[nsp] Redundant Default gateway

[MPuras@solunet.com]

I ran into this issue not to long ago and I think Jared hit the nail right
on the head.  The main route will remain in the table as long as the
physical interface says  up and up.  To overcome this, others have mentioned
the use of running a routing protocol to detect the failure.  I ended up
running IBGP.  Check this link out:


http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/BGP-PIX.htm


It will give you some good ideas as to how to set it up.


Thanks, 

Mario Puras 
SoluNet Technical Support
Mailto: mpuras@solunet.com
Direct: (321) 309-1410  
888.449.5766 (USA) / 888.SOLUNET (Canada) 



-----Original Message-----
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:39 PM
To: Richard Walsh
Cc: Jared Mauch; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [nsp] Redundant Default gateway


On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:26:36PM -0500, Richard Walsh wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Yes I'm using point-to-point for the private frame. The default gateway
> is on the same network as the ethernet int. The routing config looks
> like this:
> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 209.x.x.28 (the route to the firewall)
> ip route 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.17 10 (the new route over the frame with the
> .17 address the serial address of the remote site.
> So, instead of pointing to the address of the other router, I should
> point to the pvc? (serial0/0.5)

	you have a problem here.

	unless the physical ethernet interface goes down it will
always assume that "if i can arp for it, it's up"
	(ie line proto up).

	so unless you have some igp going between you and the .28
router that can detect if default is gone, then you likely
can't do this.

	
> Jared Mauch wrote:
> > 
> >         Rich,
> > 
> >         Are you using point-to-point frame relay interfaces?
> > 
> >         If so, you really want to do something like this:
> > 
> >         ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 serial0/0.32
> >         ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 serial0/0.33 100
> > 
> >         when line proto goes down on serial0/0.32 the route will
> > be removed from the table and traffic will take the
> > alternate path.
> > 
> >         - jared
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:09:50PM -0500, Richard Walsh wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Long time lurker, first time poster. I have a 2600 router w/a T1 for
> > > internet access. It also has a coonection to a private frame-relay
> > > network. My goal is to have all traffic diverted thru the private
frame,
> > > to a remote ite, and out it's internet link, when the Primary T! goes
> > > down. I tried adding another default route with a higher
administrative
> > > distance. The two routes look like this:
> > > 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 x.x.x.x
> > > 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.17 10
> > > I brought down the primary T1 but the original route stayed in the
> > > routing table. Am I going about this the right way? Any help would be
> > > highly appreciated!! Thanks
> > >
> > > Rich
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-nsp mailing list  real_name)s@puck.nether.net
> > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > 
> > --
> > Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
> > clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only
mine.

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  real_name)s@puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/