Mark,
I have looked EIGRP in this regard. My issue seems to be with the default
route. If put it in statically there is no failover if one link goes down,
and I can't figure out another way to get it in. I have looked at bgp to
resolve this as well (both routers need it to peer with the PER anyway),
however since the connection between Rtr A and B is IBGP, the EBGP route
from the PER takes precedence and there is no load sharing.
Turpin, Mark wrote:
>
> Jason,
> Lots! Basically your network looks like this:
>
> PER
> m10/ \m10
> AB
> m10
>
> Let's say a metric of 10 for each link for example?
> A->PER = 10
> A->B->PER = 20
>
> Before we get really far into this, have you looked into
> EIGRP's capability to load balance across unequal cost paths?
> Modifying the variance on your CE routers should do the trick.
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/eigrp1.html
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/eigrp9.html
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/19.html
>
> One question though when you do this:
> I have not tried a HSRP impelmentation like this.
> Variance should be local to the router. Please let
> me know if Router A changes the way it advertises
> its metrics to router B once variance is implemented.
>
> Thanks,
> -Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: load balance/share [7:50988]
>
>
> Mark,
> Your diagram is correct. I am trying to load balance/share
> across the
> links to the PER (per-packet preferably). The clients are
> behind Rtr A & B
> using an HSRP address. So say Rtr A is the active router. I
> want to load
> balance across both links (half of the traffic needs to
> traverse out Rtr A's
> ser0 and the other half across the link to Rtr B and then out
> it's ser0). If
> I use a static and one link goes down, half of my traffic
> becomes
> blackholed. I was trying to find a way to have a default route
> put into a
> routing protocol so the routing process would recognize that if
> one link was
> down that it needed to send all traffic out the remaining link.
> Is this
> clearer?
>
> Turpin, Mark wrote:
> >
> > Jason,
> >
> > Is this your lab network?
> >
> > ++++++++++++
> > + PE Rtr +
> > ++++++++++++
> > / \
> > / \
> > ++++++++ +++++++++
> > + RtrA +----------+ Rtr B +
> > ++++++++ +++++++++
> > \-> Client Networks
> > With that diagram, or a revised one, can you clarify
> > your question? You mention statics; what routers are
> > you trying to advertise statics to, and from what router
> > are you wishing to advertise them?
> >
> > In regards to load balancing, are you asking if you
> > can load balance clients to router A and router B?
> > Or do you want to load balance the PE router to A&B?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Mark
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 4:16 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: load balance/share [7:50988]
> >
> >
> > I am trying to lab up a scenario where I can load
> balance/share
> > across two
> > routers (for redundancy) connected into an MPLS cloud.
> > Additionally, I have
> > HSRP running between the two (I don't want to use MHSRP
> because
> > I don't want
> > two gateways on the LAN). There is a direct connection between
> > the routers.
> >
> > I know I can use statics, however I want all traffic to be
> able
> > to failover
> > to the remaining link if one goes down, instead of being being
> > blackholed.
> >
> > | |
> > | |
> > Router 1-------Router 2
> > active standby
> >
> > I have tried with EIGRP, however I was having trouble with
> > getting a default
> > route injected in (without using statics). Is there any way to
> > do this?
> "The information transmitted is intended only for the person
> or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
> use of, or
> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
> persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
> you received
> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from all
> computers."
>
>
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51244&t=50988
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
