From: Stefano Lassi (stefano.lassi@sysma.it)
Date: Sun May 25 2003 - 19:19:45 GMT-3
Solution suggested by you is right, but my problem is that I'm connecting to a switch fabric unable to implement STP-per-VLAN: so first link would be forwarding for all VLAN, second link would be blocking for all VLAN.
Your solution is OK, but I would like investigate a little bit further to get both failover, and loadbalcing (if it is possible ... without FEC, without multiple-instance-STP).
Thank you very much
Stefano
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Musial [mailto:jmusial.ee96@gtalumni.org]
Sent: lunedi 26 maggio 2003 0.11
To: 'Stefano Lassi'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Alternative to FEC on low end Cisco router
I would think load balancing on a low-end router would offer little benefit
as throughput is limited well below pipe size by CPU.
For fault-tolerance, why not use IRB and create a BVI and place both
ethernets in that bridge group. One ethernet would be placed in blocking
but would be unblocked after the first dies for whatever reason.
I guess for load-balancing when multiple vlans are involved, you could
theoretically manipulate bridge priorities and such on the different vlans
such that e1 is blocked for some of the vlans and e2 is blocked for the
others, creating a situation of manual load-balancing and still maintaining
the fault tolerance above.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> Behalf Of Stefano Lassi
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 1:49 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>
> Hi
>
> since FEC seems don't be completelly supported on low end
> Cisco router (2600 for instance),
>
> which could be an alternative to it, targeting to implement
> both redundancy and bandwith load balancing on a dot1q/VLAN
> based link, with unable to implement STP-per-VLAN a switch (no Cisco)?
>
>
> Thank you very much
>
> Stefano Lassi
> CCNP/CCDP
> Genova - ITALY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:13:47 GMT-3