Here is my scenario:
My CAT6509 has 2 supervisor1 and 2 MSFC1. It runs HSRP in the Hyrid mode.
On this box, I also run EIGRP and NAT. Every VLANs on the first msfc card
have higher priority and therefore in active mode. VLANs on 2nd card have
lower priority and therefore should be in standby mode. Here are the
problem:
- In Hyrid mode of HSRP, both MSFCs on the same chassis will be active and
do the routing.
- EIGRP sees paths through these VLANs (on both MSFCs) with the EXACTLY same
metric and therefore does the load balancing.
- With the NAT (static) turned on on both MSFCs, translated (NATed) packets
get confused between outside and inside VLANs because of EIGRP load
balancing.
I wonder if replacing EIGRP protocol with RIPv2 will solve the problem?
since RIPv2 metric is based on hop counts. Below is my configuration on 2
MSFCs:
--------------------------------------
MSFC # 1
interface vlan 10
ip address 10.10.100.1 255.255.0.0
ip nat inside
standby 10 priority 100
standby 10 ip 10.10.100.100
interface vlan 20
ip address 10.20.100.1 255.255.0.0
ip nat inside
standbly 20 priority 100
standby 20 ip 10.20.100.100
interface vlan 30
ip address 198.198.198.1 255.255.255.0
ip nat outside
standby 30 priority 100
standby 30 ip 198.198.198.100
Router EIGRP 200
network 10.0.0.0
no auto-summary
-----------------------------------------------------
MSFC # 2
interface vlan 10
ip address 10.10.100.2 255.255.0.0
ip nat inside
standby 10 priority 50
standby 10 ip 10.10.100.100
interface vlan 20
ip address 10.20.100.2 255.255.0.0
ip nat inside
standbly 20 priority 50
standby 20 ip 10.20.100.100
interface vlan 30
ip address 198.198.198.2 255.255.255.0
ip nat outside
standby 30 priority 50
standby 30 ip 198.198.198.100
Router EIGRP 200
network 10.0.0.0
no auto-summary
---------------------------------------------------------
Again, Thanks All!
Thomas N.
""Nigel Taylor"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thomas,
> Yes... Yes...... I'll expand on my first "Yes" in
> saying that the load balancing would be dependent on the model router and
> what type of switching you were doing on the interface of the router.
>
> HTH
>
> Nigel..
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Thomas N.
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:31 PM
> Subject: RIPv2 [7:16105]
>
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I wonder if RIPv2 support load balancing? Does it choose path based on
> the
> > hop count only? Thanks All!!!
> >
> > Thomas
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16121&t=16105
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
