On 02/28/2012 01:57 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
I also would like to know if anyone knows of any ADSL2+ Annex M standard
PCI (/x/) based modem card that I can use to connect to my ISP with
instead of using an external device?
So far in my search I came across this:
http://linitx.com/viewcategory.php?catid=47
This is basically an ADSL router on a PCI card presenting as an ethernet
interface. iirc, you configure it with telnet/http. In a normal config then
this card will be actively routing packets.
Personally I prefer to have a separate router/modem that can be swapped
out without powering down the machine, and usually connected by a better
quality network interface than an rl(4).... Main advantage I see
with these particular carsd is that if you have a dual-PSU machine
you can get some power protection.
If you want to terminate ppp in OpenBSD then you can do that just
as well with an external box as you can with one of these (configure
in bridge mode, run pppoe(4) in OpenBSD).
Thanks a lot Stuart for the response!!
I think that particular interface isn't around any more as the company
that builds them have gone here:
http://www.rocksolidelectronics.com/pages/products/v1.php
This makes more sense to me personally as I've had Cisco router
experience as discussed; unfortunately while 'maxing' out connections
Cisco's tend to blow up!!! They crash, get slow and start acting funny....
What I'm trying to do is replace my Cisco 857, 877, and 1801 as the
performance is **not** there for me :-( CPU driven into 100% on all
boxes and memory used up also.
I was planning on getting a 2901 with VDSL2/ADSL2/2+ Annex M card and 8
port Gb switch card. But after careful consideration I decided against
it as it would issue the same problems for me and be more expensive then
going down the OpenBSD route as discussed previously.
Also 75Mbps is mentioned by Cisco for the 2900 series:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps10537/data_sheet_c78_553896.html
which is pathetic as in the UK fiber networks are slowly becoming more
available to the masses - in terms of offerings of up to 1Gbps are
available for round #50/month ($75/month (US)).
Even a VDSL2 solution offers up to 100Mbps - depending on distance
between local loop and CPE.... but I'm sure that the 2900 series or 800
series VDSL provisioned ISR would struggle to meet those speeds.
Couple that with 1000+ TCP/IP flows through UDP or TCP packet
transactions and any **standard** branch based ISR wouldn't be able to
cope :-(
Are these going to be OpenBSD compatible or are there others???
Yes should be compatible, it just looks like a nic.
On the site even mentions xBSD compatibility as post read now :-)
Does anyone know of a VDSL2 solution like this also?
Don't know of one. My same comments would apply about preferring a
separate box.
See my comments above - otherwise wouldn't spend hassle on this design
and would have gone directly to a 2901 with VDSL2 card.
Other option is this:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps380/data_sheet_c78-613481.html
and link to OpenBSD based router design... but if telco chipset (modem)
of router gets maxed then the whole box will become saturated :-(
For software I plan to use Quagga/Zebra which should be in the ports or
compatible easily coupled with NAT, ACL's, Firewall using PF or so....
In OpenBSD there are actually usable routing daemons, OpenBGPD,
OpenRIPD and OpenOSPFD.
Ugh quagga. Maybe when someone pulls together all the various
internally-maintained forks of it it'll be a bit more usable..
The OpenBSD routing daemons are pretty good. Other than that for
open-source routing there are some circumstances where BIRD running on
Linux might be useful (personally I can't stand the config but I'd
rather run this than Quagga..).
Coming from FreeBSD background I didn't know of the OpenBSD integration
with routing etc... so thanks for the 'wake up call' :-)
Is OpenBSD compatible with Cisco VTP and STP to trunk VLANs to Cisco
switches?
I'm not familiar with VTP, the rest will be fine.
Standard 802.1q works fine - vlan(4) and we also do QinQ
(ethertype 0x88a8 only) with svlan(4).
We don't do VTP (or GVRP), you need to configure vlans separately.
Personally I don't see that as a disadvantage :)
STP is for bridging not for vlan support, we do support STP/RSTP but
not MSTP though switches should fallback to RSTP in that case. (I try
and leave bridging to switches though).
I see where you're headed with this!
Leave spanning-tree to the switches to block redundant ports and prevent
loops but trunk everything to OpenBSD and inter-Vlan route/switch from
there.
Rather then link aggregation using Etherchannel et el....
Get a multi port NIC on the OpenBSD box then according to b/w
requirements can trunk on different port if needed.
I did discover this already:
http://fengnet.com/book/icuna/ch05lev1sec5.html
so it would seem so, however I do not know if link-aggregation would
work?? As in Cisco Etherchannel to multiple ports on the router.
Yep, trunk will work fine with a cisco.
trunk(4) supports LACP and static configs ('trunkproto loadbalance'
should be compatible with the statically-configured Cisco FEC, though
LACP is preferred if you have the option).
Not sure I have an old 2950 24 port switch which am looking to upgrade
to 2960 Gigabit model.
There are many more questions I have but will refrain from asking at
this phase as most of them can be got round by researching; like Cisco
IPSEC/GRE VPN compatibility et el.....
IPsec is mostly compatible but there's a bit of breakage if the ipsec
gateways are behind NAT (because Cisco still follows a very old nat-t draft
rather than the standard).
gre(4) should work fine.
Cool..... as once my design is physically built and established I will
look at building a PPPoE server and getting a Zyxell cheap DSLAM for
#150 (GB) + line cards and emulate an ISP using my would be then
redundant Cisco DSL routers......
At least will give me test vector on BGP, inter-area OSPF (ok this is
easy!), Cisco Cyrpto maps for site-to-site VPN tunnels via GRE/IPSEC and
even dial-in VPN using OpenVPN or something similar.
Huge project I know but that's what keeps me going :-)
Regards,
Kaya
