well... if you insist
I'd use a floating static, with the higher distance pointing to the 56K
link. keeps life simple.
I had a similar project dropped into my lap recently. This kind of stuff
offends my persnickety sense of security, but what the hell, it pays the
bills, right?
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
user true
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 9:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: VPN/Frame redundant connection? [7:28252]
Hi All...
I have been put into a project where someone else pitched a solution to
implement a redundant connection over a dedicated private line (56K) and a
VPN internet connection (frac T1). the hardware are 2 cisco 2611 routers
with the 2 ethernet interfaces, 2 watchguard firebox 1000's, and some
equipment for the private frame (already has CSU and RJ45 cable to hook up
directly to ethernet interface on router). The internet connection is a
fractional T1 on each side and as stated before 2 watchguard firewalls.
The sides would be addressed like 172.16.x.x/16 and 172.17.x.x/16 and they
were given this solution by someone who has since bailed on them after
getting the equipment.
What I am looking for is what is the easiest way to implement a solution
that would allow the VPN connection to be the preferred route, but also
allow the private frame to pick-up if they internet connection should become
latent or go down. It could grind along slowly, but would function.
I was just curious if anyone has gotten this type of solution to work with a
watchguard in the middle? I was thinking of using something easy like
EIGRP, but am a little miffed by how exactly to make this work across the
VPN and the Frame at once
|router|---|watchguard|---internet---|watchguard|---|router|
|
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=28333t=28252
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
