Are both of these T1s from the same provider, or is one from Sprint and one
from Qwest?  From looking at your NAT pools, and the whois information
(below), it appears to be one from Sprint and one from Qwest.  I am not sure
how the router would make the decision when doing PAT, but it is going to
pick one of the NAT pools, and then load balance across the T1s (whether per
destination or per packet cannot be determined without seeing if CEF is
turned on and seeing the whole serial interface configurations).
In this scenario, you would be trying to send some packets out to each
provider with source IP addresses that are not valid source IPs for that
network, this may or may not be your problem.  Some portion of your packets
may be being dropped by the providers when they see source IP addresses that
they did not provide you.  Or, all of your packets are sourced from Qwest,
since that is the first NAT pool, and you are load sharing outbound, but all
return traffic is coming in on the Qwest T1 and using up all your inbound
bandwidth.  Check to see which one of these is the case, or if neither
applies, and get back to us.


whois -h whois.arin.net 65.120.161.167
Qwest Communications NET-QWEST-BLKS-4 (NET-65-112-0-0-1) 
                                  65.112.0.0 - 65.127.255.255
THREE Z PRINTING COMPANY Q1007-65-120-161-160 (NET-65-120-161-160-1) 
                                  65.120.161.160 - 65.120.161.191

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-03-11 20:00
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

whois -h whois.arin.net 65.160.124.199
Sprint SPRINTLINK-2-BLKS (NET-65-160-0-0-1) 
                                  65.160.0.0 - 65.174.255.255
PowerNet Global Communications SPRINTLINK (NET-65-160-124-192-1) 
                                  65.160.124.192 - 65.160.124.223

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-03-11 20:00
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.


-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Oldham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: slow wan connection [7:65165]


Hello All,

     I recently posted to the newsgroup about configuring a mulitple T1
connection to a single network. I have since then got the configuration up
and running however the connection out to the net is very slow. I cannot
seem to figure out why. Here is the basics of the config:

Fasteth0    ip address 172.16.100.2
                 ip nat inside

Serial0     ip address 144.x.x.x
               ip nat outside

Serial1    ip address 65.x.x.x
              ip nat outside

ip nat pool Qwest 65.120.161.167 65.120.161.190 netmask 255.255.255.224
ip nat pool Sprint 65.160.124.199 65.160.124.222 netmask 255.255.255.224
ip nat inside source route-map Qwest1 pool  overload
ip nat inside source route-map Sprint1 pool  overload
ip nat inside source static 172.16.100.5 65.120.161.162
ip nat inside source static 172.16.200.5 65.160.124.194
ip nat inside source static 172.16.100.6 65.120.161.163
ip nat inside source static 172.16.200.6 65.160.124.195
ip nat inside source static 172.16.100.7 65.120.161.164
ip nat inside source static 172.16.200.7 65.160.124.196
ip nat inside source static 172.16.100.8 65.120.161.165
ip nat inside source static 172.16.200.8 65.160.124.197
ip nat inside source static 172.16.100.9 65.120.161.166
ip nat inside source static 172.16.200.9 65.160.124.198
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 65.x.x.x
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 144.x.x.x
ip route 65.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 Serial1
ip route 144.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 Serial0
ip route 172.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 FastEthernet0
ip http server
!
!
access-list 10 permit 172.16.100.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 10 permit 172.16.200.0 0.0.0.255

The Serial interfaces are not showing any kind of problems and packets are
going out of each of them.

Thanks in advance




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65188&t=65165
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to