Yes this can work. I have a couple suggestions: 1)Make your access-list in the route map an extended ACL since you need to base this forwarding on source address. 2)Consider applying this type of policy on the RAS server. If Cisco it can be defined in the virtual interface template specific to this single RAS device. Though with the simple topology that appears to exist doing the policy routing on the RAS device may be less efficient than the 2600's. 3)Make sure the RAS device either handles asymmetric routing for packets inbound to it. Or that both 2600's have routes to the proper Ethernet interfaces of this RAS device.
You might consider using virtual routers on the RAS server to achieve the same effects. Also you might consider solving your root problem of not announcing your address space out both available services....or are you using el-cheapo xDSL service for this? Good Luck, Darrell Newcomb http://www.hayaitacos.net/mpeer/ ""CiscoNewbie"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi all. Here is a scneario that I need your help on: > > I have a RAS server that has 2 ethernet interfaces for egress traffic. The > IP addressing on each interface are on separate networks. In addition, the > dialin pools configured on the RAS are in separate networks from each other > as well as from those defined on the ethernet interfaces of the RAS. Each > Ethernet interface gateway points to a Cisco 2620 router which each of the > routers have their own connection to the internet via 2 separate providers. > No BGP being done. The IP Pool addressing on the RAS server are from each > of the providers. So Pool A IPs are from Sprint and Pool B are from Choice1. > > So in the event that one dialin user gets an IP from Pool B but gets routed > to Router A, the user will not go any where because each provider will not > route the other provider IPs. My goal was to be able to say on the RAS that > " pool A goes out of ethernet port 1" and "Pool B goes out ethernet port 2" > but the RAS solution that I am using will not allow this to be done. So I > thought about creating a route-map on the Cisco's to be applied to the > ethernet interface (ingress) as an inbound policy. The route-map on Router > A would need to say something like: "If Pool B which belongs to Router B, > then set IP next-hop to Router B ethernet interface". Both routers know > about each other. I would like to know if all I would need to do is the > following or if I need something else or maybe I cant do it. Thanks. > > Here is what I come up with: > > ROUTER A: > > route-map from-RAS permit 10 > match ip address 1 > set ip next-hop 192.168.1.2 > > interface Ethernet 0/0 > description Traffic from Pool A > ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0 > no ip directed-broadcast > ip policy route-map from-RAS > > access-list 1 permit > > > > The same will be done on the ROUTER B but with the appropriate IPs. > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63397&t=63381 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
