[c-nsp] Sup2 12.2(18)SXD ip load-sharing

John Jackson jjackson at onenet.net
Fri Oct 1 15:35:01 EDT 2004

On the customer routers, most of which are cisco, we overload to a public
address some non outside interface (i.e. Loopback or 2nd Ethernet int) the
address of which is statically routed to all t1 interfaces. 

I'm not familiar with how to overload to more then 1 outside interface.  We
would rather not go this route if at all possible just do to the extra
overhead of reconfiguring customers' routers.  That is also the 1 of the man
reasons of not switching to MLPPP.  The other being CPU overhead on their
routers and ours.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at greenie.muc.de]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 2:13 PM
> To: Bruce Pinsky
> Cc: jjackson at onenet.net; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Sup2 12.2(18)SXD ip load-sharing
> Hi,
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 11:43:08AM -0700, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
> > | Here is my situation.  I have customers that NAT that also have
> multiple t1
> > | to our Flex-Wan2 card.  Since they NAT I don't think per destination
> is a
> > | good answer however when I try to configure per-packet I get:
> >
> > I would think the opposite.  I would want to see flows to a destination
> go
> > out and come back in the same interface.  If you alternate between
> outbound
> > interfaces, seems like you run a high risk of breaking connections due
> to
> > lack of NAT state.
> Shouldn't NAT state (on Cisco routers) be shared among all interfaces
> configured as "ip nat outside", so that load sharing doesn't interfere
> with NAT state?  (As long as no fancy route-map NAT configurations
> with interface dependencies interfere, of course)
> Of course it will not work if those T1s are terminated on different
> customer-side routers.
> gert
> --
> Gert Doering
> Mobile communications ... right now writing from * Anissaras, Kreta *

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list