Can you tell me if this (see diagram below) can be implemented, and will it
work right for BGP load balancing, redundancy, etc.?
It's 2xCatalyst6509s, each with 2 MSFCs (supervisor with router built in),
and each with 1 flexwan module (like a 7500 port adapter, with a serial
interface for T1). Each 6509 connects to a pix. The pixes are configured
for failover. Since the pix can only have one default route, I figure I
need HSRP. Configure static route on MSFC with pix as next hop. But the
traffic will only go through the top catalyst as a result (bottom catalyst
is the backup). Note that there is 1 unique IP address per interface per
MSFC card (see diagram). Someone said I needed that. I thought the 2 MSFCs
in 1 box could have the same IP on the interface; that same person said no.
Vlan 100 is the external vlan. Vlan 50 connects the 2 "routers" together,
for the IBGP. I'm a bit squirrely on this vlan 50 thing with the IBGP. Is
that ok? Do I need the vlan 50, or should I remove it and have the IBGP go
through Vlan 100? That same person said I can get rid of vlan 50. I figure
even if the traffic all goes to the top catalyst6509, I can still get the
BGP to load balance. What do you think about all of this?
- Jennifer Mellone
vlan100 T1
pix 1 (10.1)----------(10.2,10.4)catalyst6509w/2-msfcs(30.1)------ISPA
| | (20.2,20.4)
| | |
|failover |hsrp 10.6 |hsrp 20.1
| |vlan100 |vlan50-IBGP
| | |
| | (20.3,20.5) T1
pix 2 (10.1)----------(10.3,10.5)catalyst6509w/2-msfcs(40.1)------ISPB
vlan100
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
