RE: Multiple T1's
Could you also configure these as point-to-point interfaces with /30 addresses and run a dynamic routing protocol, i.e. OSPF which would allow for both routes to perform load balancing and failover? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vijay Ramcharan Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:31 AM To: Cisco Groupstudy. com Mailing list (E-mail) Subject: Multiple T1's To revisit this question from yesterday, could the following be done and what does it accomplish, if anything? The question posed is below. "Jason Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. We want these 2 t1's to not only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load balance while they are both up. So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth and if one goes down for it to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 series routers on both ends. Can this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP stuff, but it seems to be only for async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! Is this possible to achieve using the solution below? Use a "backup interface" command along with "backup load" and "backup delay" commands to achieve redundancy and load balancing. Both T1's are correctly configured and are connected to the same router. Static routes are used for each T1 using "ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 ". By my reasoning, by using the backup interface command on the primary line, if the primary line goes down the second line is used automatically to route traffic. If the primary line exceeds the load specified by the "backup load" command, the second line is put into use automatically. The "backup delay" command just tells the router to stop using the second line when usage on the primary line drops below the predefined load. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. Vijay Ramcharan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vijay Ramcharan Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 6:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Multiple T1's In this scenario, is it possible to use a "backup interface" command along with "backup load" and "backup delay" commands to achieve redundancy and load balancing? Providing that both T1's are correctly configured and are connected to the same router? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Howard C. Berkowitz Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 5:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Multiple T1's At 02:12 PM 3/20/2001 -0800, you wrote: >If you are running EIGRP as your routing protocol, it will take care of the >load balancing for you without the added complexity and CPU overhead of PPP >multilink. > >There are some great EIGRP config guides on CCO. > >Chris Lemagie I don't understand what advantage EIGRP would give. First, no routing protocol load balances. It is the routing table task that makes the final decision about load balancing, with the mode dependent on the switching modes of the output interfaces. Second, any routing protocol, except standard BGP (i.e., without Cisco extensions) and OSPF externals, can produce equal-cost routes eligible for load balancing. EIGRP and IGRP can produce unequal-cost routes eligible for load balancing, but the media here specifically are equal cost >-----Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Brian >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:57 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Multiple T1's > > >On each end, static route traffic out both interfaces. > > Bri >"Jason Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. >We > > want these 2 t1's to not > > only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load > > balance while they are both up. > > So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth > > and if one goes down for it > > to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 > > series routers on both ends. Can > > this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP > > stuff, but it seems to be only for > > async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! > > > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >h
Re: Multiple T1's
I am doing exactly the same thing using MPPP and Virtual interfaces. Here's how the config looks: multilink virtual-template 1 interface Serial0/0 no ip address encapsulation ppp no ip mroute-cache no fair-queue ppp multilink interface Serial0/1 no ip address encapsulation ppp no ip mroute-cache no fair-queue ppp multilink interface Virtual-Template1 bandwidth 3080 ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.252 ppp multilink That's it. It works great. I got the config from the instructor of my BSCN class. I can't remember his name otherwise I'd give him credit. Hope this helps, Mike ""Jason Stephens"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. We > want these 2 t1's to not > only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load > balance while they are both up. > So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth > and if one goes down for it > to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 > series routers on both ends. Can > this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP > stuff, but it seems to be only for > async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple T1's
That amount of configuration is not necessary. Besides, I've never seen a serial line configured to be a backup interface in that way, but if it's possible and if it behaves like other async interfaces, it will be placed in a down state until the primary interface goes away. If you have two serial connections between two routers you'll automatically have load-sharing and redundancy without any additional configuration. To share load on a packet-by-packet basis, turn off fast switching on both interfaces (no ip route-cache). If you want to load share on a per-destination basis, make sure fast switching is turned on on both interfaces. To test this, if you have two routers and two back to back cables, attach them and set up your addressing, datalink layer encapsulation, and clocking. You can use either HDLC or PPP, or even frame relay if you wanted to. Make sure both links are in separate subnets. For routing, you can either use two equally-weighted static routes or the routing protocol of your choice. Because both paths are the same cost, the router should install both routes into your routing table. Traffic will automatically load-share across those links and they'd be completely redundant if one link were to fail. HTH, John >>> "Vijay Ramcharan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/21/01 9:31:10 AM >>> To revisit this question from yesterday, could the following be done and what does it accomplish, if anything? The question posed is below. "Jason Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. We want these 2 t1's to not only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load balance while they are both up. So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth and if one goes down for it to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 series routers on both ends. Can this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP stuff, but it seems to be only for async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! Is this possible to achieve using the solution below? Use a "backup interface" command along with "backup load" and "backup delay" commands to achieve redundancy and load balancing. Both T1's are correctly configured and are connected to the same router. Static routes are used for each T1 using "ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 ". By my reasoning, by using the backup interface command on the primary line, if the primary line goes down the second line is used automatically to route traffic. If the primary line exceeds the load specified by the "backup load" command, the second line is put into use automatically. The "backup delay" command just tells the router to stop using the second line when usage on the primary line drops below the predefined load. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. Vijay Ramcharan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vijay Ramcharan Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 6:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Multiple T1's In this scenario, is it possible to use a "backup interface" command along with "backup load" and "backup delay" commands to achieve redundancy and load balancing? Providing that both T1's are correctly configured and are connected to the same router? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Howard C. Berkowitz Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 5:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Multiple T1's At 02:12 PM 3/20/2001 -0800, you wrote: >If you are running EIGRP as your routing protocol, it will take care of the >load balancing for you without the added complexity and CPU overhead of PPP >multilink. > >There are some great EIGRP config guides on CCO. > >Chris Lemagie I don't understand what advantage EIGRP would give. First, no routing protocol load balances. It is the routing table task that makes the final decision about load balancing, with the mode dependent on the switching modes of the output interfaces. Second, any routing protocol, except standard BGP (i.e., without Cisco extensions) and OSPF externals, can produce equal-cost routes eligible for load balancing. EIGRP and IGRP can produce unequal-cost routes eligible for load balancing, but the media here specifically are equal cost >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Brian >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:57 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Multiple T1's > > >On each end, static route traffic out both interfaces. > > Bri >"Jason Stephens
RE: Multiple T1's
In this scenario, is it possible to use a "backup interface" command along with "backup load" and "backup delay" commands to achieve redundancy and load balancing? Providing that both T1's are correctly configured and are connected to the same router? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Howard C. Berkowitz Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 5:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Multiple T1's At 02:12 PM 3/20/2001 -0800, you wrote: >If you are running EIGRP as your routing protocol, it will take care of the >load balancing for you without the added complexity and CPU overhead of PPP >multilink. > >There are some great EIGRP config guides on CCO. > >Chris Lemagie I don't understand what advantage EIGRP would give. First, no routing protocol load balances. It is the routing table task that makes the final decision about load balancing, with the mode dependent on the switching modes of the output interfaces. Second, any routing protocol, except standard BGP (i.e., without Cisco extensions) and OSPF externals, can produce equal-cost routes eligible for load balancing. EIGRP and IGRP can produce unequal-cost routes eligible for load balancing, but the media here specifically are equal cost >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Brian >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:57 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Multiple T1's > > >On each end, static route traffic out both interfaces. > > Bri >"Jason Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. >We > > want these 2 t1's to not > > only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load > > balance while they are both up. > > So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth > > and if one goes down for it > > to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 > > series routers on both ends. Can > > this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP > > stuff, but it seems to be only for > > async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! > > > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Multiple T1's
At 02:12 PM 3/20/2001 -0800, you wrote: >If you are running EIGRP as your routing protocol, it will take care of the >load balancing for you without the added complexity and CPU overhead of PPP >multilink. > >There are some great EIGRP config guides on CCO. > >Chris Lemagie I don't understand what advantage EIGRP would give. First, no routing protocol load balances. It is the routing table task that makes the final decision about load balancing, with the mode dependent on the switching modes of the output interfaces. Second, any routing protocol, except standard BGP (i.e., without Cisco extensions) and OSPF externals, can produce equal-cost routes eligible for load balancing. EIGRP and IGRP can produce unequal-cost routes eligible for load balancing, but the media here specifically are equal cost >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Brian >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:57 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Multiple T1's > > >On each end, static route traffic out both interfaces. > > Bri >"Jason Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. >We > > want these 2 t1's to not > > only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load > > balance while they are both up. > > So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth > > and if one goes down for it > > to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 > > series routers on both ends. Can > > this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP > > stuff, but it seems to be only for > > async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! > > > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple T1's
I was not talking about multilink PPP. If you have 2 t1s from office a to office b, all you'd need for a default out on the remote office end is ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 s0 ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 s1 This assumes that you already have the appropriate statics in place for local LAN segments. If you want per packet load balancing, disable caching. No multilink PPP required. Bri - Original Message - From: "Chris Lemagie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 2:12 PM Subject: RE: Multiple T1's > If you are running EIGRP as your routing protocol, it will take care of the > load balancing for you without the added complexity and CPU overhead of PPP > multilink. > > There are some great EIGRP config guides on CCO. > > Chris Lemagie > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Brian > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Multiple T1's > > > On each end, static route traffic out both interfaces. > > Bri > "Jason Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > 998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. > We > > want these 2 t1's to not > > only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load > > balance while they are both up. > > So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth > > and if one goes down for it > > to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 > > series routers on both ends. Can > > this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP > > stuff, but it seems to be only for > > async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! > > > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Multiple T1's
If you are running EIGRP as your routing protocol, it will take care of the load balancing for you without the added complexity and CPU overhead of PPP multilink. There are some great EIGRP config guides on CCO. Chris Lemagie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brian Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple T1's On each end, static route traffic out both interfaces. Bri "Jason Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. We > want these 2 t1's to not > only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load > balance while they are both up. > So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth > and if one goes down for it > to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 > series routers on both ends. Can > this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP > stuff, but it seems to be only for > async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple T1's
You may also find that you have turn off fast switching in order for the load to be balanced packet by packet. ""Jason Stephens"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. We > want these 2 t1's to not > only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load > balance while they are both up. > So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth > and if one goes down for it > to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 > series routers on both ends. Can > this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP > stuff, but it seems to be only for > async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple T1's
more precisely, out both serial interfaces.. Brian "Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 998nrc$3h8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998nrc$3h8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > On each end, static route traffic out both interfaces. > > Bri > "Jason Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > 998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. > We > > want these 2 t1's to not > > only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load > > balance while they are both up. > > So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth > > and if one goes down for it > > to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 > > series routers on both ends. Can > > this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP > > stuff, but it seems to be only for > > async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! > > > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple T1's
On each end, static route traffic out both interfaces. Bri "Jason Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:998ndv$1fh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > We have a situation where we want to have 2 t1's going to another office. We > want these 2 t1's to not > only provide redundancy in case 1 goes down, but also want them to load > balance while they are both up. > So basically, we want the two t1's to be up providing 3 mpbs of bandwidth > and if one goes down for it > to automatically send all traffic to the t1 that is still up. We have 3600 > series routers on both ends. Can > this be done? If so, please explain how. I looked into the Multilink PPP > stuff, but it seems to be only for > async ports. Thanks for any info in advance! > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
