Thank you for all that responded to this. Found out that I had to influence the route using the bandwidth and delay properties to change the primary route to MPLS instead of the frame relay link.
Cheers, Jamie -----Original Message----- From: Amar KHELIFI [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 11, 2003 3:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: : Influencing EIGRP to use GRE tunnels over Serial link [7:60840] > Sorry, but i lacked to enphasis some important points that affect the ((bandwith)) command, it is true that the bandwith command affectes > only igrp and eigrp route selection, and that it has nothing to do with the > actual clock, that is left to the ((clock rate)) command. > it is, how ever a good practice in large environments to coordone the > bandwith used for specific interfaces throughout the hall network that way > the interface type can be predictable in any hope your viewing the routing > table @, but you don't have to bother yourself with if you just have a hub > and spoke topologie that is not very large, and even though in which case > you would implement stubing as it is the most scalable solution in that > scenario. > > excuse the lack of info in the previous message > > Best Regards, > Amar > CCNA, CCNP > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Amar KHELIFI" > To: > Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 9:30 PM > Subject: Re: RE: : Influencing EIGRP to use GRE tunnels over Serial link > [7:60840] > > > > > > the BW of the tunnel should not be over that of the T1, assuming all > traffic > > will use the tuunel interface to get to the other site > > the best way if you are only paasing traffic for a particular network, is > to > > messure the bw used to reach the net by using ip accounting or netflow if > > you the necessaey ios and hw, and calculate it based on the monitored time > > to have an average which you will use to split the bandwith between the > > Physical and logical interfaces. > > Hope this helps > > Best Regards > > Amar > > CCNA CCNP > > PS i don't know why i can't send messages to the group???? > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco > > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:53 PM > > Subject: Re: RE: : Influencing EIGRP to use GRE tunnels over Serial link > > [7:60840] > > > > > > > Thank you for the response. Another peice of the puzzle is that I > believe > > > there are two way to influence the EIGRP Table. I could increase the > > > 10.x.x.x tunnel bandwidth or I could advertise the 64.200.x.x network in > to > > > the EIGRP metric. Presently the 64.200.x.x network is not advertised in > > the > > > eigrp table, only the 10.x.x.x is. I believe this is a situation of two > > way > > > to 'skin' the cat. Just wondering what way is preferred over the other. > > > > > > To further convolude the situation I have another engineer here that > > believe > > > the delay should be manipulated instead of the bandwidth. > > > > > > Any suggestions are appreciated. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Jamie > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Georgescu, Aurelian" > > > Date: Friday, January 10, 2003 11:21 am > > > Subject: RE: : Influencing EIGRP to use GRE tunnels over Serial link > > > [7:60834] > > > > > > > You have to put a "bandwidth" statement under the tunnel > > > > interfaces as well, > > > > with a higher value than FR. > > > > > > > > Aurelian Georgescu > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:00 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: : Influencing EIGRP to use GRE tunnels over Serial link > > > > [7:60834] > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > I have a question. I have gre tunnels going through MPLS running > > > > 1.544mbps,running EIGRP. The secondary links are Frame Relay > > > > links running at 256kbps > > > > per link. Presently EIGRP has calculated the best link to be the > > > > SprintLink as there are bandwidth statements in the frame relay > > > > subinterface on > > > > the remote site: > > > > > > > > Remote Site In Tampa: > > > > interface Serial0/0.2 point-to-point > > > > description "Connect to Seattle" > > > > bandwidth 256 > > > > ip address 192.168.228.253 255.255.255.0 > > > > no ip mroute-cache > > > > no cdp enable > > > > frame-relay interface-dlci 41 > > > > > > > > interface Tunnel1 > > > > description "Tampa Tunnel to Seattle" > > > > ip address 10.0.48.6 255.255.255.252 > > > > tunnel source Serial0/1 > > > > tunnel destination 64.200.134.18 > > > > ! > > > > The Tamp Site connects with Seattle Hub with these configs: > > > > > > > > interface Tunnel1 > > > > description "Seattle Tunnel to Tampa" > > > > ip address 10.0.48.5 255.255.255.252 > > > > tunnel source Serial2/0 > > > > tunnel destination 64.200.118.162 > > > > end > > > > > > > > interface Serial0/0.8 point-to-point > > > > description "Seattle to Tampa" > > > > bandwidth 256 > > > > ip address 192.168.228.254 255.255.255.0 > > > > no ip route-cache > > > > no ip mroute-cache > > > > no cdp enable > > > > frame-relay interface-dlci 39 > > > > > > > > I believe the best way to influence EIGRP would be to add a bandwidth > > > > statement to the tunnel or the interface to which the tunnel is > > > > applied to. > > > > > > > > One other question. T1 1.544mbps would be 193000 in the bandwidth > > > > statement?.. believe so ..but having a brain fart right now. > > > > > > > > Thank you for your help. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Jamie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60888&t=60888 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
