lazy mentor wrote:
I've seen where people load balanced two T1's on a per packet
basis and achieved 1.5 megs on both circuits. Which would give
them a total of 3Megs, but the provider said that they are load
balancing 1.5 megs over two T1's. I asked different person same
provider
I was asked a question about load balancing on routers and servers. Ive
looked it up on the websites but can someone give me their 2 cents about it?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74376t=74376
--
**Please support
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Load Balancing; help explain [7:74376]
I was asked a question about load balancing on routers and servers. Ive
looked it up on the websites but can someone give me their 2 cents about it?
**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store:
http
I've seen where people load balanced two T1's on a per packet basis and
achieved 1.5 megs on both circuits. Which would give them a total of 3Megs,
but the provider said that they are load balancing 1.5 megs over two T1's. I
asked different person same provider, that if I'm load balancing two T1's
No radius load-balancing here, just sysadmin handy. Maybe you should check
Steel-Belted or something for scalability. My experience is that
Radiusserver load is VERY low due to little amount of packets (small DB
ofcourse).
Loadbalancing VPN client scenario:
Imagine 2 windows 2000 boxes (sorry
,
Rodrigo Kazuo Yamamoto
escreveu na mensagem
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No radius load-balancing here, just sysadmin handy. Maybe you should check
Steel-Belted or something for scalability. My experience is that
Radiusserver load is VERY low due to little amount of packets (small DB
ofcourse
Hi list,
Does anyone have experience with CSS' server load-balancing, specifically
RADIUS load-balancing?
We got the following situation: LAC is generating all user authentication
packets using an unique source port / source address pair. What happens: CSS
treats all packets as an unique flow
Thank you for your replies, think I've got it now.
Tim Champion wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could someone please confirm the following to be true (taken from CCO):
Per-destination load balancing allows the router to distribute packets
based on the destination address, and uses
Here's some text from CCO regarding CEF and using source
and destination IPs to map a packet to one of a set of
load sharing links:
Configuring Per-Destination Load Balancing
Per-destination load balancing is enabled by default when you enable CEF. To
use per-destination load balancing, you do
At 2:34 PM + 7/25/03, p b wrote:
Here's some text from CCO regarding CEF and using source
and destination IPs to map a packet to one of a set of
load sharing links:
Configuring Per-Destination Load Balancing
Per-destination load balancing is enabled by default when you enable CEF. To
use per
Could someone please confirm the following to be true (taken from CCO):
Per-destination load balancing allows the router to distribute packets
based on the destination address, and uses multiple paths to achieve load
sharing. Packets for a given source-destination host pair are guaranteed to
take
Tim Champion wrote:
Could someone please confirm the following to be true (taken
from CCO):
Per-destination load balancing allows the router to distribute
packets
based on the destination address, and uses multiple paths to
achieve load
sharing. Packets for a given source-destination
Packets for a given source-destination pair are a subset of packets for a
given destination. It's true that with per-destination load balancing, all
packets for a destination go out the same interface. Thus, it is true that
all packets for a given source-destination pair go out the same interface
If there are multiple levels of Heaven and our final destination has been
predetermined in order to equalize the number of people in each level, would
this be considered pre-destination load-balancing?
Priscilla Oppenheimer 7/24/03 1:24:34 PM
Packets for a given source-destination pair
At 4:01 PM + 7/24/03, Tim Champion wrote:
Could someone please confirm the following to be true (taken from CCO):
Per-destination load balancing allows the router to distribute packets
based on the destination address, and uses multiple paths to achieve load
sharing. Packets for a given
Etherchannel
static configuration (ON).
I couldn't find a procedure to set up Fast Etherchannel for the network
card
so I did what I thought it was better.
I selected the following :
Teaming control =Load balancing
Load balancing options:
---
[x]Switch assisted
I do have this horrible mental image of Blind Justice standing there
with a packet stream going into each pan of the balance. Of course,
one needs to decide on the weight of a packet...
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72635t=72635
control =Load balancing
Load balancing options:
---
[x]Switch assisted load balancing
[ ]Transmit load balancing
---
[x ]Balance with MAC addresses
[ ]Balance with IP addresses
---
On the switch side I
:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How do I check if load balancing works ? Catalyst 2900 and
[7:72601]
Hi everybody
I have a Compaq server with 2 NC3121 cards. According with the docs, the
card supports Fast Etherchannel static configuration (ON). I couldn't
find a procedure to set up Fast
Hi,
Anyone knows what model (entry level) cisco switch/catalyst I'll need that
can do load balancing?
cheers
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72295t=72295
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http
load balancing? could u give more details
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72307t=72295
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure
in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
load balancing? could u give more details
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72320t=72295
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report
the 1720's switch the
traffic.
It's my understanding that by default the 1720's use per-destination
load balancing in the type of scenario my customer has.
Since only one network is at each location this would explain the
utilization issues.
The solution appears to be for the customer
Hi,
if you are running CEF (generally a good idea), then per-packet load
balancing can be turned on with the command 'ip load-sharing per-packet'.
You have to configure this on the outgoing interfaces (if I remember
correctly).
Note however that per-destination load balancing means only
to perform load balancing across 2
links.
The problem is that the router which will have to perform the load
balancing
learns one route via EIGRP and the other from a static route. I know how
to
alter the administrative distance of the static route but I'm not sure on
how to tweak the metric. I
your example is fair. I haven't seen many real example of load balancing. in
the case you're describing you can simply change the metrics on one of the
routers 'secondary' link to the other router. this would prevent it from
passing anything it received from the one router back to itself. yes
It occurs to me that I do not understand how IGRP unequal load balancing
works.
Yes, I understand what the commands are, and I am well aware of the
intricacies involved in fast-switching and CEF. So please don't respond by
telling me to configure 'variance' or stuff like that. I already know
destination. This prevents the problems you mentioned below. You
may want to get a second opinion on this!
Tim
nwo wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It occurs to me that I do not understand how IGRP unequal load balancing
works.
Yes, I understand what the commands are, and I am well
nwo wrote:
It occurs to me that I do not understand how IGRP unequal load
balancing
works.
Yes, I understand what the commands are, and I am well aware of
the
intricacies involved in fast-switching and CEF. So please
don't respond by
telling me to configure 'variance' or stuff like
for alternate successors when the feasible
successor was a really bad cost, was because of an optimization standpoint
and not a loop issue.
I agree that there can be some issues with classful protocols and routing,
but I think the issue of load balancing legitimately discovered routes isn't
worrisome. you'll
around.
For example, router A may, through unequal load-balancing, send some of the
dest packets to B, and then B will, again through unequal balancing, send
some of those packets back to A, etc. Yes, the number of packets sent the
'wrong way' decreases exponentially but the point is that there is still
Hello, would someone please validate this list, and or recommend less
alternatives? I would appreciate it a lot!
Our requirements:
1) Server Load Balancing (IP address translation) LAYER 3 ONLY
2) Server availability monitoring (ping?)
3) Redundant Switch Capability (SLB HSRP?)
4) medium load
to leave the sprint router in place and run its eth0 to an ethernet wic
in the 1700 and let it hadle the load balancing. I'm thinking of trying to
let the 1700 do NAT as well so the ip blocks of both quest and sprint
circuits to appear within the same NAT'ed block inside. The other part
Hello all,
I am attempting to setup a Cisco 1721 Router with load balancing and
NAT so that we can provide a dual T1 connection to the network. This is the
first time I have done anything like this and I was wanting to know if
anyone had any good pointers they could give me or any commands
Oldham wrote:
Hello all,
I am attempting to setup a Cisco 1721 Router with load
balancing and
NAT so that we can provide a dual T1 connection to the network.
This is the
first time I have done anything like this and I was wanting to
know if
anyone had any good pointers they could give
.
There are a number of ways around this, but I will wait for more detauls
before going on. Presumably you are not / will not be running BGP, and
have
your own AS?
Terry Oldham wrote:
Hello all,
I am attempting to setup a Cisco 1721 Router with load
balancing and
NAT so that we can provide
are not / will not be running BGP, and
have
your own AS?
Terry Oldham wrote:
Hello all,
I am attempting to setup a Cisco 1721 Router with load
balancing and
NAT so that we can provide a dual T1 connection to the network.
This is the
first time I have done anything like this and I was wanting
Hi Terry,
I think I have already responded to a similar, if not the same question.
You wont be able to use NAT, as you can have a many-to-one NAT statement on
your router. IE Qwest IP and Sprint IP, both NAT to the same server.
The only way I can see you getting this working is if you get a
around this, but I will wait for more
detauls
before going on. Presumably you are not / will not be running BGP,
and
have
your own AS?
Terry Oldham wrote:
Hello all,
I am attempting to setup a Cisco 1721 Router with load
balancing and
NAT so that we can
-Original Message-
From: Terry Oldham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Load Balancing and NAT [7:64904]
The T1's are from different providers, Qwest and Sprint. And
no we will not
be running BGP...
Troy Leliard
,
I am attempting to setup a Cisco 1721 Router with load
balancing and
NAT so that we can provide a dual T1 connection to the network.
This is the
first time I have done anything like this and I was wanting to
know if
anyone had any good pointers they could give me
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Load Balancing and NAT [7:64904]
The T1's are from different providers, Qwest and Sprint. And
no we will not
be running BGP...
Troy Leliard wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED
location connected by 64Kbps LL. Two hub
locations are connected using multiple 2 Mbps links. EIGRP is implemented.
If ISDN is fired to 2nd location the load balancing does not happen on both
link (64Kbps ISDN link). If both the channels of ISDN is fired, traffic
goes through ISDN, not through
Hello People,
We are deploying additional links as backups, and Load Balancing in my
organization.
One of the links is on our SDH backbone, and the second link is via
Frame-Relay through a service provider
We are running OSPF routing protocol. We are looking at 2 scenarios:
1 ) SDH Link
Hi Kerry,
You are right, OSPF only supports 4 equal cost paths, and doesn't support
unequal load balancing. The easiest way for you to address either of your
options is to manually alter the ospf interface cost.
Under the interface, add
ip ospf cost xxx
Mkae this the same as the other
Like you said, if both circuits are the same bandwidth then load balancing
will work. If they are not the same bandwidth, you can still load balance
by manipulating the cost so that it is the same for both circuits, but once
you reach the maximum bandwidth on the lower bandwidth circuit
It is concerning if SLB can do the job, and when it is necessary the CSM
module.
Andrew Larkins em 05/02/2003 11:12:58
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Assunto:RE: Content Switch Module and Server Load Balancing [7:62443]
yes -we have done it on the 6509 and all
Any Thoughts?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] @groupstudy.com em
04/02/2003 13:44:09
Favor responder a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado Por: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Assunto:Content Switch Module and Server Load Balancing [7:62443]
Does anybody could share any real example
yes -we have done it on the 6509 and all is great. What exactly are you
after??
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 February 2003 15:18
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Content Switch Module and Server Load Balancing [7:62443]
Any Thoughts
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote:
Any Thoughts? Does anybody could share any real example of using Server
Load Balancing in 6000 switches?
Never had the opportunity to play around with the CSM. Is there a specific
need to use the CSM? IOS SLB works well on 7200/6000/6500s with MSFCs
Does anybody could share any real example of using Server Load Balancing in
6000 switches?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62443t=62443
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list
Hello groupstudy,
I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer this
question to those of you more learned and experienced. Here is the the
scenario:
2 routers running BGP
Router 1 has a connection to ISP 1 and router 2 has a connection to ISP 2
Each receives full
ISP1 should advertise 1.1.1.x/16 AND 1.1.1.x/24 ?
alex
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61096t=61095
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and
-
~From: Robert Fowler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
~Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:32 AM
~To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~Subject: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
~
~
~Hello groupstudy,
~
~I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would
~defer this
~question to those of you more
Hello groupstudy,
I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer
this
question to those of you more learned and experienced. Here is the
the
scenario:
2 routers running BGP
Router 1 has a connection to ISP 1 and router 2 has a connection to
ISP 2
Each receives full
can buy and hardware loadbalancer from f5.
From: Robert Fowler
Date: 2003/01/15 Wed AM 09:31:49 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
Hello groupstudy,
I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer this
question to those
.
Clay
- Original Message -
From: Robert Fowler
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:31 AM
Subject: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
Hello groupstudy,
I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer this
question to those of you more learned
with this ...
clay
- Original Message -
From: Alex Muhin
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
ISP1 should advertise 1.1.1.x/16 AND 1.1.1.x/24 ?
alex
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6t=61095
ISP1 should advertise 1.1.1.x/16 AND 1.1.1.x/24 ?
alex
Yes, that's correct. If they don't advertise the more-specific prefix
along with their aggregate you'll have problems in a multihomed
situation such as that described earlier.
John
Message Posted at:
Fowler
Date: 2003/01/15 Wed AM 09:31:49 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
Hello groupstudy,
I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer
this
question to those of you more learned and experienced. Here is the
the
scenario
15, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
ISP1 should advertise 1.1.1.x/16 AND 1.1.1.x/24 ?
alex
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61119t=61095
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription
I worked for them I'd never mention that item to a client,
especially in mixed company!
John
Greg Owens 1/15/03 9:06:28 AM
can buy and hardware loadbalancer from f5.
From: Robert Fowler
Date: 2003/01/15 Wed AM 09:31:49 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BGP load balancing questions
er UUNET if in the scenario ISP 1 =
Sprint
and ISP 2 = UUNET. I have first hand experience with this ...
clay
- Original Message -
From: Alex Muhin
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
ISP1 should advertise 1.1.1.x/16 AND 1.
Basically any changes to the sticky/persistent part are not options :( the
hardware that's in and performing the load balancing won't be changed
because it works - the NAT portion just needs some ... horrible kludges? :)
-Original Message-
From: Clayton Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
At 11:36 PM + 1/12/03, Emilia Lambros wrote:
Basically any changes to the sticky/persistent part are not options :( the
hardware that's in and performing the load balancing won't be changed
because it works - the NAT portion just needs some ... horrible kludges? :)
But isn't NAT itself
used so
my load balancing works with sticky sessions set.
For as long as only 1 IP is being used, all connections to the application
servers go to one application server. Even with 2 IPs being used, I would
have more of a chance of connections going to the 2nd application server
to
create s
This does NOT match my previous experience. My experience has been that
IOS seems to use NAT (not overloaded) until all pool addresses are used
then start overloading the last one. I dont know what happens once all
when this address gets maxed out.
The only reason we noticed this was due to
Doug S wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
The way PAT works when overloading multiple addresses is to overload the
first address in the pool until ALL port numbers are used up. I can't
point
you to any publicly available documentation on this, but cut and pasted
Peter Walker wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
This does NOT match my previous experience. My experience has been that
IOS seems to use NAT (not overloaded) until all pool addresses are used
then start overloading the last one. I dont know what happens once all
: Load balancing NAT [7:60663]
Doug S wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
The way PAT works when overloading multiple addresses is to overload the
first address in the pool until ALL port numbers are used up. I can't
point
you to any publicly available docum
I liked the comment and definitely agree that some of the authors of Cisco
training material should be named and publicly humiliated, although the
sheer volume of mistakes could make this a somewhat overwhelming task for
the public doing the humiliating. Still, I want to add my opinion that Cisco
, January 10, 2003 5:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Load balancing NAT [7:60663]
I liked the comment and definitely agree that some of the authors of Cisco
training material should be named and publicly humiliated, although the
sheer volume of mistakes could make this a somewhat overwhelming
in other machines.
Source-destination hash is very good in most cases, but if you had
this configuration on both ends, everything would go over the same
link no matter how many interfaces you had. If the load balancing
were destination-based, it could get awful.
I'd also like to hear people's
removes the requirement for the load-balancing part of the
load-balancers, leaving them with server failover tasks only. As I
stated in my post, I'd be looking for a different form of sticky (or a
different NAT device).
rgds
Marc
Doug S wrote:
I liked the comment and definitely agree that some
addresses be used so
my load balancing works with sticky sessions set.
For as long as only 1 IP is being used, all connections to the application
servers go to one application server. Even with 2 IPs being used, I would
have more of a chance of connections going to the 2nd application server
The way PAT works when overloading multiple addresses is to overload the
first address in the pool until ALL port numbers are used up. I can't point
you to any publicly available documentation on this, but cut and pasted from
Network Academy curriculum:
However, on a Cisco IOS router, NAT will
6:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Load balancing NAT [7:60663]
The way PAT works when overloading multiple addresses is to overload the
first address in the pool until ALL port numbers are used up. I can't point
you to any publicly available documentation on this, but cut and pasted
if you have a CCO customer account, there are a lot of articles in the TAC
database
this one is a good start, I believe.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/tech/tk648/tk361/technologies_tech_note0
9186a0080093fca.shtml
watch the wrap.
HTH
--
TANSTAAFL
there ain't no such thing as a free lunch
oops - forgot where I was going
here is a jump page
http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/browse/psp_view.pl?p=Internetworking:NA
T
requires CCO customer login.
and this one for more detail in design and operation
http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/browse/psp_view.pl?p=Internetworking:NA
be used so
my load balancing works with sticky sessions set.
For as long as only 1 IP is being used, all connections to the application
servers go to one application server. Even with 2 IPs being used, I would
have more of a chance of connections going to the 2nd application server to
create some load
Hi all,
I have an application being load balanced at one site (sticky sessions set
such that each connection from 1 IP will continue its transactions to the
same server it started on) and at another site, the users accessing the load
balanced application.
The users come in from different office
offline, these scenarios are getting
really complex. My next task is figuring how to take two T1s and make
them act as a single unit while providing redundancy.
Thanks :)
-Original Message-
From: Brian Zeitz
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Load B
Balancing Firewalls [7:59183]
Actually, management change the diagram on me :(
T1---3640---515UR with failover
T1---3640---^
Both T1s going into a single 515UR with a standby unit.
I figured out the first scenario, I just thought of it as it as being in
different locations and use global load
I have just been given the task of setting up a website with load
balancing.
T1 --- 3640Pix 515 UR+4E--Load balancer
T1 --- 3640---Pix 515 UR+4ELoad balancer
The Pix 515 are separate full units, I got another on because I know you
cannot use the failover
Actually, management change the diagram on me :(
T1---3640---515UR with failover
T1---3640---^
Both T1s going into a single 515UR with a standby unit.
I figured out the first scenario, I just thought of it as it as being in
different locations and use global load balancing on the LBs
2 nos. terminated on Each one of them). =
Can we implement some sort of load balancing which can take care of this =
??
Many thanks in advance
Thanks n regds
Hitesh
[GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of
Glacier Bkgrd.jpg]
DISCLAIMER:
Information contained
Dale Kling wrote:
Is there another way to do this?
Don't know about easier, (haven't had a chance to play with this in the lab
yet) but Cisco has recently announced Gateway Load Balancing Protocol,
(GLBP) for balancing first-hop gateways.
I found a quick white-paper on the topic. Hope it helps
Here's a scenario I've been faced with recently and have a solution, but
wanted to get any other ideas somebody might have. The question calls for
this:
- Configure cat1 and cat2 for layer 3 redundancy with HSRP for Vlan 5
- Configure HSRP such that when both cat switches are available, traffic
That is the way I used to do it at the ISP I used to work at...before the
layoffs...We had two 6509's linked together in a full-mesh and used a cfg
similar to what you have. If there is another way. I'd be interested in
finding out about it.
HTH's
Message Posted at:
Do not add the preempt command to the standby device that you want to loose
the election because they will force an election that they will eventually
loose.
Second add a preempt delay to the device that you want to win the election
after a reload. This will allow them an opportunity to build
Duncan Wallace wrote:
Has anyone had any experience in implementing Windows load
balancing a
server cluster ? I have always used hardware based load
balancers so I
am somewhat new to the MS flavor. I have a 2621 router and I am
wondering if it is capable of the following.
The text
Has anyone had any experience in implementing Windows load balancing a
server cluster ? I have always used hardware based load balancers so I
am somewhat new to the MS flavor. I have a 2621 router and I am
wondering if it is capable of the following. This is just some
preliminary information
I have been playing with them all for awhile now (F5, Alteon, Local
Director, Etc.). I finally settled on Alteons products (I like the
hardware based products). Unfortunately, I have a side contract, and
they are concrete on using Windows Load balancing...Wait 'til they see
the licensing
Is it the right approach to do spantree-load balancing with HSRP redundancy
I have 4 users Vlans tied to subnets, vlan 10
172.16.10.0 vlan 11 172.16.11.0vlan 20
172.16.20.0 vlan 21 172.16.21.0 Server Farm Vlans vlan
101 172.16.101.0vlan 102
VLANS. They are also connected to (2) 6509 swithes. 6509s are doing all
the routing. Each Vlan is tied to a unique subnet. In order for me to do
VLAN Load balancing: I could make (1) 6509 as root bridge for vlans 10, 20,
and 30 and secondary root bridge for VLANS 11,21,31 and vice versa for(2
with it..
Larry Letterman
Network Engineer
Cisco Systems Inc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:nobody;groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Azhar Teza
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: VLAN Load Balancing [7:55411]
If I have multiple VLANS
Is it possible to do HSRP, not MHSRP with VLAN-Spanning Tree Load balancing.
I have multiple VLANS, each Vlan/Subnet assigned to the IDF. IDF switches
then connect to (2) 6500 backbone switches that is also performing
routing/layer 3. I know I can do vlan load balancing by making odd vlans
if process switching is enabled.
If fast-switching is used (default) then load-balancing over these equal
static routes will be per destination not per packet like process
switching. Keep in mind that this load-balancing done using via
static-routes only concerns upstream traffic and has nothing
We have a couple of small but critical networks at remote offices we're
wanting to connect to our man office. We have several 2610 and 2620 routers
not being used right now. We'd like to setup a solution at those two sites
that will load balance across two T1's and be redundant.
I don' think
I don't know how current this Product Bulletin is but you'll get the general
idea:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/iosw/iore/prodlit/768_pb.htm
Setting up load splitting/balancing when HSRP is present generally requires
that there be at least two subnets or VLANs. One subnet/VLAN has
1 - 100 of 425 matches
Mail list logo
