I got the same issue as our company now implement two outlets to same ISP
but different NAP. What kind of policy routing can we use to load balancing
and control?
Thanks
Fanglo
""p.z"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, It seems you have not enough IP addresses to run BGP4.So, policy
routing is a good
> choice for you. I formerly implement the similar solution under a similar
situation
> except I did NAT on a firewall insteading of on the router.Did you get
some additional
> public IP addresses from the second ISP?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I have one ISP with 192K going to the Internet and I am using NAT not
PAT
> > to resolve my UN-register to register to the Internet. I now want to add
a
> > differant ISP now to the same router, a full T/1. What are the pro's and
> > con's to this? I need to keep the 192k for reason's but 100 share the
192K
> > link and it's slow. I need to setup NAT on T/1 interface I know that?
should
> > I use policy routing coming from my LAN to the T/1? would this work?
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
