Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > load balancing with a failover

Reply
Thread Tools

load balancing with a failover

 
 
yo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
ok, im not sure if this is possible but if it is im sure someone here
knows how to get this working.


i have a router with 3 t1 links. im doing per packet load balancing on
the 1st 2 with the 3rd one being in admin down state and i only bring
it up when they need additional bandwidth.

i want to conver this 3rd line into a fail over link, so that when one
of the 2 active load balancing lines goes down, the 3rd line will do
load balancing with the line that did not go down.

is this possible and how can i go about it. fyi im using eigrp routing
and per packet loading.


Thanks P
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Aaron Leonard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
"backup interface" and dialer dtr should do it. Dialer DTR may or
may not be an option, depending on your physical hardware. If you
don't have it, then you may have to use something exotic like
IP SLAs.

Here I assume that you mean for the backup link truly to go up or
down automatically according to your policy. If all you are concerned
about is the path your IP forwarding should take (and you don't REALLY
need to bring links up/down at a lower layer), then is a simple job
for EIGRP metrics or floating statics or whatever floats your boat.

Aaron

---

~ ok, im not sure if this is possible but if it is im sure someone here
~ knows how to get this working.
~
~
~ i have a router with 3 t1 links. im doing per packet load balancing on
~ the 1st 2 with the 3rd one being in admin down state and i only bring
~ it up when they need additional bandwidth.
~
~ i want to conver this 3rd line into a fail over link, so that when one
~ of the 2 active load balancing lines goes down, the 3rd line will do
~ load balancing with the line that did not go down.
~
~ is this possible and how can i go about it. fyi im using eigrp routing
~ and per packet loading.
~
~
~ Thanks P

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Root
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
<yo> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> ok, im not sure if this is possible but if it is im sure someone here
> knows how to get this working.
>
>
> i have a router with 3 t1 links. im doing per packet load balancing on
> the 1st 2 with the 3rd one being in admin down state and i only bring
> it up when they need additional bandwidth.
>
> i want to conver this 3rd line into a fail over link, so that when one
> of the 2 active load balancing lines goes down, the 3rd line will do
> load balancing with the line that did not go down.
>


you could use 'backup interface <name_of_backup_interface>' command in
primary interface configuration. Here is what happens:

CE-2.LAB(config)#in se 0/0:0
CE-2.LAB(config-if)#backup interface atm0/1
*Sep 6 13:24:43.174: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface ATM0/1, changed state to
standby mode

Unfortunately this is 1:1 redundancy, i.e. you can't specify the same backup
interface for two primary interfaces. However, if all of your three lines
are of the same bandwidth and connected to the same routers, why don't you
just bundle them into multi-link PPP or do per-packet load-balancing across
all three lines?

Kind regards,
iLya


 
Reply With Quote
 
yo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006

its a cost thing they dont want to load balance the 3rd line and only
want it as a backup solution.



On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 22:09:17 +0100, "Charlie Root"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

><yo> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> ok, im not sure if this is possible but if it is im sure someone here
>> knows how to get this working.
>>
>>
>> i have a router with 3 t1 links. im doing per packet load balancing on
>> the 1st 2 with the 3rd one being in admin down state and i only bring
>> it up when they need additional bandwidth.
>>
>> i want to conver this 3rd line into a fail over link, so that when one
>> of the 2 active load balancing lines goes down, the 3rd line will do
>> load balancing with the line that did not go down.
>>

>
>you could use 'backup interface <name_of_backup_interface>' command in
>primary interface configuration. Here is what happens:
>
>CE-2.LAB(config)#in se 0/0:0
>CE-2.LAB(config-if)#backup interface atm0/1
>*Sep 6 13:24:43.174: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface ATM0/1, changed state to
>standby mode
>
>Unfortunately this is 1:1 redundancy, i.e. you can't specify the same backup
>interface for two primary interfaces. However, if all of your three lines
>are of the same bandwidth and connected to the same routers, why don't you
>just bundle them into multi-link PPP or do per-packet load-balancing across
>all three lines?
>
>Kind regards,
>iLya
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
ciscodagama@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
Charlie Root wrote:

> Unfortunately this is 1:1 redundancy, i.e. you can't specify the same backup
> interface for two primary interfaces. However, if all of your three lines
> are of the same bandwidth and connected to the same routers, why don't you
> just bundle them into multi-link PPP or do per-packet load-balancing across
> all three lines?


One semi-workaround to this problem with using one interface to backup
two other interface might be to use the "backup load" command in
addition to specifying the backup interface for one of the interfaces.
That way, if the interface in the pair not being backed up went down,
it would cause an increase in the load of the interface that does have
a backup (but which is still up) and thus result in the the backup
interface to come up for load reasons rather than for link failure if
the threshold is set correctly.

You would have to choose a somewhat high threshold for the load backup
and decide the actual value based on heuristics from your knowledge of
how heavily the two links are loaded on average. One problem might be
that the backup interface might come up even if the other two
interfaces are up but heavily loaded. Anyway, as mentioned, this is
just a semi-workaround ...

Cisco da Gama
http://ciscostudy.blogspot.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Root
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
<yo> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> its a cost thing they dont want to load balance the 3rd line and only
> want it as a backup solution.
>


ok, then the only solution I see is to use GRE tunnel between loopbacks of
two routers, run EIGRP _only_ over the tunnel and have RTR tracker to setup
route to the remote loopback over thirds interface only if one of the two
"primary" links goes down. There will be slight overhead of GRE
encapsulation and your routers CPU will be penalized, but at the moment I
can't think of any alternative.

I'm sorry, gotta go now. If you don't solve this issue during the weekend,
I'll post configs with GRE on monday.

Kind regards,
iLya

>
>
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 22:09:17 +0100, "Charlie Root"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>><yo> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> ok, im not sure if this is possible but if it is im sure someone here
>>> knows how to get this working.
>>>
>>>
>>> i have a router with 3 t1 links. im doing per packet load balancing on
>>> the 1st 2 with the 3rd one being in admin down state and i only bring
>>> it up when they need additional bandwidth.
>>>
>>> i want to conver this 3rd line into a fail over link, so that when one
>>> of the 2 active load balancing lines goes down, the 3rd line will do
>>> load balancing with the line that did not go down.
>>>

>>
>>you could use 'backup interface <name_of_backup_interface>' command in
>>primary interface configuration. Here is what happens:
>>
>>CE-2.LAB(config)#in se 0/0:0
>>CE-2.LAB(config-if)#backup interface atm0/1
>>*Sep 6 13:24:43.174: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface ATM0/1, changed state to
>>standby mode
>>
>>Unfortunately this is 1:1 redundancy, i.e. you can't specify the same
>>backup
>>interface for two primary interfaces. However, if all of your three lines
>>are of the same bandwidth and connected to the same routers, why don't you
>>just bundle them into multi-link PPP or do per-packet load-balancing
>>across
>>all three lines?
>>
>>Kind regards,
>>iLya
>>

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Root
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Charlie Root wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately this is 1:1 redundancy, i.e. you can't specify the same
>> backup
>> interface for two primary interfaces. However, if all of your three lines
>> are of the same bandwidth and connected to the same routers, why don't
>> you
>> just bundle them into multi-link PPP or do per-packet load-balancing
>> across
>> all three lines?

>
> One semi-workaround to this problem with using one interface to backup
> two other interface might be to use the "backup load" command in
> addition to specifying the backup interface for one of the interfaces.
> That way, if the interface in the pair not being backed up went down,
> it would cause an increase in the load of the interface that does have
> a backup (but which is still up) and thus result in the the backup
> interface to come up for load reasons rather than for link failure if
> the threshold is set correctly.
>


C-d-G, this is neat workaround. I didn't notice that now there is 'load'
option now (used backup really long ago). If you don't mind I'd add some
bits to your proposal - instead of backing up individual interface, get them
into MLP bundle (only two links) and then backup will be for the whole
bundle. I just tried - the backup command can be applied to Multilink
interface, but I can't test until monday if it actually going to work.
Though still as you've said choosing threshold values will require good
quality crystal ball.

Kind regards,
iLya


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Root
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2006
"Charlie Root" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:duaim1$103q$(E-Mail Removed)...
> <yo> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> its a cost thing they dont want to load balance the 3rd line and only
>> want it as a backup solution.
>>

>
> ok, then the only solution I see is to use GRE tunnel between loopbacks of
> two routers, run EIGRP _only_ over the tunnel and have RTR tracker to
> setup route to the remote loopback over thirds interface only if one of
> the two "primary" links goes down. There will be slight overhead of GRE
> encapsulation and your routers CPU will be penalized, but at the moment I
> can't think of any alternative.
>
> I'm sorry, gotta go now. If you don't solve this issue during the weekend,
> I'll post configs with GRE on monday.
>


If it's still relevant, below is simplest version of possible config. Assume
you have serial0/0:0 (IP: 192.168.0.2/30 on your side) and serial0/1:0 (IP:
192.168.0.6/30) as two primary interfaces and serial1/0:0 is the backup
interface (IP: 192.168.0.10/30); IP of the loopback (source of GRE tunnel)
on the remote side is 192.168.1.1/32. The tunnel interfaces have addresses
from other network though (say 192.168.130.0/30)

!
track 100 interface Serial0/0:0 line-protocol
!
track 101 interface Serial0/0:0 line-protocol
!
track 102 list boolean or
object 100 not
object 101 not
!
int lo0
ip addr 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.255
!
int tun0
ip addr 192.168.130.2 255.255.255.252
tun mode gre
tun source lo0
tun dest 192.168.1.1
!
ip route 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.9 track 102
!
router eigrp 1
network 192.168.130.0 0.0.0.3
no auto-summary
!

CE-2.LAB#sh ip eigrp topology
IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(1)/ID(192.168.129.2)

Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply,
r - reply Status, s - sia Status

P 192.168.130.0/30, 1 successors, FD is 297244416
via Connected, Tunnel0

Add whatever other networks you have on these routers, but do NOT run EIGRP
on serial interfaces (important!). The other side should configured in the
similar fashion. If you want to have more reliable solution you just need to
replace tracking interfaces with RTR ping probe of remote address like in
this document -
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/...0801d862d.html.

I didn't have enough time to rebuild physical setup in the lab to represent
the scenario, but here is some debug output that will give you an idea
what's going on (disregard the addresses just watch out what's going on):

CE-2.LAB# deb ip routing
IP routing debugging is on
CE-2.LAB#sh ip rou 192.168.1.1
% Network not in table
CE-2.LAB#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
CE-2.LAB(config)#int se0/0:0
CE-2.LAB(config-if)#shut
CE-2.LAB(config-if)#
1w0d: is_up: 0 state: 6 sub state: 1 line: 0 has_route: True
1w0d: RT: interface Serial0/0:0 removed from routing table
1w0d: RT: del 192.168.128.20/30 via 0.0.0.0, connected metric [0/0]
1w0d: RT: delete subnet route to 192.168.128.20/30
1w0d: RT: NET-RED 192.168.128.20/30
1w0d: RT: delete network route to 192.168.128.0
1w0d: RT: NET-RED 192.168.128.0/24
1w0d: RT: SET_LAST_RDB for 192.168.1.1/32
NEW rdb: via 192.168.0.5

1w0d: RT: add 192.168.1.1/32 via 192.168.0.5, static metric [1/0]
1w0d: RT: NET-RED 192.168.1.1/32
1w0d: RT: del 0.0.0.0 via 192.168.128.21, static metric [1/0]
1w0d: RT: delete network route to 0.0.0.0
1w0d: RT: NET-RED 0.0.0.0/0
1w0d: RT: NET-RED 0.0.0.0/0
*Sep 9 08:44:40.670: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Serial0/0:0, changed state
to administratively down
1w0d: is_up: 0 state: 6 sub state: 1 line: 0 has_route: False
*Sep 9 08:44:41.670: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface
Serial0/0:0, changed state to down
1w0d: is_up: 0 state: 6 sub state: 1 line: 0 has_route: False^Z
CE-2.LAB#sh ip rou 192.168.1.1
*Sep 9 08:44:47.862: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console
Routing entry for 192.168.1.1/32
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 192.168.0.5
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

CE-2.LAB#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
CE-2.LAB(config)#int se0/0:0
CE-2.LAB(config-if)#no shut
CE-2.LAB(config-if)#
1w0d: is_up: 0 state: 4 sub state: 1 line: 0 has_route: False^Z
CE-2.LAB#
*Sep 9 08:45:02.778: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console
*Sep 9 08:45:02.910: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Serial0/0:0, changed state
to up
1w0d: is_up: 1 state: 4 sub state: 1 line: 0 has_route: False
1w0d: RT: SET_LAST_RDB for 192.168.128.20/30
NEW rdb: is directly connected

1w0d: RT: add 192.168.128.20/30 via 0.0.0.0, connected metric [0/0]
1w0d: RT: NET-RED 192.168.128.20/30
1w0d: RT: interface Serial0/0:0 added to routing table
1w0d: is_up: 1 state: 4 sub state: 1 line: 0 has_route: True
1w0d: RT: del 192.168.1.1/32 via 192.168.0.5, static metric [1/0]
1w0d: RT: delete subnet route to 192.168.1.1/32
1w0d: RT: NET-RED 192.168.1.1/32
1w0d: RT: delete network route to 192.168.1.0
1w0d: RT: NET-RED 192.168.1.0/24
*Sep 9 08:45:04.074: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface
Serial0/0:0, changed state to up

Hope this helps.

Kind regards,
iLya


 
Reply With Quote
 
Aaron Leonard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2006
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 22:09:17 +0100, "Charlie Root" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

~ <yo> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
~ > ok, im not sure if this is possible but if it is im sure someone here
~ > knows how to get this working.
~ >
~ >
~ > i have a router with 3 t1 links. im doing per packet load balancing on
~ > the 1st 2 with the 3rd one being in admin down state and i only bring
~ > it up when they need additional bandwidth.
~ >
~ > i want to conver this 3rd line into a fail over link, so that when one
~ > of the 2 active load balancing lines goes down, the 3rd line will do
~ > load balancing with the line that did not go down.
~ >
~
~ you could use 'backup interface <name_of_backup_interface>' command in
~ primary interface configuration. Here is what happens:
~
~ CE-2.LAB(config)#in se 0/0:0
~ CE-2.LAB(config-if)#backup interface atm0/1
~ *Sep 6 13:24:43.174: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface ATM0/1, changed state to
~ standby mode
~
~ Unfortunately this is 1:1 redundancy, i.e. you can't specify the same backup
~ interface for two primary interfaces. However, if all of your three lines
~ are of the same bandwidth and connected to the same routers, why don't you
~ just bundle them into multi-link PPP or do per-packet load-balancing across
~ all three lines?
~
~ Kind regards,
~ iLya
~

One dialer profile can serve as a backup interface to multiple
primary interfaces.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Root
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2006
"Aaron Leonard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 22:09:17 +0100, "Charlie Root"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> ~ <yo> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> ~ > ok, im not sure if this is possible but if it is im sure someone here
> ~ > knows how to get this working.
> ~ >
> ~ >
> ~ > i have a router with 3 t1 links. im doing per packet load balancing on
> ~ > the 1st 2 with the 3rd one being in admin down state and i only bring
> ~ > it up when they need additional bandwidth.
> ~ >
> ~ > i want to conver this 3rd line into a fail over link, so that when one
> ~ > of the 2 active load balancing lines goes down, the 3rd line will do
> ~ > load balancing with the line that did not go down.
> ~ >
> ~
> ~ you could use 'backup interface <name_of_backup_interface>' command in
> ~ primary interface configuration. Here is what happens:
> ~
> ~ CE-2.LAB(config)#in se 0/0:0
> ~ CE-2.LAB(config-if)#backup interface atm0/1
> ~ *Sep 6 13:24:43.174: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface ATM0/1, changed state
> to
> ~ standby mode
> ~
> ~ Unfortunately this is 1:1 redundancy, i.e. you can't specify the same
> backup
> ~ interface for two primary interfaces. However, if all of your three
> lines
> ~ are of the same bandwidth and connected to the same routers, why don't
> you
> ~ just bundle them into multi-link PPP or do per-packet load-balancing
> across
> ~ all three lines?
> ~
> ~ Kind regards,
> ~ iLya
> ~
>
> One dialer profile can serve as a backup interface to multiple
> primary interfaces.


Aaron,

True, but in my experience Dialer profile does not go down, which then just
replaces one problem with another. Dialer staying always up was the reason,
why we started to use RTR-based tracking for setting up static routes
conditionally. I haven't tried though Dialer with leased-line type
interfaces.

Kind regards,
iLya


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Failover and Load balancing with 1 Cable connection and one T1 connection on Cisco 2801 router Ranga Cisco 4 11-13-2006 09:30 PM
need help with Load-balancing, Failover and DMZ xavierk Cisco 0 09-05-2006 01:40 PM
Load-Balancing with 2 servers in a failover mode Tuffsie Cisco 5 02-01-2005 10:06 AM
how to do failover and load balancing? jonnah Cisco 18 05-05-2004 12:50 PM
redundancy/failover/load balancing with eigrp examples???? David Cisco 0 11-12-2003 04:23 PM



Advertisments