
you order a FIOS line: speed, static IP, and multiple IPs. You can only get
one block. That's what's programmed into the sales staff's system, and they
have no way of putting anything else into the computer.

When you ask tech questions, everyone says "well it works if you use the
Actiontec router we gave you." If you say "but we have a Cisco", they tell
you that they would be beyond their "legal boundaries" to discuss how it
might be programmed.

Why are we putting up with this? We are getting 30 MBit down, 15 MBit up
(and we do get that) and 61 IPs for $359.99/mo (vs our T1 which costs about
$750/mo.) We're the serious real Business FIOS location in our city, and
we're willing to do a bit of bleeding-edge work in order to get the
bandwidth.

>
> Oh I would definitely pick up the phone and call again ...
>
> I wonder if this would work:
>
> int fa 0/0
> description inside LAN interface
> ip addr 70.x.x.66 255.255.255.192 ! default gateway
>
> int fa 0/1
> description outside interface facing Verizon FIOS ONT
> ip addr <any IP address / some mask>
> ip proxy-arp ! to answer ARP requests from 70.x.x.1
>
> ip classless
> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 70.x.x.1
> ip route 70.x.x.1 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet0/1
>


Posted by Merv on May 5, 2008, 7:26 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Merv,
>
> That's exactly what we're planning on trying next.
>
> As to calling Verizon: our problem is that FIOS was originally designed as a
> consumer service, and the support & sales staff reflects that. There is no
> such thing as specifying how a line is to be provisioned, or even asking a
> support person how their network behaves. There is only three options when
> you order a FIOS line: speed, static IP, and multiple IPs. You can only get
> one block. That's what's programmed into the sales staff's system, and they
> have no way of putting anything else into the computer.
>
> When you ask tech questions, everyone says "well it works if you use the
> Actiontec router we gave you." If you say "but we have a Cisco", they tell
> you that they would be beyond their "legal boundaries" to discuss how it
> might be programmed.
>
> Why are we putting up with this? We are getting 30 MBit down, 15 MBit up
> (and we do get that) and 61 IPs for $359.99/mo (vs our T1 which costs about
> $750/mo.) We're the serious real Business FIOS location in our city, and
> we're willing to do a bit of bleeding-edge work in order to get the
> bandwidth.



For that kind of speed I would be willing to figure out how to make
water flow uphill ...

Posted by Trendkill on May 5, 2008, 7:44 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>
>
>
> > Merv,
>
> > That's exactly what we're planning on trying next.
>
> > As to calling Verizon: our problem is that FIOS was originally designed =
as a
> > consumer service, and the support & sales staff reflects that. =A0There =
is no
> > such thing as specifying how a line is to be provisioned, or even asking=
a
> > support person how their network behaves. =A0There is only three options=
when
> > you order a FIOS line: speed, static IP, and multiple IPs. =A0You can on=
ly get
> > one block. =A0That's what's programmed into the sales staff's system, an=
d they
> > have no way of putting anything else into the computer.
>
> > When you ask tech questions, everyone says "well it works if you use the=

> > Actiontec router we gave you." =A0If you say "but we have a Cisco", they=
tell
> > you that they would be beyond their "legal boundaries" to discuss how it=

> > might be programmed.
>
> > Why are we putting up with this? =A0We are getting 30 MBit down, 15 MBit=
up
> > (and we do get that) and 61 IPs for $359.99/mo (vs our T1 which costs ab=
out
> > $750/mo.) =A0We're the serious real Business FIOS location in our city, =
and
> > we're willing to do a bit of bleeding-edge work in order to get the
> > bandwidth.
>
> For that kind of speed I would be willing to figure out how to make
> water flow uphill ...

If Verizon is willing to put a secondary IP on their router/vlan
interface, I think you may have a not-so-ugly solution. If not, not
sure what else to tell you.

Posted by Dan Lanciani on May 5, 2008, 10:34 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
writes:

| OPTION D: We could assign a PRIVATE address to the outside of our router --
| say, 10.1.1.1. But then, how would we direct traffic to our gateway? If we
| provide a default route just by interface
|
| ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FastEthernet0/1
|
| then it's got to ARP for every single outbound address. QUESTION: would the
| following solve that problem:
|
| ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 70.x.x.1
|
| ip route 70.x.x.1 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet0/1

Although it isn't often seen, you can specify the next hop directly on a
route to an interface:

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FastEthernet0/1 70.x.x.1

That's the approach I'd take, with proxy ARP enabled on the interface
to handle incoming traffic and an arbitrary address as you suggest in
option D. Depending on how you set up the inside routing you might
accidentally respond to ARPs for a few extra addresses, but then
Verizon shouldn't be ARPing for those addresses in the first place.

                                Dan Lanciani
                                ddl@danlan.*com

Posted by Charles N Wyble on June 3, 2008, 3:17 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Dan Lanciani wrote:
>
> | OPTION D: We could assign a PRIVATE address to the outside of our router --

> | say, 10.1.1.1. But then, how would we direct traffic to our gateway? If we
> | provide a default route just by interface
> |
> | ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FastEthernet0/1
> |
> | then it's got to ARP for every single outbound address. QUESTION: would the
> | following solve that problem:
> |
> | ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 70.x.x.1
> |
> | ip route 70.x.x.1 255.255.255.255 FastEthernet0/1
>
> Although it isn't often seen, you can specify the next hop directly on a
> route to an interface:
>
> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FastEthernet0/1 70.x.x.1
>
> That's the approach I'd take, with proxy ARP enabled on the interface
> to handle incoming traffic and an arbitrary address as you suggest in
> option D. Depending on how you set up the inside routing you might
> accidentally respond to ARPs for a few extra addresses, but then
> Verizon shouldn't be ARPing for those addresses in the first place.


Would a sub interface help here at all? Say interface FastEthernet0/1.1

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but that might help if you only
wanted certain traffic using it?


Charles

Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: Excessive interface resets on Cisco 1841 and FIOS line February 6, 2008, 9:26 pm
Nobody knows the Answer!!! :-( August 20, 2004, 2:56 am
Re: Why didn't Verizon sue Cisco instead? March 11, 2007, 12:10 pm
PIX 501 Verizon Infospeed DSL November 22, 2007, 9:04 pm
Verizon TLS (Q in Q) multicast challenge February 21, 2006, 10:20 pm
Ring no Answer on as5800? November 9, 2004, 10:32 am
WIC-1AM - auto answer question June 29, 2006, 9:59 am
Cisco 1750 again - still no right answer :( October 24, 2006, 2:45 pm
Dropping Connections (Verizon Aircard) October 29, 2007, 12:41 pm
CISCO PIX hard question, can you answer it? TIA September 1, 2005, 3:01 pm

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map