Yes. There is a "logical" hub on the other side of the PER that has the servers these pc's need access to and the internet pipe. Unfortunately the PER is not a cisco device, so I can't do a 'no ip summary' towards rtr A. I can do it from B, however then I can't load share across the two links. If I use a static towards the PER on A, it goes into the table over the summary from B. No load share, No Good.
As for bgp, which the PER and my routers use to peer, I have tried the default-originate. In that case Rtr A accepts the default from the PER and puts it into it's table. Rtr B does the same and then passes the default route to A across the shared link. Rtr A & B are IBGP peers so A never considers the fact that there are two possible defaults out (to load share) because a route from an EBGP peer is preferred over the IBGP peer. Again no load share. Thanks for all your help so far, however I think you are starting to see my dilemma. It is a requirement that there be two active links for quick failover in case one goes down. The design was for the speed of each link to be set at @ 3/4 of what the site needs and load balance across them. Do you have any other suggestions? Turpin, Mark wrote: > > Jason, > > Where are you trying to advertise a default route from? The > PER? > If so, check out > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/eigrp8.html > where it discusses using a summary per interface to advertise a > default to neighbors. You could stick this on your PER's > interfaces > towards RtrA and RtrB. If we're talking about BGP, you can have > your PER advertise a default with 'neighbor x.x.x.x > default-originate' > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fipr > rp_r/bgp_r/1rfbgp1.htm#xtocid46 > (wrap there) > > Let me know if this is what you meant, or if this works out for > you. > > hth, > -Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:29 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: load balance/share [7:50988] > > > 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 > > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51297&t=50988 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
