BGP is good.
Maybe try this config?
Let's say you have have a 10.1.1.0/25 range
Send 10.1.1.0/26 out of one router with a metric of 10 and on that same
router send 10.1.1.64/26 with a metric of 100
Then on the other router send the opposite- 10.1.1.0/26 with a metric of 100
and 10.1.1.64/26 with a metric of 10.
>>>Brian
>From: "Symon Thurlow"
>Reply-To: "Symon Thurlow"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: BGP for 2 T1's to one LAN [7:7511]
>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:07:05 -0400
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>I am in the same position as you, we are just about to get an
>additional T1, and then move the current and new T1 into a 3640.
>
>The ISP that is managing it for us says that BGP will do the job. I
>don't know much at all about BGP (although am studying now) but I
>think it will work.
>
>I am uncertain as to the best way to do it however.
>
>I also looked at DNS round robin, and it will work, but it is a lot
>uglier than using one address range and BGP. If you use DNS RR, then
>when a client does a lookup, it will recieve all A records, and will
>try one then the other, so there isn't that much of an issue. I don't
>think it is robust enough for e-commerce sites that demand high
>availability though, which is why we are going to BGP.
>
>I will keep you updated as we go through the implementation.
>
>Symon
>
>- -----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
>Of
>Daniel Wilson
>Sent: 07 June 2001 15:42
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: BGP for 2 T1's to one LAN [7:7511]
>
>
>The quick responses on this group are great! Thanks for the help so
>far.
>
>The content is not static. The sites in question run e-commerce. We
>could
>look at
>setting up access from both servers to the same DB server over an
>internal
>network ...
>so that would answer that objection to the solution you offered.
>
>I started by asking questions on a different group about round-robin
>DNS.
>What I was
>told was that since we don't control anyone else's DNS caching
>settings (our
>TTL entries
>etc. are really only suggestions) that when one T1 goes down & we
>change the
>DNS
>settings to point to only the other line clients & other DNS servers
>would
>still try to
>access the downed T1. Is this accurate as far as you know? If round
>robin
>DNS will
>provide fault-tolerance, that's great. If not ... we need to look
>elsewhere.
>
>Thanks!
>
>- --
>Daniel Wilson, BSCS, MCP
>Application Developer
>http://www.compusoftsolutions.com/
>
>Vijay Ramcharan wrote:
>
> > I believe what you're looking for is a way to load balance traffic
> > to your web servers. You also wish to achieve a degree of fault
> > tolerance in case one server goes down. If both servers have the
> > same content and the content is static, you could use a feature
> > called DNS round-robin which basically returns a list of IP
> > addresses to a querying client for any single hostname. If one
> > server becomes unavailable the client can use the other IP
> > addresses given by the DNS server to access the same site. There's
> > no routing protocol involved here and I don't think it's possible
> > to do what you need using a routing protocol. The good thing about
> > DNS round-robin is that the IP addresses of the web servers could
> > be totally unrelated.
> > This seems to be more of an application specific need for fault
> > tolerance. If this is possible using a routing protocol I'd be
> > happy if someone pointed out the error of my ways. I'm always open
> > to
> > suggestions.
> >
> > Vijay Ramcharan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> > Behalf Of Daniel Wilson
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 9:39 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: BGP for 2 T1's to one LAN [7:7511]
> >
> > We are trying to have the web servers in our LAN accessible to the
> > internet via 2 T1's from different providers -- more for redundancy
> > than
> >
> > load sharing, though that matters too. Currently we have 2 T1's,
> > each giving us a different set of IP addresses. That just lets us
> > put some sites on each T1 -- doesn't give us an ounce of
> > redundancy.
> >
> > I've been told that if we get a router with 2 WIC's that can speak
> > BGP (Cisco 2600 or better) that may solve our problem. I'm very
> > new to routing, so can someone answer some basic questions?
> >
> > Is the idea with this solution that we will be running just one set
> > of IP addresses? And that, because of BGP on our router, either
> > ISP will be able to route traffic to that set of IPs on the T1 it
> > provides?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Wilson, BSCS, MCP
> > Application Developer
> > http://www.compusoftsolutions.com/
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use
>
>iQA/AwUBOx/pXySR4L/PyJNuEQIzlwCgn526u+eQfDo1NKjl5toGM4YgIloAniHF
>rBd86dwq0wiGRUGAgXjeBQwW
>=j5yI
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7642&t=7511
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
