Hi Bob, You have a very valid point and I have weighed the option of using BGP. The question is....why us BGP when default routes work very well and use less system resources and administration. Actually BGP will take more resources of the router and will not provide any increased functionality or efficiencies in this case. The outcome was to increase bandwidth and a redundancy in the physical wiring from the CO to us...the most likely scenario is a carrier technician messing up the wiring in the wiring cans because of poor and no documentation. This happens all the time with our carrier.
Thank your for the different perspective. Scott -----Original Message----- From: Bob Timmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 2 T1's to our provider [7:49039] Why not use BGP? If both lines are to the same provider, it should be a no-brainer (relatively speaking of course). Are you using these T1's for failover/backups or for expanding bandwidth? BGP should help in either case. The 2600 should be sufficient and I don't think you'd need to have the the full BGP tables on your router if you're going to the same provider. Also, you could get away with a private ASN so there wouldn't be any cost to you. Now I've never done this, I've only done the BGP with T1's to different providers, which is considerably more difficult, IMHO. > Hi Kevin, > > We were in the same scenario in which you have described. The way I choose > to do is keep it simple and efficient and cost effective. We have dual PTP > connections on a Cisco 2650 with CEF, default routes, and per packet load > sharing. I can max out the t1's and it barely taxes the router resources and > on top of this I have about a 20 line access control list filtering traffic. > =) This router is a workhorse and I'm in love it. The 2650 uses a faster > memory and cpu than the 2621 but I think the 2621 would work. > > Hope this helps you in some way, > > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: W. Kevin Hunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: 2 T1's to our provider [7:49039] > > We are upgrading to 2 T1's to our provider, Fractional DS3 is prohibitively > expensive in our rural area. > Has anyone done any speed comparisons on using round robin style static > routes > (i.e. 2 default routes w/ same cost) versus EIGRP's load balanceing versus > running MLPPP on the Serial interfaces? We're currently using a 2621 but > are > open to "bigger" routers. > > > > Kevin Hunt > CCNP, MCSE, MCT, Linux+ SME Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49195&t=49039 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
