Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of our3blessings
our3blessings

asked on

Cisco 1721 Paying for two t1's but only able to use 1 t1. Same provider on T's.

Looking for a solution to use 2nd t1. Currently it does not even hit 1% bandwith. Config could be worked on for possible solution? Current setup is as follows: 2 seperate t1 lines going into 2 wic cards on 1721 router....then to a switch...then to a pix 501. Serial 0 runs 95% consistenly, Serial 1 is pretty much dead 0%. Current config file below. Maybe I can get a 2nd router and throw in in the switch as well? As you can see I am clueless? Thank you

version 12.3
service tcp-keepalives-in
service tcp-keepalives-out
service timestamps debug datetime msec localtime show-timezone
service timestamps log datetime msec localtime show-timezone
service password-encryption
service sequence-numbers
!
hostname HB1721RTR
!
boot-start-marker
boot-end-marker
!
security authentication failure rate 3 log
security passwords min-length 6
logging buffered 51200 warnings

clock timezone NewYork -5
clock summer-time NewYork date Apr 6 2003 2:00 Oct 26 2003 2:00
no aaa new-model
ip subnet-zero
!
!
ip tcp synwait-time 10
ip name-server 209.144.50.127
ip name-server 209.144.50.140
!
!
no ip bootp server
ip cef
!
!
!
!
interface FastEthernet0
 description $FW_INSIDE$
 ip address 64.243.182.65 255.255.255.224
 no ip redirects
 speed auto
 full-duplex
 no cdp enable
!
interface Serial0
 description $FW_OUTSIDE$
 ip address 64.240.176.242 255.255.255.248
 ip access-group 101 in
 no ip redirects
 encapsulation frame-relay IETF
 no fair-queue
 service-module t1 timeslots 1-24
 service-module t1 remote-alarm-enable
 frame-relay map ip 64.240.176.241 211 broadcast IETF
 frame-relay lmi-type ansi
!
interface Serial1
 description $FW_OUTSIDE$
 ip address 64.242.15.110 255.255.255.252
 ip access-group 101 in
 no ip redirects
 encapsulation frame-relay IETF
 no fair-queue
 service-module t1 timeslots 1-24
 service-module t1 remote-alarm-enable
 frame-relay map ip 64.242.15.109 210 broadcast IETF
 frame-relay lmi-type ansi
!
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 64.240.176.241
ip http server
ip http authentication local
ip http timeout-policy idle 600 life 86400 requests 10000
!
!
access-list 1 permit 10.10.0.0 0.0.255.255
access-list 10 permit 64.243.182.66
access-list 10 permit 206.117.136.91
access-list 10 permit 206.117.136.88
access-list 101 remark SDM_ACL Category=17
access-list 101 permit udp host 209.144.50.140 eq domain any
access-list 101 permit udp host 209.144.50.127 eq domain any
access-list 101 deny   tcp any any eq 135
access-list 101 deny   udp any any eq 135
access-list 101 deny   udp any any eq netbios-ns
access-list 101 deny   udp any any eq netbios-dgm
access-list 101 deny   tcp any any eq 139
access-list 101 deny   udp any any eq netbios-ss
access-list 101 deny   tcp any any eq 445
access-list 101 deny   tcp any any eq 593
access-list 101 deny   tcp any any eq 4444
access-list 101 permit ip any any
access-list 101 permit icmp any any
access-list 120 permit udp any any eq 1813
no cdp run
Avatar of Scotty_cisco
Scotty_cisco

ok so looks like your route shows that everything is going out serial 0 is this provider the same for s0 as s1?  

Thanks
Scott
The default route is out serial 0 so if it is heading out of your network the router only sees one link... if the serial 1 is going to a different provider then you need to look into running BGP and that would help balance the load.

Thanks
Scott
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of JFrederick29
JFrederick29
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
CEF (Cisco Express Forwarding) is already enabled on your router and just add the 2 routes as mentioned above. Then call up your service provider and talk to them, say that 'you need load balancing done on these 2 links using cisco cef'. They will configure it on their side router. Once done, the traffic should go 50% split on each links...

Cheers,
Rajesh