From: Jian Gu (guxiaojian@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 24 2007 - 03:40:27 ART
Brian,
If you use static route to point to the tunnel, the static route will be
preferred, as it has lower administrative distance, did I miss anything?
I can think of one way that will work but a bit complicated, on R2, create
two MPLS TE tunnels to R1's loopback, and explicitly configure ERO for each
tunnel's path, one directly to R1 and the other one via R3 (without turning
out auto-route announce) then configure two static routes to
10.10.10.0/24with next hop being the two tunnels respectively. R2 will
see two static
routes with equal cost. Do the same thing on R3.
Back to the original question, if loadbalancing is the goal, then why bother
using HSRP between R2 and R3? just run OSPF among R99, R2, R3, load
balancing/redundancy is automatically achieved.
Jian
On 3/23/07, Brian McGahan <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com> wrote:
>
> Add another link between R2 and R3, either physical or a tunnel
> interface. Add an additional route on R2 and R3 for 10.10.10.0/24
> pointing out this interface so they have two equal cost routes installed
> for 10.10.10.0/24, one out the link to the other neighbor (R2/R3), and
> one out the Frame Relay PVCs. Lastly configure policy routing on R2 and
> R3 so that all traffic received in the link to each other (the new
> interface you added) is sent out to R1. Your per-destination or
> per-packet load balancing on R2 and R3 will then take care of sending
> some traffic to R1 and some traffic to the other router (R2/R3).
>
>
> HTH,
>
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP)
> 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
> Greg Wendel
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 10:58 AM
> To: Scott Smith
> Cc: groupstudy
> Subject: Re: Possible Solutions For This Scenario
>
> Can you just use GLBP and be done with it?
>
> On 3/23/07, Scott Smith <hioctane@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Goal: R2 and R3 have two equal routes to 10.10.10.0/24. R2 for example
> > should have two equal routes to 10.10.10.0/24 one via R3 and one via
> > R1.
> >
> > R99 is using 5.5.5.1 as it's default gateway which is the HSRP address
> > of the HSRP group between R2 and R3. The idea is to have the active
> > HSRP router load balance the traffic across both possible paths.
> >
> > I've come up with one solution that works and two or three that do
> > not. If you'd like to take a swing at have a look at the topology. I'd
> > be interested to see how some of you would solve this.
> >
> > http://ccie17040.googlepages.com/drawing.jpg
> >
> > (The blue arrows indicate the OSPF neighbors)
> >
> > --
> > Scott
> > CCIE #17040 (R&S)
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Gregory Wendel
> Springfield VA, 22153
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 06:35:52 ART
