Framed-IP-Address override NAS pool?

[up at 3.am]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Jeff Crowe wrote:

> I was running into this problem on my Redback. The issue was the Redback
> wanted an IP address in the same subnet so I had to setup 192.168.1.1/24 as
> a sub interface to allow subscribers to be assigned addresses in the
> 192.168.1.x/24 range.  My Shasta was completely different and would allow
> any IP address to be returned via radius and it would allow the IP to be
> used.

Ok, I just tried assigning a secondary IP from that subnet to faste0/0, 
since I can't assign secondary IPs to the VirtualTemplate I/F, since it's 
IP unnumbered eth0/0.  No go.  What I would expect from the Cisco, judging 
from my past experience with AS5200s, is for it to allow radius to assign 
whatever address it wants, but simply not route it until I fix that part 
of it, which is fine.

One fix I would think would start to work would be to simply add this new 
subnet to the pool on the Cisco.  However, then the DEFAULT users would 
start to assign from that pool as well, unless I figure out a way to force 
it to assign from the first subnet.  If there's a way to force that, I'd 
appreciate pointers.  I saw the "ippool" option, but I'm not clear how 
that co-exists with the pool already configured on the Cisco.  Perhaps you 
need both, it's just not clear to me.

James Smallacombe		      PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
up at 3.am							    http://3.am
=========================================================================