From: Godswill Oletu (oletu@inbox.lv)
Date: Sat Jun 03 2006 - 19:37:27 ART
Elias,
Yes, that will makes more sense in that situation, since the floating
secondary static route "might always" be the last man standing, so the effect
of the tracking is null on the secondary route, 'kind of overkill'.
The only thing is that, instead of allowing the traffic to be blackholed in
the event that the secondary route also goes down; with a little tweakling of
the tracking feature in addition to rtr/sla features, one can configure the
router to send logs/traps whenever the state of any of the tracked static
routes changes. There are other rtr/sla options that one can even be utilized,
though that is if one needs them.
Thanks.
Godswill Oletu
----- Original Message -----
From: Elias Chari
To: Godswill Oletu
Cc: Bola Adegbonmire ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Dynamic faiolover of Link
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withdrawn in the event of failure, the secondary kicks in.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