I don't believe RIP will solve your problem, even though RIP metric is only
based on hop counts, any neighboring router will still "see" the 2 MSFC's
with the same hop count, causing the same situation.
I believe this is one of the rare cases when you "have" to manipulate the
metric EIGRP uses. If you slightly change the bandwidth on each VLAN on one
of the MSFC's (for the example, the one with HSPR least priority) to make it
less favorable by EIGRP as well. Make sure to disable the "variance", by
doing this, you're forcing EIGRP to only use the best route and not load
share between non-equal paths.
I hope this helps
Shahir
""Thomas N."" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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=16135&t=16105
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
