Since the links are not equal costs I would recommend using EIGRP.
""Waters, Kristina"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Guy, > Yes, the links will be on the same routers (both cisco) on both sides and > will not be of equal bandwidth. It's kind of a weird set up. We have > multiple sites in puerto rico that connect to a hub site, the hub then > connects back to corporate. However, the sites in pr are all interconnected > with a wireless type of service (airlink wireless frame relay unit) that is > not as stable as we would like. The connections have a tendency to flap from > time to time for no apparent reason. > > For this one large site we wanted more bandwidth and better stability, which > we hope to achieve by adding the completely separate link. Hopefully both > links will not go down at the same time, but we shall see. Since we are > already running eigrp, the unequal cost load balancing sounds like the > perfect solution. I'm curious to see how well it will operate in this > 'wireless frame relay' environment. > > Thanks for everyone's suggestions > > Kris. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lupi, Guy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Help the newbie... [7:62087] > > > Are the links going to be connected to the same routers on both sides? If > so, then you can use static routes and CEF per-packet load sharing, you > would have to place 2 static routes in each router for the IP blocks that > the other router serves, give the command "ip cef" in global configuration > mode, and then the command "ip load-sharing per-packet" under interface > configuration mode for each interface connecting the 2 routers. If both > links are the same bandwidth, then CEF would work fine, if both are not the > same bandwidth you would have to play some games to get the load sharing to > reflect the bandwidth differences (probably not the best solution), or you > would have to use EIGRPs unequal cost load balancing. > All of this assumes you have Cisco routers on both sides of the link, if not > it is still possible to load share across the links, but how it would be > done is dependent on the vendor. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Waters, Kristina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Help the newbie... [7:62087] > > > Everyone, > > I have a site that is currently connected with a 512k frame relay link. We > are adding an additional T1 link to the same location. Is it possible to > aggregate these links in such a way that traffic will be carried across > both? If they are configured this way, will the other link still be a valid > route if one goes down? I tried searching, but I'm not exactly sure what to > search for. > > TIA > > Kris. > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by email, > delete and destroy this message and its > attachments. > ********************************************************************** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62122&t=62087 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
