Cisco Switching/Routing :: 1921 Load Balancing Over 3 ADSL Lines
Aug 22, 2012
I have the requirement to provide a Cisco Router with 3 x ADSL lines (768k) to increase the internet speed.PPP multilink is not supported from the ISP.
Is it possbile to distribute the traffic between this three ADSL lines?How can I configure this?
I have the following hardware configuration:
1 x CISCO1921-SEC/K9
2 x EHWIC-VA-DSL-B
The third ADSL line is connected over an ADSL modem at one fixed Router Gigabit interface.
I've 6 ADSL lines that provided by the same ISP and i've Cisco router 2600, so, how can I connect the six lines to the cisco router and running load balancing between them ??
We have a cisco 1941 with line t1 Symmetric, (Also have Cisco 1841 unused, but works) I would like to connect the Cisco 1841 to four Adsl Backup lines in case the T1 or the Main cisco 1941 go down I know a BGP is needed on our ISP site,
How can i connect four Adsl lines to The cisco 1841 (Backup) and make them work in a Load Balancing way.
We have purchased a Cisco 1921 with twin ADSL after advice from a Cisco sales rep. However I am having trouble working out the load balancing/fail over config for the device.
I would like traffic to balance over both ADSL lines and if one goes down not to interrupt connectivity.
I had a look at ppp multilink but I am unsure our ISP (BT) support this?
!! Last configuration change at 13:18:34 UTC Tue Mar 29 2011!version 15.0service timestamps debug datetime msecservice timestamps log datetime msecno service password-encryption!hostname xxxxxx
We have Nexus 7K on production. 7K chasis is not load balancing with non-cisco devices with etherchannel or LACP..I have tried all load balancing algorithms but in vain. [code]
I have conneccted a server with LACP on Nexus extender. I am starting different file copy from diffferent sources to this server, it does not load balance.
We have to cisco WS-C4900M with Cisco IOS Software, Catalyst 4500 L3 Switch Software (cat4500e-IPBASE-M), Version 12.2(53)SG5, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1).We have four gigabit link connected between those two switches.We have create a LACP port channel with those four ports on both switches. Ether-channel is up and running and defined with a load-balancing method of src-dst-ip.But when we test the load-balancing, it's not using the src-dst-ip rule with the XOR: [code]
I would like configure a CSS content, that uses the sorry service principal in an advanced way.
I am familiar with the primary Sorry Server command and see that the CSS would send all connections to the named service that is configured as the primary Sorry Server.
What I would like to do is to configure the CSS, so that once it’s decided it’s in a “sorry” state (all the services that are configured with “add service” are down) that it load balances to a different set of services.
To explain what I’ve been trying to do in the form of configuration on the CSS, I’ve pasted some pretend config below.
Connections come into IP address 1.1.1.1, which normally get load balanced between 9.1.1.1, 9.1.1.2 and 9.1.1.3.
If 9.1.1.1, 9.1.1.2 and 9.1.1.3 are all down, the sorry service is used and the CSS starts passing traffic to 1.1.2.1, which I want it to load balance between 9.1.2.1, 9.1.2.2 and 9.1.2.3.
The order that I have applied the config, is different to the below, as I set out to configure in this order: secondary services, secondary content, sorry service, primary services, primary content.
The order of the config below is different, because I wanted it in the order that the traffic flows and the CSS won’t take the config in that order!
The wall I have ran into, is that when I try to create the service I have named “Sorry Service”, I get the following error:
%% Service IP Address conflicts with a local I/F, VIP, mg mt route.
The best option for load balancing between 2 X Cisco nexus 5548UP switches located at one site and connecting to 2 X Cisco nexus 5548UP switches located at another site.
The sites are connected via a 1GB fibre connection. I am unable to use GLBP until GLBP is supported in further software releases.
I have probem with symmetric load balancig, in case when both ends of ether channel are on the sam switch (we are using VLAN translation).We need to create L2 port channel with both ends on same switch (Cisco WS-C4500X-24X-ES), for example:Po1 – Gi0/1, Gi0/3 (one end of port channel )Po2 – Gi0/2, Gi0/4 (other end of port channel)On ports in Po2 we will configure VLAN mapping.My question is what is the best ether-channel load-balancing scheme with wich we can accomplish full symmetry in both directions? For example, if traffic in one direction goes through Gi0/1 (member of Po1), in other direction also must go through Gi0/1. This is required because we need to connect four appliances for DPI (they are full L2 transparent) and traffic through each appliance need to be symmetric.
I can set-up src-ip, dst-ip, src-dst-ip etc. load balancing, but, actually I need src-ip on Po1 and dst-ip on Po2. Is there any way to set up different load balancing mechanism for different ether channel on same switch (4500X).
If the load balancing is set to src-dst-ip, will a layer 2 switch forward based on that information? Particularly talking about a 6500, with trunk interfaces, since those packets never go to the layer 3 engine, will the load-balancing work as intended?
I have an inquiry about a configuration I deploy in a C2960 switch. I have configured a ether channel with 8 ports, the load balanced method is source mac address. The bundling protocol is LACP.
I have found the ether channel is not balanced as I expect. One of the eight interfaces is congested.
Right now I have 2 default routes load balancing 100MB internet links. This is on my 2 6509's.
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.47.2.1 (FWSM) ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.47.2.250 (5510)
Is there anyway to make the first default route take more of the traffic, like 60/40 or 70/30?Any program that I could use to see top users going through the FWSM?
I am trying to understand what load balancing method is used on a port channel on a Nexus switch . I have a server connected by a VPC to two Nexus switches. The nexus switches are only acting as layer 2 switches. I have a 6509 connected via a upstream link that does all of the routing for my VLANS. If have a server connected to the Nexus switches and it talks to a server on my 6509 what load balancing happens on the Nexus going across VPC 27 which is a layer 2 trunk going up to my 6509. Is it done on layer 2 or layer 3 flows?
My Nexus shows the default load balancing configurations
Port Channel Load-Balancing Configuration:System: source-dest-ip Port Channel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol:Non-IP: source-dest-macIP: source-dest-ip source-dest-mac
Is it possible to use two different load balancing methods at each end of a port-channel between two switches?
We have a Cisco 6509 at one end of the port-channel and a Cisco blade switch 3020 at the other end. Right now, we are using "src-dst-ip" at both end of the port-channel. We would like to change this. That is, we would like the #3020 switch to use "src-dst-ip" while the 6509 switch should use the "src-dst-port".
Why we want to do this, the reason is that we have FWSMs on the 6509. I've read that by configuring "src-dst-port" on the 6509, one can get a better performance of traffic going through the FWSM. However, the issue is that the 3020 switch does not support "src-dst-port".
I have a customer who wants his new ASA-5520 to load balance out-going traffic between 2 ISPs, fairly normal request. Now here's the twist. He wants to separate traffic based upon the protocol used, http to one ISP, https to the other.
What I am attempting to achieve is to aggregate trunk ports out of a VMware server into a single logical connection to give as much bandwidth as possible, the switches are 3750X and are three stacked together with the server connections spread across the stack. What I am not sure about is if two port channel load balance protocols can happy co-exist on the switch, by default the switch is using MAC address load balancing and Vmware wants to use IP Source load balancing. As other trunks and channels exist on the switch I don't want to make a change that will affect the other live connections if changing this is a global setting and not local on the channel.
I have a dual-homed fabric (Nexus 2248 dual attached to two Nexus 5020's via vPC). On this Nexus 2248 is a server that has a four port LACP etherchannel. The ports do not appear to be load balancing correctly. The output below shows the four ports in use and it clearly shows port e138/1/10 as getting the most use. When I use the "show port-channel load-balance forwarding-path..." command on either of the vPC switches for various source and destination IP's that use this link, it shows them correctly load-balancing across the four ports. But we do not see this when looking at stats on both the server side and the switch side.
**************** Config info below. This is a vPC pair and the port configs are identical on both switches so I'm only showing the configs for one switch to keep it simple.
dc5020-3g# sh port-channel load-balance Port Channel Load-Balancing Configuration: System: source-dest-ip Port Channel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol: Non-IP: source-dest-mac IP: source-dest-ip source-dest-mac
Will there be some pause in traffic on formed ether channel interfaces (4500E switch), when i will change the default ether channel load balancing method to src-dst-port (or any other non-default method)?
I am testing on lab equipment (2 Catalyst 3550 and 1 Catalyst 3560) HSRP version 1 and 2.I successfully created a load balancing between the two Catalyst 3550 on a couple of vlans (11 and 12) on ver 1
now, just adding the command "standby xx version 2" my hosts on the 2 vlans are completely unable to ping the virtual IP def. gw on debugging i checked that msgs are exchangedthe two cat 3550 are seeing each other on HSRP (active / standby roles)the real ip addresses are pingable rebooted the swiches (just as a last resort try)deleted arp chache on hostsremoved the auth on hsrp all of this no effect.
i also tried to modify the priority on the cat 3560 (before he was on both vlans in standby) to make it the active one and with the same config it worked flawlessly.
My only idea is that there is a bug on CATs 3550 (IOS: c3550-ipservicesk9-mz.122-55.SE4.bin) [code]
I have 3 877 ADSL routers for internet connectivity. I recently installed a FW behind them and would like to use the Ciscos as load balance in order to get better utilization from my 3 internet links.
1) the 3 routers are on DHCP from the ISP on the WAN side.
2) the 3 ciscos are on the same class C subnet on the LAN side: 10.201.1.252, 10.201.1.253 and 10.201.1.254
I work for an ISP and we are currently bonding 5x 6Mb ADSL connections for use as a wireless backhaul. We are currently using a Cisco 3725 and bonding the links via MLPPP. This set up is working fine except that we are not getting the full 30Mb on the download side. We are seeing more like 18 to 20. I am wondering if we can acheive the full speed with our current set up or will we need something different to get the job done.
I'm going to combine 2 512 kbps ADSL line in my PC. i know that it would be much better to get a 1 MB ADSL connection...but the problem is where i live now there is not better speed than this! Well i have a PC with 2 LANs - 2 phone lines - 2 ADSL modems - as far as i learned from Google , by no means it is possible to combine them to have 1 MB data rate but it is possible for example IDM would works with one 512 and another program with another 512..!! And load balancing is the only solution for this which it needs a special routers ! it is somehow difficult for me to provide one ..!! so my question is :
1- Is there any other solution for combining this 2 lines?! I heard something about teaming. 2- Is it possible to use load balancing by software? 3- How about the efficiency and ping time?
We want to puchase new Cisco ISR 1921/K9 . i want to know does it support the following sample IP-SLA commands
ip sla 2icmp-echo 172.16.1.2timeout 500frequency 1ip sla schedule 2 life forever start-time now
track 10 rtr 1 reachability delay down 1 up 1 ! track 20 rtr 2 reachability delay down 1 up 1 ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.2 track 10ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.16.1.2 track 20
Im asking above question because we will need to enable ip-sla on the mentioned router. as i read on the cisco webside, it says Cisco-ISR-1921/K9-IP Base support only IP-SLA RESPONDER feature nothing else. If Cisco-921/K9 does not support the above commands , should i go for ordering Cisco-1921-SEC/K9 ?
