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 servicesor 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=7i=63397t=63381
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
