ADSL-1WIC w/2610, Static IP

[highv0ltage]

I am currently attempting to configure a 2610 with an ADSL-1WIC on a Qwest DSL line. I have purchased a block of 30 IP address, one of which will be assigned to the WIC on the router. I am not getting a "Carrier Detect" when connected to the line. Could anyone please help me out? Thanks.

My current configuration is:

hostname Router
!
boot-start-marker
boot-end-marker
!
!
memory-size iomem 10
no aaa new-model
ip subnet-zero
!
!
!
ip cef
!
!
interface ATM0/0
no ip address
no ip mroute-cache
shutdown
no atm ilmi-keepalive
dsl operating-mode auto
hold-queue 224 in
pvc 0/32
encapsulation aal5mux ppp dialer
dialer pool-member 1
!
!
interface Ethernet0/0
ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
no ip mroute-cache
full-duplex
!
interface Serial0/1
no ip address
shutdown
no fair-queue
!
interface Ethernet1/0
no ip address
shutdown
half-duplex
!
interface Ethernet1/1
no ip address
shutdown
half-duplex
!
interface Ethernet1/2
no ip address
shutdown
half-duplex
!
interface Ethernet1/3
no ip address
shutdown
half-duplex
!
interface Dialer0
ip unnumbered Ethernet0/0
encapsulation ppp
dialer pool 1
dialer-group 1
ppp pap sent-username xxxxxxx password 0 xxxxxx
!
ip http server
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer0
!
!
dialer-list 1 protocol ip permit
!
!
!
line con 0
line aux 0
line vty 0 4
!
!
!
end

 

[highv0ltage]

Sorry, I typed ADSL-1WIC, but it's WIC-1ADSL.

 

[highv0ltage]

No worries guys. I got it figured out.

 

[JOAMON]

Hey again.....did you get everything up and running or just the connection established? I see something in the config that I am curious about. Are you using private addressing on ethernet0/0 or your first ip routeable?

 

[highv0ltage]

Hey joamon, everything is up and running. I am using my first routeable ip on Ethernet0/0 which in turn is being used my Dialer1.

Right now I'm connecting another DSL line to Ethernet1/0 through a 678 router, and I'm trying to enable a load-balancing scheme, but I'm having trouble getting it working. Any ideas?

 

[JOAMON]

Take a look at the following.....
A caution against per packet....this would probably crash your 2611.

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/switch_c/xcprt2/xccefc.htm

Check your IOS to make sure it supports this.

Also...you have a static 30 block...I would lookup the ISP provided next hop router for that 30 block and define the default route with it.
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 64.121.22.10
By setting it to an interface your show arp will be huge as the router will arp everything that passes on that interface. By setting to an ip address it will only arp the ip block.

 

[highv0ltage]

Are you sure if I use CEF per-packet load balancing, it will crash my router?

 

[JOAMON]

You can try but I think you may have issues. Enable it and the do a show proccess cpu and show process cpu history and take a look at the cpu utilization. Write changes prior to enabling this but do not write them after enabling it as you may need to reboot in order to recover from a crash.

 

[rtfmdude]

highv0ltage,

I wouldn't worry about a crash - probably a bug long resolved. What I would worry about is that your tcp sessions will be hella broke if you sent every other packet out a different interface. I would leave the load-balancing scheme to per-destination, and make sure you nat on that second connection, since your block of routable addresses aren't going to be reachable from that second isp.

 

[highv0ltage]

Sounds good rtfmdude. Both lines are using the same ISP though, so we should be able to use the per-packet.

Also, do we set the load-balancing on the dialer or ATM interface instead of the Ethernet port the dialer is getting its IP from? And do we need to set it on both lines or just one? Thanks.

 

[rtfmdude]

you'll need to enable load-sharing on every interface that you want to participate in the load-balancing. It will be on the Layer 3 interfaces, so, the ones that have ip address information configured on them.

I would advise you at least test throughput/reliability using both load-balancing schemes. Even though you're going through the same isp, you may be terminating circuits on different boxes, etc that introduce out-of-order packets, which will result in retransmission and reduced throughput. Just my $.02

 

[highv0ltage]

OK, understood, but what about the routes? We have one route going to the Dialer. Do we need one going to the other interface also?

 

[rtfmdude]

yeah - it's going to be like this:

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 dialer0
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 x.x.x.x <-ip add of next hop on other dsl box

 

[highv0ltage]

When you say "ip add of next hop on other dsl box", does that mean the next hop after the 678 or do you mean the 678 itself?

 

[highv0ltage]

When I do a "sh ip cef detail" it shows that there are 0 load sharing elements. Shouldn't it be a higher number than that?

 

[rtfmdude]

probably the 678 itself - it's a router, and is ip aware.

 

[highv0ltage]

that particular route shuts the route down completely.

 

[rtfmdude]

eh? what do you mean by 'shuts down the route completely?'

doesn't it look something like this?

INET(qwest_connection1)
|
(dsl)
|
[2610]--(ethernet)--[678]-(dsl)-INET
|
---your lan-----
| |
[hostA] [hostB]

let's say the inside ip address of the 678 is 172.16.1.1, while the connected ethernet interface on the 2610 is 172.16.1.2. You should have these:

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.16.1.1
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 dialer1

If you added the cef per-packet load balancing, take it out. I think it's breaking stuff. What I think you'll also want to ensure is that the 678 is NAT'ing the right source subnet, because most soho routers are going to NAT the locally connected subnet, and nothing else. If there are any questions about what's busted, simply take out one of the routes. I assume the route over the dialer interface is working(have you been using it already?), so, my first suspicion would be the new connection over the 678. Try pinging 4.2.2.2 from the 2610, leaving ONLY the route over the 678. If that works, but your workstations behind the 2610 do not, I would suspect a NAT problem, especially if they can ping the inside and the outside addresses of the 678. Let me know what you find.

 

[highv0ltage]

No, the design of the network is a little different than what you have. I tried to reconstruct it but it gets all messed up in the preview. Is there some other way I could get a hold of you, so I can send you a better diagram?

 

[rtfmdude]

ericknudson(at)gmail(dot)com