Failed over route/redundancy 1

[jcetoute]

Hello

I have a 2611 cisco router that I have 2 T1s connected to from different ISPs. Both T1s are equal in bandwidth. Both lines are connected directly to an ethernet interface on my router, see show run below.

How can I make both T1s into a failed over in case one goes down? Will static ip routes do the trick? Would HSRP work in this scenario with one router?

I appreciate any assistance, JC.

hostname Metro
!
enable secret 5 $1$BKKA$yXnOA1kclfrrDJapJAMBO1
enable password xxxxxxx
!
ip subnet-zero
!
!
!
!
!
interface Ethernet0/0
ip address 205.136.x.x 255.255.255.248
no ip directed-broadcast
!
interface Serial0/0
no ip address
no ip directed-broadcast
encapsulation frame-relay IETF
frame-relay interface-dlci 114
frame-relay lmi-type ansi
!
interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point
description Frame PVC DLCI 16 to PST
bandwidth 1544
ip address 192.168.x.x 255.255.255.252
no ip directed-broadcast
frame-relay interface-dlci 16
!
interface Serial0/0.2 point-to-point
description PVC Voice to Metlabs
bandwidth 1544
ip address 192.x.x.x 255.255.255.252
no ip directed-broa
frame-relay interface-dlci 118
!
interface Ethernet0/1
ip address 192.1.x.x 255.255.255.0
no ip directed-broadcast
!
interface Ethernet1/0
ip address 12.161.x.x 255.255.255.255
no ip directed-broadcast
!
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 205.136.92.x
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.100.x
ip route 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.3.x
ip route 192.168.100.x 255.255.255.252 205.136.92.x
ip route 205.136.0.x 255.255.255.248 192.168.100.x
no ip http server
!
!
!
line con 0
password xxxxxx
login
transport input none
line aux 0
line vty 0 4
password xxxxxx
login
!
end

 

[routerman]

This router config shows only one T1 connected to the physical port S0/0. The interfaces s0/0.1 and S0/0.2 are the virtual sub-interfaces associated with the frame PVC's.

If you have 2 T1 circuits you must have another router?

 

[jcetoute]

Routerman

Here is the router setup scenario: the first T1 is connected to the csu/dsu serial port. But the second T1 connection is made on e1/0 which is connected to a hub coming off the second T1.

My first T1 is from a local isp and my second is from AT&T.
AT&T provided us with two 2611 cisco routers running HSRP,and a redundant T1 for failed over.

The link on my e1/0(12.161.x.x)interface is up and good. But so far I am unable to ping any other host on that end(i.e. 12.161.x.1).

 

[routerman]

Ok, in that case the first problem I see is that static routes on Metro wont fail over correctly.

Under normal operation you could have 2 equal cost static routes on Metro, each point to the next hop IP address. The router will see a failure of its directly connected T1, the interface s0/0 would go down, and the router will drop the associated static from its route table.
But if the AT&T link fails, as that link is not directly connected to Metro, Metro will be unaware of the failure and continue to pump packets towards a black hole.

So if I understand correctly you have a total of 3 T1, 2 live and one redundant for failover?

If thats the case and the second AT&T T1 link takes over from the 1st AT&T link then you will still get load sharing.

HSRP operation depends on which interface you use for your local LAN, are the Metro and the AT&T router on that LAN. Which interface on Metro is your user LAN?

 

[jcetoute]

Routerman

None of my interfaces is on my Lan, because I have a firewall sitting right between my router and the internal network. So in essence all clients on my route thru the firewall as their gateway.

And no the AT&T routers are not on the Lan either. They each have one wic and ethernet port. They're both running HSRP.

Any suggestions is appreciated.

 

[jcetoute]

Can anyone help...I appreciate any suggestions that I can get.

Thanks, JC.

 

[tschouten]

Uhhmmm, could you draw out a complete connection diagram by any chance?

 

[routerman]

Ok, this is a bit more complex, you will need to run BGP across these links. This way if a link fails the internal router will learn of the failure. You'll need to talk to your ISP's regarding this.

 

[tschouten]

I was going to suggest that, but I wanted to see what he was doing first. Sigh, routerman beating me to the punch again.