From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Tue Jul 11 2006 - 14:06:57 ART
Another difference is convergence time. If high availability is
a large design concern then the slow convergence time of CDP may not be
a viable option. Also when you are using the IP SLA there are many
other options that you can track.
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Ivan
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:47 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com; san
> Subject: Re: SAA RTR reaction
>
> CDP sees only link-neighbor.
> Suppose your topology
>
> R1 ---- SW ----- R2
>
> and you want to monitor reachability R2 from R1. CDP doesn't help you
in
> this
> situation, such as sh cdp nei on R1 shows only SW. The same appear in
> route
> map. To monitor does R2 alive or not need to use tracking,
>
> > Brian / Duncan,
> >
> > Clarification needed on the same topic.
> >
> > If CDP is supported at the remote (next hop) end, we dont need the
track
> > functionality here, correct ? Can you confirm or Is there a catch
> > somewhere that i dont know ?
> >
> > I feel, If CDP is supported, then there is no advantage to use
track
> > command for this case. Found this below URL to verify nexthop
> > reachability via "verify availability".
> >
> >
>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1830/products_feature_
gu
> i
> >de09186a008046616e.html
> >
> > On 7/11/06, Brian McGahan <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com> wrote:
> > > Kay,
> > >
> > > You don't need policy routing to accomplish this; you can
> simply
> > > track an enhanced object through a static route. For example you
> could
> > > say:
> > >
> > > ip sla monitor 10
> > > type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 54.1.7.254
> > > timeout 500
> > > frequency 2
> > > ip sla monitor schedule 10 start-time now
> > > !
> > > track 1 rtr 10
> > > !
> > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 54.1.7.254 track 1
> > >
> > > This means that you will ping 54.1.7.254 every 2 seconds.
If
> > > you don't get a response within 500 milliseconds the default route
to
> > > this next-hop will be withdrawn.
> > >
> > > Below the destination is reachable at first:
> > >
> > > Rack1R6#show ip route static
> > > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 54.1.7.254
> > >
> > > Rack1R6#show ip sla monitor statistics
> > > Round trip time (RTT) Index 10
> > > Latest RTT: 24 ms
> > > Latest operation start time: .14:19:10.103 UTC Tue Jul 11 2006
> > > Latest operation return code: OK <-----------
> > > Number of successes: 96
> > > Number of failures: 0
> > > Operation time to live: 3409 sec
> > >
> > > Now connectivity is lost:
> > >
> > > Rack1R6#show ip sla monitor statistics
> > > Round trip time (RTT) Index 10
> > > Latest RTT: NoConnection/Busy/Timeout
> > > Latest operation start time: .14:20:02.105 UTC Tue Jul 11 2006
> > > Latest operation return code: Timeout <-----------------
> > > Number of successes: 119
> > > Number of failures: 3
> > > Operation time to live: 3356 sec
> > >
> > > This causes the tracked object to go down:
> > >
> > > Rack1R6#show track 1
> > > Track 1
> > > Response Time Reporter 10 state
> > > State is Down <---------------------------
> > > 4 changes, last change 00:00:11
> > > Latest operation return code: Timeout
> > > Tracked by:
> > > STATIC-IP-ROUTING 0
> > >
> > > Which withdraws the static route:
> > >
> > > Rack1R6#show ip route static
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > > Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> > > bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
> > >
> > > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > > Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
> > > Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
> > > 24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
> > > Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
Behalf
> > >
> > > Of
> > >
> > > > Kay D
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:06 AM
> > > > To: Duncan Maccubbin
> > > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Re: SAA RTR reaction
> > > >
> > > > Hi Duncan ,
> > > > I just went thru the link which u had sent .
Let
> me
> > >
> > > try
> > >
> > > > that out
> > > > Thanks a lot :)
> > > >
> > > > TIA
> > > > Kay
> > > >
> > > > On 7/11/06, Duncan Maccubbin <duncan.maccubbin@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> > > > > Kay,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would say if you want to do something like that you'll need
to
> use
> > >
> > > a
> > >
> > > > PBR
> > > >
> > > > > for your primary connection and then fail to another next hop
if
> > >
> > > that
> > >
> > > > fails.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios124/124cg/hi
> > > rp
> > >
> > > > _c/ch20/h_pbrtrk.htm
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com <nobody@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > >To: Cisco certification <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > >Sent: Tue Jul 11 05:12:44 2006
> > > > > >Subject: SAA RTR reaction
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi ,
> > > > > > I am trying to detect an indirect link failure on a
> network
> > > > >
> > > > > between
> > > > >
> > > > > >routers and pix firewalls ,without using Routing protocols
using
> > >
> > > RTR
> > >
> > > > by
> > > >
> > > > > >sending echos , now if RTR detects a link failure can it
invoke
> > > > >
> > > > > ,,,,,,,for
> > > > >
> > > > > >example ,,,,,,,a Route-map ,,,,,using which i can redirect
the
> > >
> > > traffic
> > >
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > > > >another interface instead of black holing the traffic (some
kind
> > >
> > > of a
> > >
> > > > > >policy based routing using static routes would also do ) .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >If yes , please let me know how .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >TIA
> > > > > > Kay
> > > >
> > >
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > > >Subscription information may be found at:
> > > > > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----------------------------------------
> > > > > >*****************Internet Email Confidentiality
> > > > > >Footer******************
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this
> > > > > >message.
> > > > > >If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or
> > > > > >responsible
> > > > > >for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or
> > > > > >deliver
> > > > > >this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this
> > > > > >message
> > > > > >and notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
immediately
> if
> > > > > >you
> > > > > >or your employer do not consent to Internet email for
messages of
> > > > > >this
> > > > > >kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this
message
> > > > > >that
> > > > > >do not relate to the official business of The Shaw Group Inc.
or
> > > > > >its
> > > > > >subsidiaries shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by
> > > > > >it.
> > > > >
> >___________________________________________________________________
> > > > > >_____
> > > > > >The Shaw Group Inc.
> > > > > >http://www.shawgrp.com
> > > >
> > >
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > > >Subscription information may be found at:
> > > > > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:47 ART