[c-nsp] simple redunancy..

[Roy Blamski]

Great, thanks for the options.  I'd thought of the /31s before, but
figured the only downside to that is having to segment the /24 and
losing some IP addresses, but it's only a few...

On 12/17/07, Kevin Graham <kgraham at industrial-marshmallow.com> wrote:
> Doing a bridge on the 2851 is an option, but if the 3750's are
> part of a single stack, then just use a multi-chassis etherchannel.
>
> Otherwise, put up /31's between the 3750's and 2851; at that point,
> either terminate connectivity on a loopback, or use two tunnels for
> each of the ISP's (in separate VRF's on the 2851) and let your IGP
> deal with it.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Roy Blamski <roy at santaba.com>
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:14:15 AM
> Subject: [c-nsp] simple redunancy..
>
>
> so something like this:
>
>         ISP
> /30           /30
>  |               |
> 3750------3750
>   |             |
>   ---2851----
>
>
> all devices are connected via ospf (over an internal network range)
> and the links between the 2851 and 3750s are trunked.  the ISP is
> routing us a /24
>
> my dilemma:  how to keep a VPN connection up (GRE/IPSEC) that
> terminates into the 2851, onto an address in the public /24, when we
> lose one of the ISP connections.  it seems like i want to bridge
> together the public vlan to each 3750...is that doable?  there are
> other rfc1918 vlans shared between the 3750s and 2851 as well.
>
> thanks for any help...
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>