If you were doing IP unnumbered and wanted failover, perhaps that would be
one. Just a guess though, I would never try the serial links with
overlapping addresses like the ones that started this thread.
Bri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erick B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mask Of Zorro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: redundant serial links in same subnet??
> I found some docs mentioning this and it does make
> sense for dial backup and related scenarios. I can't
> think of anything else offhand that it would be useful
> for. Perhaps thats why load balancing over it wasn't
> working well... with both interfaces up at same time
> on same router. I'll have to do some testing with
> this.
>
> --- Mask Of Zorro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Cisco allows up to 4 serial links in the same
> > subnet. There are situations
> > where you would want to do that, but I cannot for
> > the life of me recall what
> > they are... I did read about it once, and actually
> > had to research it with
> > the TAC. Search the TAC archives and you will find
> > the message from them
> > that indicates you cannot do the 5th link...
> >
> > Z
> >
> >
> > >From: "Michael Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: "Michael Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Subject: Re: redundant serial links in same
> > subnet??
> > >Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 11:50:19 -0800
> > >
> > >/24? Subnet them. I like /30 for p to p links.
> > run rip version 2.
> > >
> > >
> > >"Dimitrije" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I colleague of mine has a network connecting two
> > routers with redundant
> > >serial
> > > > links. These serial links happen to reside in
> > the same subnet as
> > >follows:
> > > >
> > > > Router
> > > > A
> > >Router
> > > > B
> > > > S0 - 192.1.67.1/24 -----------------------------
> > 192.1.67.201/24 - S0
> > > > S1 - 192.1.67.2/24 -----------------------------
> > 192.1.67.202/14 - S1
> > > >
> > > > Both Routers are running RIP.
> > > >
> > > > When both links are up, network is very sluggish
> > and ping works
> > >intermittently
> > > > (anywhere from 40%-70% of the time) between
> > Routers A & B. When either
> > >link is
> > > > shut down (only one link is up at a time), pings
> > work 100% of the time.
> > > >
> > > > I'm suspecting that having both serial links in
> > the same subnet is
> > >creating
> > > > problems. First of all, can you even do this?
> > Secondly, if you can put
> > >both
> > > > serial 0 & 1 in the same subnet, is this
> > creating a layer-2 bridge-loop
> > > > environment?
> > > >
> > > > I think that putting each serial link in a
> > separate sub-net should solve
> > >the
> > > > problem, but I don't have access to any
> > equipment to test this.
> > > >
> > > > Am I correct or off-base?? Any definitive
> > feedback would be great. Any
> > >links
> > > > to spell out the issues with this scenario would
> > also be helpful.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > dj
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
