Two Layer 2 Connection - Load Balancing

We have a situation where we have to Layer2 connections coming from our Data Center to our offices. One is a 100mbps Fiber Connection the other is a 10mbps Ethernet connection.
Right now we have to plug in the connection at our office when one connection drops. However they rarely fail. We like to integrate a router in between those two connections to failover to each other or even use both at the same time if possible.


Is there a device that can do this, Can a Cisco Router with BGP be able to do this?

I have attached a picture of what were trying to do.

If your running cisco can you send a sample config as well of how you think this would work. thank you
LB.jpg
janusnetworksAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

x
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Marius GunnerudSenior Systems EngineerCommented:
What are the IP addresses at each end of the layer 2? are there same IP subnet ranges on each end?  If they are the same are you apposed to separating the IP ranges.

There are several possible ways of implementing what you want.  Do you want the hosts on the local networks to use the routers as gateways?  Although BGP could work for you, a better solution would be to use HSRP and have a floating IP address as the gateway address.  This can be configured to failover when one link is not reachable an then fail back over to the primary once the primary is back up.

Just using BGP alone will not provide device redundancy as the gateway IP will be fixed to a device, and if that device fails you will need to manually reconfigure the gateway on each host.
gmbaxterCommented:
One question, how come the copper connection is only 10Mb ?

If it were also 100 Mbps, you could etherchannel the two links at the router and the switch, allowing for a 200Mbps link which would continue to operate at 100Mbps if either one link failed?
janusnetworksAuthor Commented:
MAG03 - the one end is 192.168.123.0/24 and the other is 10.0.33.0/24 I have servers and systems on both subnets and we would need full access on both sides for which we will leave open on the router. HSRP sounds about right just didn't think about it.

GNBABAXTER - Technically both connections are ethernet. THe fiber connection wil be attached to a router that will convert the connection back to 100mbps Ethernet. The 10MB is a 100FE connection however the max performance is only 10MB.

I will award points to anyone who can provide a sample Cisco Config on HSRP with our diagram
Determine the Perfect Price for Your IT Services

Do you wonder if your IT business is truly profitable or if you should raise your prices? Learn how to calculate your overhead burden with our free interactive tool and use it to determine the right price for your IT services. Download your free eBook now!

Marius GunnerudSenior Systems EngineerCommented:
router 1

int fa0/1
description INSIDE
ip add 192.168.123.2 255.255.255.0
standby 1 ip 192.168.123.1
standby 1 preempt
standby 1 priority 105
standby 1 track 10 decriment 10

track 10 ip route 10.0.33.2/24 reachability

router 2

int fa0/1
description INSIDE
ip add 192.168.123.3 255.255.255.0
standby 1 ip 192.168.123.1
standby 1 preempt
standby 1 track 10

track 10 ip route 10.0.33.3/24 reachability

Configure similar on the other side just change the IP addresses.  Also remember to configure the tracking before configuring standby track.  If you do not then you will get an error.
janusnetworksAuthor Commented:
Thanks MAG03, I will try this.

One note: We only using 1 interface on the 192.168.123.0/24 side. So this will be a static 192.168.123.1

What would be the track route going from the 10.0.33.0/24 side. - We just need HSRP on this side as the 192.168.123.1 is only fixed

As for the otherside
int fa0/1
description INSIDE
ip add 10.0.33.2 255.255.255.0
standby 1 ip 10.0.33.1
standby 1 preempt
standby 1 priority 105
standby 1 track 10 decriment 10

track 10 ip route 10.0.33.2/24 reachability

router 2

int fa0/1
description INSIDE
ip add 10.033.3 255.255.255.0
standby 1 ip 10.0.33.1
standby 1 preempt
standby 1 track 10

track 10 ip route 10.0.33.3/24 reachability
janusnetworksAuthor Commented:
Also I only have on router. I see configerations for two routers. Is there a way to do this just with one router with three interfaces.

Interface FE0/1 - 192.168.123.1

InterfaceFE0/2 - 10.0.33.X/24 - HSRP

Interface FE0/3 - 10.0.33.X/24 - HSRP

Default IP 10.0.33.1
Marius GunnerudSenior Systems EngineerCommented:
HSRP requires that the interfaces used for redundancy are on the same network (this includes the floating address).  So the floating address, router one interface address, and router 2 interface address need to be on the same network.  And herein lies the problem with configuring HSRP on one router.  It is not possible to configure a router with two interfaces to be on the same network.

You might be able to configure it using secondary ip addresses, but I have never tried this and do not recommend this anyway.

As for your configuration above you should be tracking the remote routers not the router you are currently on.  It is possible to track the interface on the local router that connects to the remote site but then if the remote interface goes down the failover will not work as the local interface is still active.  There fore it is always best to track the reachability of a remote router.
janusnetworksAuthor Commented:
EtherChannel is an option but I do not have Cisco Switches. Netgear and Dell managed switches
Marius GunnerudSenior Systems EngineerCommented:
don't know much about netgear or dell but if they are both managed (and support etherchannels) you should be able to configure etherchannels on them.
janusnetworksAuthor Commented:
Etherchannel is a Cisco Protocol. Thinking about OSPF as well.
giltjrCommented:
Depending on the models of switches other vendors call their version "Etherchannel" trunking.  

Then there is the IEEE standard LACP, Link Aggregation Control Protocol.

Now, the other vendors "trunking" should not be confused with Cisco's trunking, which allows multiple tagged VLAN's over a single link.
Marius GunnerudSenior Systems EngineerCommented:
If you are dead set on using a routing protocol, you can use any routing protocol to do this.  You only need to adjust the link cost (administrative distance).
Nayyar HH (CCIE RS)Network ArchitectCommented:
Since you require a active backup solution I think using the "backup" command is a perfect fit for your scenario - your existing setup should support it


int fa0/0
Description 100MB
ip add 10.0.33.2 255.255.255.0
backup interface fastEthernet0/0

int fa0/1
Description 10MB
ip add 10.0.33.2 255.255.255.0

Interface fa0/1 goes down when the command is applied and then serves as a automatic backup

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
janusnetworksAuthor Commented:
Naskey - this sounds promising. If I wanted to use both lines at the sametime which protocol would you recommend?
Marius GunnerudSenior Systems EngineerCommented:
for uneven loadbalancing, EIRGP would be the way to go.
janusnetworksAuthor Commented:
Wouldn't EIGRP need two routers. Still trying to use one router.
Marius GunnerudSenior Systems EngineerCommented:
You can use any routing protocol.  Just manipulate the cost of the paths so that they are both equal and traffic will be sent over both links.  Just keep in mind that since they are unequal paths and are loadbalancing you might experience performance issues.
Nayyar HH (CCIE RS)Network ArchitectCommented:
janusnetworks - active/active could be achieved with a Layer-2 protocol such a ether channeling. For this you would need to introduce a layer-2 switch at both ends.

alternatively with layer-3 routing protocols such as OSPF (with interface cost manipulation); EIGRP etc . For this you would need to introduce a layer-3 switch at both ends.

There are other ways but these introduce unnecessary complication to the solution
janusnetworksAuthor Commented:
There are just too many ways we can go about this. We added
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Routers

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.