From: Elias Chari (elias.chari@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jun 03 2006 - 17:58:42 ART
Godswill,
If the requirement is to use the primary and then fail over to the secondary
site, I would use the resilient static route with tracking on the primary
site and use a floating static to the secondary, so that when the primary
route is withdrawn in the event of failure, the secondary kicks in.
Rgds
Elias
On 6/3/06, Godswill Oletu <oletu@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> Bola,
>
> If your static routes are pointing to a next hop address that is not on
> the
> subnet with any interface on your local router, then floating static
> routes,
> should be fine. At least on the various IOSes that I am running today, a
> static route pointing to a next hop address that is unreachable by my
> local
> router is not entered into the routing table.
>
> However, if this is a WAN topology where the remote next hop IP address is
> on the same subnet with an interface on your local router, a little
> research
> into static routes with next hop reachability tracking might help.
>
> Sometime like...
> !
> ip route 200.1.1.1 255.0.0.0 1.1.1.1 10 track 1
> ip route 200.1.1.1 255.0.0.0 2.2.2.2 11 track 2
> !
> track 1 ip route 1.1.1.1/24 reachability
> track 2 ip route 2.2.2.2/24 reachability
> !
>
>
> Where, 1.1.1.1 & 2.2.2.2 are the ip address of the remote next hops. If my
> syntax are correct, in the above example, 1.1.1.1 will be the primary
> route
> and 2.2.2.2 will be the backup.
>
> HTH
> Godswill Oletu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bola Adegbonmire" <bolaccie@yahoo.com>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 2:17 PM
> Subject: Dynamic faiolover of Link
>
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have got a client who has a branch office with two different physical
> > links back to HQ. Both links are over a shared service provider
> > metropolitan area network. Both links are delivered via Ethernet
> > interfaces to the branch router (ISR 2811).
> >
> >
> > The client does not use a dynamic routing protocol
> > Static routes are in use
> > Client requires a solution that will provide dynamic failover between
> the
> > primary and secondary links when the primary is not available. The above
> > caveats cannot be changed for now.
> >
> > Please can anyone help with a solution, considering the peculiarities
> of
> > Ethernet interfaces not detecting the remote end been down as long as
> the
> > local interface is seen as up/up when plugged into a switch port.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bola
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 01 2006 - 07:57:31 ART