From: Luis Santos (luis_santos@xxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Feb 22 2001 - 10:41:49 GMT-3
In HSRP you can configure the standby group to track a particular interface
status and switchover in the event of failure of that interface:
standby [group #] track [interface to be tracked]
HTH,
-Luis
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Hamilton-Wilkes, Simon
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 11:01 AM
To: Peter; Paul Thomas; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: off topic: redundant internet connections for small clients
How about using multigroup HSRP:
Two routers each with a line to an ISP. Each has two standby groups
configured,
with different priorities. Then point SMTP / DNS / FTP at one virtual
address, and
http traffic at the other. Both pipes are being used. If either router
fails
all traffic goes down the remaining pipe.
Is there a way to make the router ethernet go down if it loses the WAN link
though ?
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter [mailto:peter@web53.com]
Sent: 22 February 2001 04:45
To: Paul Thomas; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: off topic: redundant internet connections for small clients
You get what you pay for.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Thomas" <psthomas@telusplanet.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: off topic: redundant internet connections for small clients
> Thanks for the responses everyone. Most of these solutions seem to be
based
> on only proving redundancy if the connection between the client company
and
> the ISP goes down. They still do not provide true redundancy for outbound
> traffic in the event of a failure within the ISP's network. The only one
> that would seem to fully solve the redundancy issue is that $10k hardware
> solution.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul Thomas
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sam Munzani" <sam@munzani.com>
> To: "Justin Menga" <Justin.Menga@computerland.co.nz>; "'Peter'"
> <peter@web53.com>; "Foster, Kristopher" <KFoster@C1Communications.com>;
> "'Paul Thomas'" <psthomas@telusplanet.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 1:39 PM
> Subject: Re: off topic: redundant internet connections for small clients
>
>
> > BTW, This would work great if both of your links are from same ISP.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sam Munzani
> > CCIE # 6479, CCNP, CCDP, CCSA, MCSE, CNE(5, 4, 3), SCO Master ACE, HP
> > Openview Consultant
> > Certified AIX Administrator, Certified Warp Server Engineer
> >
> > > The problem with HSRP is it is an Active/Passive technology, so you
> won't
> > be
> > > able to load balance between the two. To get a fully redundant load
> > sharing
> > > topology without using BGP you would probably need:
> > >
> > >
> > > DSL Cable
> > > R1 R2
> > > | |
> > > |---------------|
> > > |
> > > Ethernet
> > > |
> > > |---------------|
> > > | |
> > > R3 R4
> > > | |
> > > -----------------
> > > Internal
> > > Hosts
> > >
> > > You would use dynamic routing on R1 and R2 to announce default routes
to
> > R3
> > > and R4.
> > > R3 and R4 would run HSRP on the internal network side. This means
that
> > say
> > > R3 becomes the primary HSRP router, and then would load balance
traffic
> > > between R1 and R2. If R3 fails, R4 will become primary router and
will
> > also
> > > load balance between R1 and R2. If R1 or R2 fail, only 1 default
route
> is
> > > announced. In this scenario, the network provides reduncancy for a
> single
> > > router failure and also a double router failure (provided the failures
> are
> > > not both R1 and R2 or both R3 and R4). The network also load balances
> > > between the cable and DSL connections, which would not be possible if
> the
> > > cable and DSL routers were running HSRP.
> > >
> > > Also, for a cheaper alternative for DSL, you could use Cisco 827,
which
> > also
> > > supports FW/IPsec/VoIP...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Justin Menga CCIE #6640 MCSE+I CCSE
> > > WAN Specialist
> > > Computerland New Zealand
> > > PO Box 3631, Auckland
> > > DDI: (+64) 9 360 4864 Mobile: (+64) 25 349 599
> > > mailto: justin.menga@computerland.co.nz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter [mailto:peter@web53.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 6:08 PM
> > > To: Foster, Kristopher; 'Paul Thomas'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: off topic: redundant internet connections for small
clients
> > >
> > >
> > > For the Cable connection, get a CiscoUBR924. This is a SOHO IOS
router
> > with
> > > a cable interface, it even supports VoIP. For the DSL, get a 1700
with
> > the
> > > new WIC-DSL card. You can run HSRP between the two, track the WAN
link,
> > > creat equal cost routes out for load balancing, etc. You still may
have
> > > problems with point #2 below.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Foster, Kristopher" <KFoster@C1Communications.com>
> > > To: "'Paul Thomas'" <psthomas@telusplanet.net>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:37 PM
> > > Subject: RE: off topic: redundant internet connections for small
clients
> > >
> > >
> > > > You may need to look into a hardware solution (www.fatpipeinc.com
may
> > have
> > > > what you need). The major problem with trying to load balance with
> your
> > > way
> > > > is inconsistency:
> > > >
> > > > 1. you are doing per destination load balancing, in which case if
one
> > > > provider goes down, or a problem farther up the path occurs, you
will
> > > > continue to forward traffic in that direction. The only way it will
> > fail
> > > > over properly is if the connected interface goes down.
> > > >
> > > > 2. you are doing per packet load balancing, other then your packets
> > > arriving
> > > > out of order or at very inconsistent rates, NAT isn't going to work
> > > properly
> > > > (which I can't see anyway of getting around having to do NAT without
> > > having
> > > > your own advertisable address space).
> > > >
> > > > If someone can come up with a decent solution I'd like to hear it
too.
> > > This
> > > > is a problem I've seen come up before without resolution.
> > > >
> > > > Kris,
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Paul Thomas [mailto:psthomas@telusplanet.net]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 2:02 PM
> > > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: off topic: redundant internet connections for small clients
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > Does anyone have any suggestions on configurations to improve =
> > > > interent redundancy for small clients that cannot run BGP. For
example
> a
> > =
> > > > 50-100 user company with both a Cable modem and ADSL connection. I
> could
> > =
> > > > see how setting up internal servers with an address from each ISP's
=
> > > > range would allow access to them from the internet if one link went
> down
> > =
> > > > (as long as both addresses are listed in DNS). What could you do for
=
> > > > internal client pc's to ensure internet connectivity? A router
> connected
> > =
> > > > to both the cable and ADSL modems could have both listed as default
=
> > > > gateways and load balance between the two links to optimize
bandwidth
> =
> > > > utilization. It would only fail over to the other link if the
> connection
> > =
> > > > between the client company and the ISP went down though. It would be
=
> > > > unable to sense a failure in the ISP connection to the Internet
> backbone
> > =
> > > > for example. Any suggestions of how to optimize this setup further?
=
> > > > Without BGP of course ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks everyone,
> > > >
> > > > Paul Thomas
> > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:57 GMT-3