RE: HSRP [7:10428]
Sam,
You've gotten several good replies about using DHCP super-scopes and
multiple HSRP groups. While these ideas will certainly work, there's a far
simpler approach.
Your original question was whether or not using HSRP allowed you to use the
T1 connected to the secondary router. The answer is yes, but its up to the
primary router to get the packets to the secondary, not the workstations.
>From the workstations perspective, there is only 1 router. This is the
benefit and, also, the downside of HSRP. All of the games with DHCP
superscopes and multiple HSRP groups are needed to get around the fact that
HSRP hides the fact that there are multiple routers from the end stations.
This is by design.
IMO, its far simpler to let the end stations continue to believe there's
only 1 router and then let the primary router send packets to whichever
router has the best route to the destination. All that is necessary to
accomplish this magic is to have your routers peer via BGP with your
provider and each other. Assuming that you have different ISP's, you will
naturally get some load-sharing. Even with 2 connections to the same ISP
there are lots of BGP settings you can tweak to get load-sharing however
your policies dictate. ("Internet Routing Architectures" by Sam Halabi is
the BGP bible)
The way this would work in practice is simple:
1) WS sends packets to its DG (aka the primary router)
2) Primary router either has the best route and sends to upstream provider
or secondary router has best route and primary forwards to secondary,
secondary forwards to upstream ISP.
Normally, the primary router would send an ICMP redirect to the WS telling
it to send packets directly to the secondary since the secondary has the
better route. However, enabling HSRP disables the sending of ICMP
redirects, so packets will continue to go first to the primary, and then to
the secondary for routes preferred through the secondary. This will put
excess traffic on the primary's LAN interface, but with only a couple of
T1's worth of traffic, this should not cause any problems.
One thing you will want to do is to place the command 'ip route-cache
same-interface' on the primary routers LAN interface. Otherwise, all
packets in and out the same interface would be process switched and spike
the routers CPU.
By using this method you leve the complexity to the routers and keep the WS
simple.
HTH,
Kent
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Sam Sneed
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: HSRP [7:10428]
I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who has
configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer there.
If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is the
standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the active
at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing the
T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)?
If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the
load or would it totally take over?
With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput
ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection?
thanks
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10738&t=10428
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: HSRP [7:10428]
There are two possible scenarios here. One is to divide the user community into two - half will use one gateway, the other will use the second gateway. To accomplish this 2 HSRP groups will be configured on the routers. Each router will be active for one group, and backup for the other group. 2 DHCP servers will then need to be setup, each serving half of the scope with the gateway set to one of the HSRP groups. This solution will, in principle, divide the traffic evenly. Obviously, in practice, several issues such as traffic pattern, and DHCP availability will need to be considered. The second solution depends on whether you are running a routing protocol with your ISPs. If you receive full or partial routes from your ISPs, then it is possible to have one HSRP group, but enable ICMP redirect on the routers. This will have the effect of using both links intelligently, using which ever router has a better route/metric to the destination. I don't think that HSRP can be used to invoke a backup link, depending on the traffic threshold. CM -Original Message- From: Sam Sneed To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29/06/01 20:58 Subject: HSRP [7:10428] I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who has configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer there. If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is the standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the active at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing the T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the load or would it totally take over? With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10496&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: HSRP [7:10428]
Sam, I'd use multiple vlan's. Each router has a subinterface in each vlan. tim Tim Medley - CCNP+Voice Network Architect VoIP Group iReadyWorld 704-943-3615 - Phone 704-943-3660 - Fax 877-6-iReady - Helpdesk -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sam Sneed Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] I think it would help if I gave you the scenario I was envisioning. I would like to plan a network where we have 2 seperate routers connecting to our ISP or perhaps 2 seperate ISP's. Lets assume 1 ISP, 2 routers ,each with its own full T1 line for simplicity. If 1 router died, I'd like to keep the internet connection alive without changing any of the clients default gateways. I figured HSRP would be good to apply here becuase it acts as 1 virtual router. But, would that mean that 1 router would be idle at all times not allowing me to ever get more than 1.5MB bandwidth? Or this extra idle T1 line just the cost of redundancy in this case? ""Marc"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted to > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > Marc > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who > has > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer > there. > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is > the > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the active > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing the > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10478&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: HSRP [7:10428]
forgive my throwing in my own ignorant observations I see this discussion as an exercise in bottom up network design. I know what HSRP is, I know what DHCP is. Now how do I make them do what I want? to quote a sage, one must begin by asking the basic question - what is the problem you are trying to solve? when the problem is defined, then one moves to the examination of alternatives. Life is more difficult when you begin with the solution, and then try to get that solution to meet the need. Years of managing technology in a firm full of whiney crybaby ignorant users has left me with a lot of experience with people who tell you what the solution is without bothering to think about the problem. ( "I want you to implement a system here we all use Windows address book to look up company wide information, contacts, etc." ) As I read the original definition of the problem - multihomed ISP's, multiple paths, how do I assure internet connectivity? ( and "load balance" as well, I presume ) then the solution goes beyond the nature of HSRP and DHCP if the problem is "how do you ensure that an end user, given these network circumstances, always have internet access?" then you can break down the problem into component parts and work from there. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Neiberger Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 3:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] Hmm I have no response to that because I've never personally configured DHCP to do this. However, I've heard several times that this can be done. Perhaps users on a given subnet must use the same gateway, but you could alternate gateway addresses on separate subnets. Is that possible? Granted, this wouldn't solve the problem if you only had a single subnet needing internet access, but it would divide traffic from multiple subnets between the two links. John >>> "Marc" 6/29/01 3:58:52 PM >>> Yeah, but you can't specify two different GWs in the same DHCP global subnet scope properties. They all take either one or none. The article states that inorder to "load balance" you must set the PCs to divide between the two virtual IPs of the GWs. SO basically you have to manually set the GW on every PC, then call that "load balancing" Marc "John Neiberger" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It's not a pain if you use DHCP to set the default gateway in your PCs. > It would definitely be a pain to do manually, though. > > John > > >>> "Marc" 6/29/01 3:09:47 PM >>> > Good link! Seems a bit odd to have the PCs configured with two > differnet > GWs. Kind of a manual pain. Hopefully Sam here do\es not have other > routers > with routing protocols involved...Watch out for loops! > > > Marc > > "Eric Hoffman" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Here is a link that may answer some questions about HSRP groups, and > what > it > > could be used for. > > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Eric Hoffman > > Senior Systems Engineer > > MCP, CCNA, CCNP > > Computer Professionals International > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:03 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] > > > > > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you > wanted > to > > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two > lines, > > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all > that's > > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone > who > > has > > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my > answer > > there. > > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, > 1 is > > the > > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through > the > active > > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever > utilizing > the > > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to > share the > > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would > throughput > > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 > connection? > > > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10457&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
Hmm I have no response to that because I've never personally configured DHCP to do this. However, I've heard several times that this can be done. Perhaps users on a given subnet must use the same gateway, but you could alternate gateway addresses on separate subnets. Is that possible? Granted, this wouldn't solve the problem if you only had a single subnet needing internet access, but it would divide traffic from multiple subnets between the two links. John >>> "Marc" 6/29/01 3:58:52 PM >>> Yeah, but you can't specify two different GWs in the same DHCP global subnet scope properties. They all take either one or none. The article states that inorder to "load balance" you must set the PCs to divide between the two virtual IPs of the GWs. SO basically you have to manually set the GW on every PC, then call that "load balancing" Marc "John Neiberger" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It's not a pain if you use DHCP to set the default gateway in your PCs. > It would definitely be a pain to do manually, though. > > John > > >>> "Marc" 6/29/01 3:09:47 PM >>> > Good link! Seems a bit odd to have the PCs configured with two > differnet > GWs. Kind of a manual pain. Hopefully Sam here do\es not have other > routers > with routing protocols involved...Watch out for loops! > > > Marc > > "Eric Hoffman" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Here is a link that may answer some questions about HSRP groups, and > what > it > > could be used for. > > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Eric Hoffman > > Senior Systems Engineer > > MCP, CCNA, CCNP > > Computer Professionals International > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:03 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] > > > > > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you > wanted > to > > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two > lines, > > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all > that's > > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone > who > > has > > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my > answer > > there. > > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, > 1 is > > the > > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through > the > active > > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever > utilizing > the > > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to > share the > > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would > throughput > > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 > connection? > > > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10453&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
Yeah, but you can't specify two different GWs in the same DHCP global subnet scope properties. They all take either one or none. The article states that inorder to "load balance" you must set the PCs to divide between the two virtual IPs of the GWs. SO basically you have to manually set the GW on every PC, then call that "load balancing" Marc "John Neiberger" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It's not a pain if you use DHCP to set the default gateway in your PCs. > It would definitely be a pain to do manually, though. > > John > > >>> "Marc" 6/29/01 3:09:47 PM >>> > Good link! Seems a bit odd to have the PCs configured with two > differnet > GWs. Kind of a manual pain. Hopefully Sam here do\es not have other > routers > with routing protocols involved...Watch out for loops! > > > Marc > > "Eric Hoffman" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Here is a link that may answer some questions about HSRP groups, and > what > it > > could be used for. > > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Eric Hoffman > > Senior Systems Engineer > > MCP, CCNA, CCNP > > Computer Professionals International > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:03 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] > > > > > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you > wanted > to > > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two > lines, > > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all > that's > > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone > who > > has > > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my > answer > > there. > > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, > 1 is > > the > > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through > the > active > > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever > utilizing > the > > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to > share the > > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would > throughput > > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 > connection? > > > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10452&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
It's not a pain if you use DHCP to set the default gateway in your PCs. It would definitely be a pain to do manually, though. John >>> "Marc" 6/29/01 3:09:47 PM >>> Good link! Seems a bit odd to have the PCs configured with two differnet GWs. Kind of a manual pain. Hopefully Sam here do\es not have other routers with routing protocols involved...Watch out for loops! Marc "Eric Hoffman" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Here is a link that may answer some questions about HSRP groups, and what it > could be used for. > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html > > > > Best Regards, > > Eric Hoffman > Senior Systems Engineer > MCP, CCNA, CCNP > Computer Professionals International > > -Original Message- > From: Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] > > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted to > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > Marc > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who > has > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer > there. > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is > the > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the active > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing the > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10451&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
I think I like Mike's suggestion the best! Marc "Mike Fountain" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Yes, with HSRP all traffic will go the primary router and the second would > be idle. > > You can do some HSRP loadbalancing by having two physical routers and then > each of them configured with two HSRP addresses. One is primary for one > HSRP address and secondary for the other and router two is secondary for the > first HSRP and primary for the second. Then have them track the serials to > decide if they stay primary. That way there is two addresses for default > gateway available to and if one router goes down of if one T1 goes down the > other router takes the whole load. > > This way you can point half your devices at one HSRP address for default > gateway and the other half at the other HSRP address. This also helps solve > the problem of trying to load balance across two routers if you are running > NAT because traffic from any given workstation should always go through the > same router except in cases of failure. > > Of course, if you want simplicity just plug both T1s into the same router > and keep the second router configured as a hot-swappable spare. > > > > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Sneed" > To: > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:13 PM > Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] > > > > I think it would help if I gave you the scenario I was envisioning. I > would > > like to plan a network where we have 2 seperate routers connecting to our > > ISP or perhaps 2 seperate ISP's. Lets assume 1 ISP, 2 routers ,each with > its > > own full T1 line for simplicity. If 1 router died, I'd like to keep the > > internet connection alive without changing any of the clients default > > gateways. I figured HSRP would be good to apply here becuase it acts as 1 > > virtual router. But, would that mean that 1 router would be idle at all > > times not allowing me to ever get more than 1.5MB bandwidth? Or this extra > > idle T1 line just the cost of redundancy in this case? > > > > > > ""Marc"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted > > to > > > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two > lines, > > > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's > > > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone > who > > > has > > > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer > > > there. > > > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 > is > > > the > > > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the > > active > > > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing > > the > > > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share > the > > > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would > throughput > > > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 > connection? > > > > > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10446&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: HSRP [7:10428]
You should be able to accomplish this with the interface tracking option in HSRP. Heather Buri CSC Technology Services - Houston Phone: (713)-961-8592 Fax:(713)-961-8249 Mobile: Alpha Page: Mailing:1360 Post Oak Blvd Suite 500 Houston, TX 77056 -Original Message- From: Sam Sneed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] I think it would help if I gave you the scenario I was envisioning. I would like to plan a network where we have 2 seperate routers connecting to our ISP or perhaps 2 seperate ISP's. Lets assume 1 ISP, 2 routers ,each with its own full T1 line for simplicity. If 1 router died, I'd like to keep the internet connection alive without changing any of the clients default gateways. I figured HSRP would be good to apply here becuase it acts as 1 virtual router. But, would that mean that 1 router would be idle at all times not allowing me to ever get more than 1.5MB bandwidth? Or this extra idle T1 line just the cost of redundancy in this case? ""Marc"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted to > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > Marc > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who > has > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer > there. > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is > the > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the active > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing the > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > > > thanks EOM NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. It may also be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10444&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
Good link! Seems a bit odd to have the PCs configured with two differnet GWs. Kind of a manual pain. Hopefully Sam here do\es not have other routers with routing protocols involved...Watch out for loops! Marc "Eric Hoffman" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Here is a link that may answer some questions about HSRP groups, and what it > could be used for. > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html > > > > Best Regards, > > Eric Hoffman > Senior Systems Engineer > MCP, CCNA, CCNP > Computer Professionals International > > -Original Message- > From: Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] > > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted to > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > Marc > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who > has > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer > there. > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is > the > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the active > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing the > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10445&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
Yes sir, HSRP routers will definately not use the T1's for anything but 1 active, 1 pulsing (standby)Not designed for load balancingRedundancy only. Marc "Sam Sneed" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I think it would help if I gave you the scenario I was envisioning. I would > like to plan a network where we have 2 seperate routers connecting to our > ISP or perhaps 2 seperate ISP's. Lets assume 1 ISP, 2 routers ,each with its > own full T1 line for simplicity. If 1 router died, I'd like to keep the > internet connection alive without changing any of the clients default > gateways. I figured HSRP would be good to apply here becuase it acts as 1 > virtual router. But, would that mean that 1 router would be idle at all > times not allowing me to ever get more than 1.5MB bandwidth? Or this extra > idle T1 line just the cost of redundancy in this case? > > > ""Marc"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted > to > > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, > > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's > > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who > > has > > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer > > there. > > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is > > the > > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the > active > > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing > the > > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10440&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
Yes, with HSRP all traffic will go the primary router and the second would be idle. You can do some HSRP loadbalancing by having two physical routers and then each of them configured with two HSRP addresses. One is primary for one HSRP address and secondary for the other and router two is secondary for the first HSRP and primary for the second. Then have them track the serials to decide if they stay primary. That way there is two addresses for default gateway available to and if one router goes down of if one T1 goes down the other router takes the whole load. This way you can point half your devices at one HSRP address for default gateway and the other half at the other HSRP address. This also helps solve the problem of trying to load balance across two routers if you are running NAT because traffic from any given workstation should always go through the same router except in cases of failure. Of course, if you want simplicity just plug both T1s into the same router and keep the second router configured as a hot-swappable spare. - Original Message - From: "Sam Sneed" To: Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:13 PM Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] > I think it would help if I gave you the scenario I was envisioning. I would > like to plan a network where we have 2 seperate routers connecting to our > ISP or perhaps 2 seperate ISP's. Lets assume 1 ISP, 2 routers ,each with its > own full T1 line for simplicity. If 1 router died, I'd like to keep the > internet connection alive without changing any of the clients default > gateways. I figured HSRP would be good to apply here becuase it acts as 1 > virtual router. But, would that mean that 1 router would be idle at all > times not allowing me to ever get more than 1.5MB bandwidth? Or this extra > idle T1 line just the cost of redundancy in this case? > > > ""Marc"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted > to > > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, > > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's > > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who > > has > > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer > > there. > > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is > > the > > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the > active > > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing > the > > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10439&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
You can do exactly what you want to do, but you are going to require a few more boxes. The routers connecting to your ISP's will not run HSRP, a pair of routers that are connected to both ISP Routers will run HSRP between them. This way you load-balance across your ISP connections, but have a single gateway. This is usually done with L3 Switches. David C Prall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dcp.dcptech.com - Original Message - From: "Sam Sneed" To: Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:13 PM Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] > I think it would help if I gave you the scenario I was envisioning. I would > like to plan a network where we have 2 seperate routers connecting to our > ISP or perhaps 2 seperate ISP's. Lets assume 1 ISP, 2 routers ,each with its > own full T1 line for simplicity. If 1 router died, I'd like to keep the > internet connection alive without changing any of the clients default > gateways. I figured HSRP would be good to apply here becuase it acts as 1 > virtual router. But, would that mean that 1 router would be idle at all > times not allowing me to ever get more than 1.5MB bandwidth? Or this extra > idle T1 line just the cost of redundancy in this case? > > > ""Marc"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted > to > > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, > > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's > > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > > > Marc > > > > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who > > has > > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer > > there. > > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is > > the > > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the > active > > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing > the > > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10437&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
Thanks, Thats exactly what I was looking for. ""Eric Hoffman"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Here is a link that may answer some questions about HSRP groups, and what it > could be used for. > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html > > > > Best Regards, > > Eric Hoffman > Senior Systems Engineer > MCP, CCNA, CCNP > Computer Professionals International > > -Original Message- > From: Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] > > > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted to > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > Marc > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who > has > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer > there. > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is > the > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the active > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing the > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10436&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: HSRP [7:10428]
Here is a link that may answer some questions about HSRP groups, and what it could be used for. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html Best Regards, Eric Hoffman Senior Systems Engineer MCP, CCNA, CCNP Computer Professionals International -Original Message- From: Marc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HSRP [7:10428] HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted to have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... Marc "Sam Sneed" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who has > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer there. > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is the > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the active > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing the > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > load or would it totally take over? > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10434&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
I think it would help if I gave you the scenario I was envisioning. I would like to plan a network where we have 2 seperate routers connecting to our ISP or perhaps 2 seperate ISP's. Lets assume 1 ISP, 2 routers ,each with its own full T1 line for simplicity. If 1 router died, I'd like to keep the internet connection alive without changing any of the clients default gateways. I figured HSRP would be good to apply here becuase it acts as 1 virtual router. But, would that mean that 1 router would be idle at all times not allowing me to ever get more than 1.5MB bandwidth? Or this extra idle T1 line just the cost of redundancy in this case? ""Marc"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted to > have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, > have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's > involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... > > Marc > > > "Sam Sneed" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who > has > > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer > there. > > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is > the > > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the active > > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing the > > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > > load or would it totally take over? > > > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10433&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP [7:10428]
HSRP is for router redundancy, not WAN circuit redundancy. If you wanted to have internet or WAN circuit redundacy, you would of course use two lines, have equal-cost routes (two default routes...etc) and that's all that's involved. HSRP not needed for WAN load-balancing/redundancy... Marc "Sam Sneed" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I was doing a little research on HSRP and had a question for anyone who has > configured it. I read the whole RFC 2281 and could not find my answer there. > If you have two routers running HSRP with T1 lines to the internet, 1 is the > standby and one is the active. Does all traffic only go through the active > at all times unless it dies? If so isn't it a waste not ever utilizing the > T1 line thats on standby (of course until the active fails)? > > If bandwidth exceeded 1.5MB would the second router kick in to share the > load or would it totally take over? > > With these 2 routers acting as a single virtual router would throughput > ever be able to exceed 1.54 MB assuming each has its own T1 connection? > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10430&t=10428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
