From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jun 12 2002 - 18:52:16 GMT-3
At 3:22 PM -0500 6/12/02, MADMAN wrote:
> If the Checkpoints are both operational you could set up 2 HSRP groups
>between the two routers, point default on Checkpoint1 to router1 and CP2
>to router2. Though I'm not a Checkpoint guru I seem to recall that they
>get all mushy and break with asymetrical routing so that may make the
>whole idea moot.
>
> Dave
>
>keith@isconduit.net wrote:
>>
>> Hello-
>>
>> We have a client that is going to a dual homed
>> (separate border routers) connection to the same ISP
>> via separate peering nodes. I am wondering if it makes
>> sense to configure the necessary internal routing and
>> take a default from both nodes, or to take partial/full
>> routes. Anyone have any feedback regarding pros/cons.
>> We would like to get them configured to load balance
>> the connections, but see some issues with that config
>> and the Checkpoint FW's behind the routers.
>>
>> Thanks for the assistance,
>>
> > Keith
To coin a phrase, what problem is the load balancing supposed to
solve? Let me explain.
Your client really has to define what they expect to happen if one of
the connections fails. If they want this to be transparent to users,
you must be sure that neither link is loaded to more than 50%
capacity [1]. If their users will see some degradation with a
failure -- in other words, the necessary bandwidth is split across
the two links, then load sharing makes more sense.
[1] 50% may be high, because you don't want to load a link over
50-70% in order to avoid queueing effects. It will depend on your
traffic mix, but you actually might want to size the links so that
they are only about 1/3 loaded under normal circumstances.
[2] This is an interesting thread, but it belongs on the general
cisco@groupstudy.com list, not ccielab@groupstudy.com. Checkpoint is
outside the scope of ccielab.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:32 GMT-3