Failover from SDSL to ADSL on a single Cisco 2801

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Erosional, Feb 10, 2006.

  1. Erosional

    Erosional Guest

    Hi all

    I have a Cisco 2801 that uses an SDSL connection (IP Range 1) and need
    to set up a failover to an ADSL connection (IP Range 2) should the SDSL
    one suddenly fail. The dilemma is.......how do I do this so that NAT
    translation to the internal network continues to work without
    interruption...or at least minimal interruption?

    Thanks in advance for your help!
    Erosional, Feb 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Erosional

    Erosional Guest

    Hi again

    Really need to get this resolved by Monday so here are some more
    details.

    We have a Cisco 2801 Router that currently routes a number of internal
    networks out via one interface onto an SDSL router and then onto the
    internet. It is configured to run NAT and there are a number of Static
    IP mappings between given external addresses (associated with the ADSL
    accounts) to specific servers on the internal networks.

    We would like to set up a new ADSL line to act as a backup in the event
    of the SDSL failing. However any new ADSL account will obviously come
    with a new set of external IP addresses.

    Is there anyway to configure the CISCO router to allow for some form of
    automatic failover that can also handle the new IP address without
    breaking the NAT translation tables?

    Looking forward to hearing any suggestions and ideas.
    Erosional, Feb 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Erosional

    Charlie Root Guest

    "Erosional" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi again
    >
    > Really need to get this resolved by Monday so here are some more
    > details.
    >
    > We have a Cisco 2801 Router that currently routes a number of internal
    > networks out via one interface onto an SDSL router and then onto the
    > internet. It is configured to run NAT and there are a number of Static
    > IP mappings between given external addresses (associated with the ADSL
    > accounts) to specific servers on the internal networks.
    >


    If NAT configuration results in the same global address regardless of the
    active line, then it should be preserved during line switch-over. From you
    description it's not quite clear whether your SDSL and ADSL lines are
    terminated on the same 2801 router or is there some incumbent router on SDSL
    line or did you just mean provider-side SDSL access-server. Could you post
    an ASCII diagram of what the setup looks like?

    > We would like to set up a new ADSL line to act as a backup in the event
    > of the SDSL failing. However any new ADSL account will obviously come
    > with a new set of external IP addresses.
    >


    Assume that your SDSL line isn't directly connected to 2801 but to some
    incumbent CPE, then how do you and and, not least important, - upstream
    router know that the line is down? Since your ethernet link will remain up
    you'll need either a routing protocol between you and provider, or static
    routing with object tracking.

    If you use static mapping to a pool or single address rather than implicitly
    specifying an interface IP, then you should be fine. Besides, you could ask
    your provider to use the same /30 on both SDSL and ADSL links.

    > Is there anyway to configure the CISCO router to allow for some form of
    > automatic failover that can also handle the new IP address without
    > breaking the NAT translation tables?
    >

    If it's really new addresses and you use interface address in the
    translation table implicitly, then I'm afraid your TCP/UDP sessions will
    break as new packets will arrive to the servers with new addresses. You need
    static NAT to the same address or range of addresses regardles of which link
    is operational.

    Kind regards,
    iLya
    Charlie Root, Feb 13, 2006
    #3
  4. On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:05:37 -0800, Erosional wrote:

    > Hi again
    >
    > Really need to get this resolved by Monday so here are some more details.
    >
    > We have a Cisco 2801 Router that currently routes a number of internal
    > networks out via one interface onto an SDSL router and then onto the
    > internet. It is configured to run NAT and there are a number of Static IP
    > mappings between given external addresses (associated with the ADSL
    > accounts) to specific servers on the internal networks.
    >
    > We would like to set up a new ADSL line to act as a backup in the event of
    > the SDSL failing. However any new ADSL account will obviously come with a
    > new set of external IP addresses.
    >
    > Is there anyway to configure the CISCO router to allow for some form of
    > automatic failover that can also handle the new IP address without
    > breaking the NAT translation tables?
    >
    > Looking forward to hearing any suggestions and ideas.


    This has been addressed in the past on this forum and on the cisco web
    site forum. The answer has not changed in the last two years. You actually
    have to deal with two independent issues, and even if you do, the results
    are imperfect.

    1 - You need to be able to reliably detect failure of the SDSL line.
    Otherwise, the router has no way to recognize when to fail over to the
    ADSL line. It is not safe to assume that the SDSL line will always (or
    even usually) fail at the physical layer, and if you connect to an
    external SDSL modem via Ethernet, even that is irrelevant. Search for
    posts on "ping based routing" which can be built over Cisco's response
    time recorder (RTR) feature.

    2 - You need to set up NAT so the NAT used depends on the interface used.
    You will find lots of recommendations to use Policy Maps for your NAT
    translations, usually from people who have read the docs but not actually
    tried to achieve what you are attempting. The problem is that the policy
    maps are ONLY applied while setting up a translation for a new connection,
    and once the translation is set up, the same translation is used
    regardless of the interface actually used. I have heard of four techniques
    to get around this limitation: 1) log into the router and clear the
    translation table (typically either manually or from a Linux box on the
    network), 2) do at least one of the NAT's outside the router so that the
    translation table is ignored for at least one of the two routes, 3) use
    the syslog programming feature available on some router models (such as
    172x) to run a TCL program which checks for changes in outbound interface
    and clears the translation table as necessary, and 4) buy one of the
    multi-port LinkSys or other brand SOHO routers which ship with this
    capability built in.

    A few comments on the alternatives:

    1 - ping based routing works fine, but you need to be careful setting
    it up so that all failure modes are detected. There can also be problems
    detecting link recovery under some conditions (e.g., the RTR stops trying
    when a link goes down at the physical layer).

    2 - sub option 1) requires an extra box, writing custom scripts, and
    keeping everything running. 2) requires an extra box, 3) is a real hack, I
    have demonstrated this working in a lab setup, but have not heard of
    anyone actually using it in production, 4) lots of horror stories about
    cheap routers which require routine rebooting to keep functioning, not to
    mention the pain of explaining to the boss why you recommended the higher
    priced Cisco gear.

    Good luck and have fun!
    --
    Vincent C Jones, Consultant Expert advice and a helping hand
    Networking Unlimited, Inc. for those who want to manage and
    Tenafly, NJ Phone: 201 568-7810 control their networking destiny
    http://www.networkingunlimited.com
    Vincent C Jones, Feb 18, 2006
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jeroen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    492
    Jeroen
    Jan 5, 2004
  2. tuyo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,260
  3. Ranga
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,899
    Ranga
    Nov 13, 2006
  4. Alex
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    407
    gianrico
    Aug 23, 2007
  5. Pit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,094
Loading...

Share This Page