Router 2611 with two T1

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Exclusive, Mar 2, 2007.

  1. Exclusive

    Exclusive Guest

    Hi everyone!
    I heve a cisco router related question.
    We have two 2611 peremeter routers and two T1 connections. Right now
    one is primary and the other one is just backup. We want to be able to
    utilize both connections. Which is the best way to do. Is it possible
    to use just one 2611 router and configured it using both T1s?
    I'll apreciate any help.
    Thanks,
     
    Exclusive, Mar 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Exclusive

    Smokey Guest

    Exclusive wrote:
    > Hi everyone!
    > I heve a cisco router related question.
    > We have two 2611 peremeter routers and two T1 connections. Right now
    > one is primary and the other one is just backup. We want to be able to
    > utilize both connections. Which is the best way to do. Is it possible
    > to use just one 2611 router and configured it using both T1s?
    > I'll apreciate any help.
    > Thanks,
    >


    Hi,

    With 2 WIC cards yes you would use Multilink:

    interface Multilink1
    ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252 ***Wan IP***
    no cdp enable
    ppp multilink
    ppp multilink fragment disable
    ppp multilink group 1
    !
    interface FastEthernet0/0
    ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.240 ***LAN IP***
    duplex auto
    speed auto
    no cdp enable
    no mop enabled
    !
    interface Serial0/0
    description T1 to USLEC S0/0
    no ip address
    encapsulation ppp
    no ip mroute-cache
    no fair-queue
    no cdp enable
    ppp multilink
    ppp multilink group 1
    !
    interface Serial0/1
    description T1 to USLEC S0/1
    no ip address
    encapsulation ppp
    no ip mroute-cache
    no fair-queue
    no cdp enable
    ppp multilink
    ppp multilink group 1
     
    Smokey, Mar 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Exclusive

    Exclusive Guest

    Thanks, for the fast replay.

    Yes I do have two WIC cards. Right now we have just one Frame Relay T1
    connection. To mount the second WIC do I gotter simply power off and
    put it in. Is it possible this to screw up the current configuration?

    How is this working with Frame Relay? Can I use CEF because as I found
    MLPPP needs more processer power?

    Thanks,
     
    Exclusive, Mar 2, 2007
    #3
  4. "Exclusive" <> writes:
    >Yes I do have two WIC cards. Right now we have just one Frame Relay T1
    >connection. To mount the second WIC do I gotter simply power off and
    >put it in. Is it possible this to screw up the current configuration?


    Yes, just power down and swap in the card. Power on, and the existing
    config won't even mention the new card until you configure something.

    >How is this working with Frame Relay? Can I use CEF because as I found
    >MLPPP needs more processer power?


    Only slightly more CPU, but MLPPP requires PPP underlying encapsulation.
    (You didn't mention your encapsulation in the first post, so they
    probably assumed). The CPU usage isn't too much an issue on a 2611
    with only two T1s.

    First off, do you control both sides of this link?

    The best method is going to involve the other side to match what you do.

    You could use Multi-Link FR, but upgrading the 2611 to support MLFR
    might be too painful to bother with.

    You can also do CEF per-packet load balancing, but unless the other
    side matches, your inbound is only going to be utilizing one T1.
     
    Doug McIntyre, Mar 2, 2007
    #4
  5. Exclusive

    Thrill5 Guest

    You can't do MLPPP with frame-relay. Depending on the size of your WAN
    connections and the amount of data you are pushing through them, it is very,
    very possible that you will spike the CPU to 100% on a 2611 if you turn off
    CEF. The CPU on a 2611 is pretty feeble.

    Scott
    "Doug McIntyre" <> wrote in message
    news:45e883bf$0$17409$...
    > "Exclusive" <> writes:
    >>Yes I do have two WIC cards. Right now we have just one Frame Relay T1
    >>connection. To mount the second WIC do I gotter simply power off and
    >>put it in. Is it possible this to screw up the current configuration?

    >
    > Yes, just power down and swap in the card. Power on, and the existing
    > config won't even mention the new card until you configure something.
    >
    >>How is this working with Frame Relay? Can I use CEF because as I found
    >>MLPPP needs more processer power?

    >
    > Only slightly more CPU, but MLPPP requires PPP underlying encapsulation.
    > (You didn't mention your encapsulation in the first post, so they
    > probably assumed). The CPU usage isn't too much an issue on a 2611
    > with only two T1s.
    >
    > First off, do you control both sides of this link?
    >
    > The best method is going to involve the other side to match what you do.
    >
    > You could use Multi-Link FR, but upgrading the 2611 to support MLFR
    > might be too painful to bother with.
    >
    > You can also do CEF per-packet load balancing, but unless the other
    > side matches, your inbound is only going to be utilizing one T1.
    >
     
    Thrill5, Mar 3, 2007
    #5
  6. Exclusive

    MC Guest

    Thrill5 wrote:
    > You can't do MLPPP with frame-relay. Depending on the size of your WAN
    > connections and the amount of data you are pushing through them, it is very,
    > very possible that you will spike the CPU to 100% on a 2611 if you turn off
    > CEF. The CPU on a 2611 is pretty feeble.
    >
    > Scott
    > "Doug McIntyre" <> wrote in message
    > news:45e883bf$0$17409$...
    >> "Exclusive" <> writes:
    >>> Yes I do have two WIC cards. Right now we have just one Frame Relay T1
    >>> connection. To mount the second WIC do I gotter simply power off and
    >>> put it in. Is it possible this to screw up the current configuration?

    >> Yes, just power down and swap in the card. Power on, and the existing
    >> config won't even mention the new card until you configure something.
    >>
    >>> How is this working with Frame Relay? Can I use CEF because as I found
    >>> MLPPP needs more processer power?

    >> Only slightly more CPU, but MLPPP requires PPP underlying encapsulation.
    >> (You didn't mention your encapsulation in the first post, so they
    >> probably assumed). The CPU usage isn't too much an issue on a 2611
    >> with only two T1s.
    >>
    >> First off, do you control both sides of this link?
    >>
    >> The best method is going to involve the other side to match what you do.
    >>
    >> You could use Multi-Link FR, but upgrading the 2611 to support MLFR
    >> might be too painful to bother with.
    >>
    >> You can also do CEF per-packet load balancing, but unless the other
    >> side matches, your inbound is only going to be utilizing one T1.
    >>

    >
    >

    Cisco does provide MLPPPoFR (Multilink PPP over frame relay).
    Should have same size access and PVC's. Bundle at the PVC using sub
    interfaces. Also virtual templates. Cisco web site has many examples. We
    do this with all our sites that are still frame relay.
    Make sure CEF is running globally on the router.
    Multilink PPP has CPU overhead due to fragmentation reassembly but may
    not be that bad.
    I have had two full T1's on a 2610 router at one time doing OK, but nat
    much other stuff with no ACL processing. So If is an XM series router
    may do OK but not sure about using MLPPPoFR on non XM router.
    Most routers today have enough horsepower, mostly depends on how much
    other processing have going on like ACL's, etc.
    MLPPPoFR was introduced sometime in the 12.x code but do not remember
    what version.
     
    MC, Mar 4, 2007
    #6
    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. Adam Embrey

    Cisco 2611 with Two T1 from two ISPs

    Adam Embrey, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    681
    Adam Embrey
    Jul 24, 2003
  2. Michael Huffaker
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,502
    Rod Dorman
    Apr 12, 2004
  3. R0cky
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,299
    R0cky
    May 29, 2004
  4. R0cky
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    522
    R0cky
    May 30, 2004
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    9,622
    Walter Roberson
    Jan 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page