Hi all, 

I am just testing the theory here to see if this is possible.

I have a remote site with 2x ISDN BRI and a central site with 2x ISDN BRI.
These BRI's are backing up a dedicated 256k point to point link.
I have dialer interfaces created on both sites with the physical BRI's being
members of dialer pools. ISDN backup works great.

Question:
I need to add a second BRI to this group. I assign the interface to the
dialer pool. Each of these BRI's on the central site have different ISDN
telephone numbers.

In order to get ALL these channels (4x 64k) dialed up in the event of a
failure, can I add another dialer string to the remote site dialer
interface?? If so will it load balance ???.
The other alternative I have is that the Telco can assign both numbers to a
hunt group, but I do not really want to have this right now.

I have left out the ppp multilink and dialer load threshold commands on
purpose.

Current confis below.

Central site:
interface BRI3/0
 no ip address
 dialer pool-member 1
 isdn switch-type basic-net3
!
interface BRI3/1
 no ip address
 dialer pool-member 1
 isdn switch-type basic-net3
!
interface Dialer1
 description ISDN Backup
 bandwidth 56
 ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.252
 ip nat inside
 encapsulation ppp
 dialer pool 1
 dialer remote-name xxxxxx
 dialer-group 1
 ppp authentication chap
end


Remote site:
interface BRI0/0
 no ip address
 dialer pool-member 1
 isdn switch-type basic-net3

New isdn still to be added but the concept remains the same as above

interface Dialer1
 description ISDN Backup
 bandwidth 56
 ip address 1.1.1.2 255.255.255.252
 encapsulation ppp
 dialer pool 1
 dialer remote-name yyyyy
 dialer string 2222222 (not the real one)
 dialer string 3333333 (is this correct???)
 dialer-group 1
 ppp authentication chap

Thanks in advance

Andrew




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=52719&t=52719
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to