failover/backup ptp question

[gtmoore]

Situation: I am currently running EIGRP between 2 routers in 2 different locations connected by 2 serial point to point ckts. EIGRP is performing the routing,load balancing, and failover. However due to a reroute of one of my circuits it has added a longer delay which could potentially cause a problem to my VOIP traffic. So I want to route my VOIP traffic through one ckt and my data through the other. Since the VOIP traffic is on its own network the routing is not an issue. I can either route by static routes or route maps. The issue for me is when I want to use the other circuit for failover. If one circuit goes down I need to be able to route all traffic over remaining ckt. How do I do this?


Networks:
Router A
F0/0 192.168.1.1/24 VOIP
F0/1 192.168.2.1/24 Data
S0/0 192.168.3.1/30 Pt to Pt
S0/1 192.168.3.5/30 pt to pt

Router B
F0/0 192.168.4.1/24 VOIP
F0/1 192.168.5.1/24 Data
S0/0 192.168.3.2/30 Pt to Pt
S0/1 192.168.3.6/30 pt to pt

 

[IPKONFIG]

I wouldn't static route, because fail-over would not be dynamic. Route Maps are powerful, but difficult for most engineers to understand. Why not just change the metrics/cost of the back-up route to be higher than the primary route. Get rid of load balancing, and just use the secondary line for redundancy/fail-over. That would be the simple way to solve your problem. Unless this is not a solution and you want to load balance. If so, you can do some traffic shaping. Here is a link that will get you started in traffic shaping.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk698/technologies_tech_note09186a00800d6788.shtml

"I can picture a world without war. A world without hate. A world without fear. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
- Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts

 

[gtmoore]

I follow what you are saying but we can't afford to use just one line for failover due to bandwidth.

What I was thinking about was running EIGRP just for my VOIP traffic because this is the most important traffic for our business (call center). This way I can just tune EIGRP to have a "primary" and "secondary" route. I will then use a static route to send the data over the "secondary line" for the data traffic. The failover for the data line would be with a floating static pointing to the "primary" line, understanding that the failover will only work if the link is detected down.

Thanks,

Greg

 

[IPKONFIG]

How are you going to get your routers to determine the difference between your voice traffic and data traffic? Please advise.

"I can picture a world without war. A world without hate. A world without fear. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
- Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts

 

[rburke]

In order to make routing decisions based on IP or ports then he will need to implement route-maps to point to the next-hope IP address. Then his routing protocols will kick in and figure out how to get to that next-hop IP.

Burke

 

[gtmoore]

Actualy the VOIP is on it's own dedicated network so I dont have to deal with the route maps once I implement VOIP on one line and data on the other. Currently I am loadsharing the trafiic so I'm using LLQ for my QOS by policy base routing. Basically prioritizing the VOIP traffic to go first.

 

[IPKONFIG]

Thank you. I penned a map of your network based on the subnets you listed, and just static routing would not solve your problem. You didn't mention policy base routing or QoS. You've answered my question.

"I can picture a world without war. A world without hate. A world without fear. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
- Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts

 

[gtmoore]

And you guys have helped me thanks