Is your cloud always on? With an Always On cloud you won't have to worry about downtime for maintenance or software application code updates, ensuring that your bottom line isn't affected.
Course Of The Month
Become a Premium Member and unlock a new, free course in leading technologies each month.
Solved
Failover with Cisco 1721
Posted on 2006-10-26
Hello
I have a 1721 router.
It has 1 internal fastethernet and 1 T-1 card that connects to my ISP over a private T-1 connection.
Everything works ok.
I'm attempting to get another fastethernet or ethernet card to connect to a DSL provider.
How can I get the router to failover (and possibly load balance?) over the 2 links? so that if link A fails, link B would activate and vice versa?
Here's the config:
Current configuration : 858 bytes
!
version 12.3
service timestamps debug datetime msec
service timestamps log datetime msec
service password-encryption
!
hostname eggster34
!
enable secret 5 xxx
!
ip subnet-zero
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
interface FastEthernet0
description LAN interface
ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.240 (public ip)
speed auto
!
interface Serial0
description WAN connection
ip address 172.31.0.10 255.255.255.252
!
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.31.0.9 <-- my ISPs router.
no ip http server
!
!
line con 0
password 7 xxx
login
line aux 0
line vty 0 4
password 7 xxx
login
!
no scheduler allocate
!
end
I have a 1721 router.
It has 1 internal fastethernet and 1 T-1 card that connects to my ISP over a private T-1 connection.
Everything works ok.
I'm attempting to get another fastethernet or ethernet card to connect to a DSL provider.
How can I get the router to failover (and possibly load balance?) over the 2 links? so that if link A fails, link B would activate and vice versa?
Here's the config:
Current configuration : 858 bytes
!
version 12.3
service timestamps debug datetime msec
service timestamps log datetime msec
service password-encryption
!
hostname eggster34
!
enable secret 5 xxx
!
ip subnet-zero
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
interface FastEthernet0
description LAN interface
ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.240 (public ip)
speed auto
!
interface Serial0
description WAN connection
ip address 172.31.0.10 255.255.255.252
!
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.31.0.9 <-- my ISPs router.
no ip http server
!
!
line con 0
password 7 xxx
login
line aux 0
line vty 0 4
password 7 xxx
login
!
no scheduler allocate
!
end
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange
Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.
- Help others & share knowledge
- Earn cash & points
- Learn & ask questions
2
2-
2
8 Comments
One obstacle to this configuration is NAT. Since the 1721 is not doing NAT, the device connected to the 1721 would need to be able to NAT inside traffic to the other ISP block of addresses in the event of failover. This could be accomplished if you were to do NAT on the 1721.
Hmm.. The device is a PIX 506E. it does NAT between 192.168.1.0 and the current public IP space.
Wouldn't routing on the 1721 take care of that problem ? Instead of routing between my current public space and 172.16.0.10 , it'd just route between my current public space and the new connection?
Wouldn't routing on the 1721 take care of that problem ? Instead of routing between my current public space and 172.16.0.10 , it'd just route between my current public space and the new connection?
Yes, for outbound traffic, but the rest of the world will know to get to your current public space via the ISP that has issued your public block of addresses so if the T1 is down, it will not be sent to you via the DSL provider. This is where BGP comes into play but I doubt a DSL provider will run BGP with you.
If you were to NAT on the 1721, you could create two pools of addresses to NAT behind (one pool for the current public block and another pool for the block of addresses from the second ISP). Depending on which interface traffic will be routed out will determine which address to NAT behind. This method would provide load balancing and redundancy.
If you were to NAT on the 1721, you could create two pools of addresses to NAT behind (one pool for the current public block and another pool for the block of addresses from the second ISP). Depending on which interface traffic will be routed out will determine which address to NAT behind. This method would provide load balancing and redundancy.
You'll have to double-nat to the 2nd ISP connection. On the PIX only for traffic in/out the T1 and on both the pix and the router for traffic out the new connection.
You can't just route your ISPA ip addresses through the ISPB connection. Since you are considering Ethernet, I will assume that this will be a cable/dsl connection.
Because of that, load balancing is tough to do. You can use route maps to selectively choose some traffic to go out either connection. Inbound is a little trickier with having 2 dns records with 2 different public IP's. DNS isn't smart enough to know if on link is down or not. Inbound email can easily be handled with mulitple MX records and priority.
Failover is easy. Consider using SLA's to select routes since you can't use dynamic routing:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5413/products_feature_guide09186a00801d862d.html
You can't just route your ISPA ip addresses through the ISPB connection. Since you are considering Ethernet, I will assume that this will be a cable/dsl connection.
Because of that, load balancing is tough to do. You can use route maps to selectively choose some traffic to go out either connection. Inbound is a little trickier with having 2 dns records with 2 different public IP's. DNS isn't smart enough to know if on link is down or not. Inbound email can easily be handled with mulitple MX records and priority.
Failover is easy. Consider using SLA's to select routes since you can't use dynamic routing:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5413/products_feature_guide09186a00801d862d.html
Actually I'm not hosting any services that need to be accessed publicly on my internal network.
My concern is internet access only. all of my servers are hosted somewhere else.
My concern is internet access only. all of my servers are hosted somewhere else.
Featured Post
We value your feedback.
Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!
Question has a verified solution.
If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question
There are two basic ways to configure a static route for Cisco IOS devices. I've written this article to highlight a case study comparing the configuration of a static route using the next-hop IP and the configuration of a static route using an outg…
How to set-up an On Demand, IPSec, Site to SIte, VPN from a Draytek Vigor Router to a Cyberoam UTM Appliance.
A concise guide to the settings required on both devices
After creating this article (http://www.experts-exchange.com/articles/23699/Setup-Mikrotik-routers-with-OSPF.html), I decided to make a video (no audio) to show you how to configure the routers and run some trace routes and pings between the 7 sites…
After creating this article (http://www.experts-exchange.com/articles/23699/Setup-Mikrotik-routers-with-OSPF.html), I decided to make a video (no audio) to show you how to configure the routers and run some trace routes and pings between the 7 sites…
Suggested Courses
Earn Certification
HTML5 Specialist - Certification
Free withPremium
Course of the Month7 days, 13 hours left to enroll
Earn Certification
Cisco CCNA R&S: ICND2 v3
$197.00$177.30
Earn Certification
Cisco CCENT R&S: ICND1 v3
$197.00$177.30
632 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.
Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.