I think I like Mike's suggestion the best!
Marc
"Mike Fountain" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, with HSRP all traffic will go the primary router and the second would
> be idle.
>
> You can do some HSRP loadbalancing by having two physical routers and then
> each of them configured with two HSRP addresses. One is primary for one
> HSRP address and secondary for the other and router two is secondary for
the
> first HSRP and primary for the second. Then have them track the serials
to
> decide if they stay primary. That way there is two addresses for default
> gateway available to and if one router goes down of if one T1 goes down
the
> other router takes the whole load.
>
> This way you can point half your devices at one HSRP address for default
> gateway and the other half at the other HSRP address. This also helps
solve
> the problem of trying to load balance across two routers if you are
running
> NAT because traffic from any given workstation should always go through
the
> same router except in cases of failure.
>
> Of course, if you want simplicity just plug both T1s into the same router
> and keep the second router configured as a hot-swappable spare.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sam Sneed"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428]
>
>
> > I think it would help if I gave you the scenario I was envisioning. I
> would
> > like to plan a network where we have 2 seperate routers connecting to
our
> > ISP or perhaps 2 seperate ISP's. Lets assume 1 ISP, 2 routers ,each with
> its
> > own full T1 line for simplicity. If 1 router died, I'd like to keep the
> > internet connection alive without changing any of the clients default
> > gateways. I figured HSRP would be good to apply here becuase it acts as
1
> > virtual router. But, would that mean that 1 router would be idle at all
> > times not allowing me to ever get more than 1.5MB bandwidth? Or this
extra
> > idle T1 line just the cost of redundancy in this case?
> >
> >
> > ""Marc"" wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you
wanted
> > to
> > > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two
> lines,
> > > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all
that's
> > > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy...
> > >
> > > Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone
> who
> > > has
> > > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my
answer
> > > there.
> > > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet,
1
> is
> > > the
> > > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the
> > active
> > > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever
utilizing
> > the
> > > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)?
> > > >
> > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share
> the
> > > > load or would it totally take over?
> > > >
> > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would
> throughput
> > > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1
> connection?
> > > >
> > > > thanks
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10446&t=10428
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
