[c-nsp] ISP Failover and/or Load Balancing with 2801

[Adam Greene]

Eric, this is pretty similar to what I'm trying to do for a customer, except
they'll be terminating the VPNs on the router itself, and I am ISP A & ISP B
(actually, same ISP but two different IP segments of the network).

>From what I read on CCO regarding OER (I don't have real-world experience
yet), only one router would be necessary on the customer end (i.e. master
controller and border router can run on same router).

Have you considered running eBGP to the upstream ISPs? That would enable the
same IP addresses to be utilized on the primary and failover links.

--Adam

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Helm" <helmwork at ruraltel.net>
To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:11 AM
Subject: [c-nsp] ISP Failover and/or Load Balancing with 2801


> I have been approached by a customer wanting to do Failover/Load
> Balancing with 1 Cisco 2801 router.
> The 2801 has a 4 port HWIC installed.
>
> The network looks like the following:
>
> ISP A ISP B
>     | |
>      |         |
>       |        |
>      Cisco 2801
>   |
>   |
>   Cisco PIX Firewall
>
> For failover only, I've thought about just a floating static default
> route. Any better ideas for failover only?
>
> For failover and load balancing, I've looked a little at Cisco's
> Optimized Edge Routing solution. But it appears that I need a minimum of
> 2 routers to achieve what I need.
>
> An additional potential caveat is that the PIX is terminating several
> IPSec VPNs using the IP from ISP A.
> Oh, and ISP A is using PPPoE, and I'm not sure about ISP B, but PPPoE
> could definitely be used as well.
>
> Any and all suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> ---
> [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by Webjogger's AntiVirus Protection
System]
>
>

---
[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by Webjogger's AntiVirus Protection System]