RE: static routing

From: Blankenship Mr Gary C (BlankenshipGC@nocfwd.usmc.mil)
Date: Fri Nov 19 1999 - 21:44:17 EST


All:

Just joined this list; however, I suggest there is another way to solve this
problem based on the requirement I see from the original post. Divide my
network up and use policy based routing (PBR) to send the traffic down the
various T1 pipes.

Gary Blankenship - CCIE #5009, MCSE
Senior Network Engineer - SAIC
USMC Network Operations Center - Far East
gary.c.blankenship@saic.com
blankenshipgc@nocfwd.usmc.mil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keoseyan, Scott [mailto:SAKeoseyan@broadwing.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 12:13 AM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: static routing
>
>
> Actually that "Gateway set to 0.0.0.0" is what you end up
> with when you
> specify your default gateway as an interface in the IP route
> statement...
> goofy, but true.
>
> What you propose will give him per-packet load balancing...
> but wouldn't it
> just be better to turn on CEF and run multiple default route
> statements
> pointing down each T1?
>
> One question I had about that strategy is... does CEF work
> when you specify
> interfaces as gateways in your static route statements... or
> does one need
> to put IP addresses in for it to work correctly... or does it
> matter at all?
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scot Donovan Blair [mailto:sblair@cerf.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 11:08 PM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: static routing
>
>
> Paul,
>
> Equal cost static routes should work fine to balance
> between your T1's.
> I would note turning route-cache off the interface may be
> useful as well
> (this is always debatable). Something that looks odd to me
> is the below
> snipet of your info..
>
> "Gateway of last resort is 0.0.0.0 to network 0.0.0.0"
>
> Without seeing the config I would be just guessing but it
> appears as if
> maybe you have default-gateway set to 0.0.0.0.. it's a guess.
> Im not sure
> what your problems are *exactly* but if you are trying to load balance
> between multiple T1's it should be more than OK to have equal costs
> statics to multiple interfaces .
>
>
> -blair
> AT&T CERFnet
> Backbone Engineering and Planning
>
> | PGP Public Key: www.hfh.com/blair/pgp.txt |
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Paul Jacobs wrote:
>
> > I have a simple question (I hope).....
> >
> > I now have 3 T-1's in my 3640 Cisco and need to place
> static routes to
> > different T-1's so all traffic does not go out 1 single T-1..
> >
> > Below is my current ip route statements:
> >
> > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial1/0:1.1
> > ip route 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 Null0
> > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 serial 0/0
> >
> >
> > And my 'sh ip route' output:
> >
> > Gateway of last resort is 0.0.0.0 to network 0.0.0.0
> >
> > C 208.239.156.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0
> > S 127.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, Null0
> > 63.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> > C 63.64.44.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/1
> > S* 0.0.0.0/0 is directly connected, Serial1/0:1.1
> >
> > I am doing something wrong because if I define my routes
> via ip route
> > statement(s) and remove the 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 ip route
> traffic gets in but
> > not out??
> >
> > Any help any one can offer is welcome...
> >
> > Paul Jacobs
> > Network admin
> > http://www.netpacq.com
> >
> >
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:07 EDT