Mailing List Archive: nsp: foundry

Redundant routes

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

ngray at cyberwurx

Feb 7, 2012, 9:49 AM

Post #1 of 8 (543 views)
Permalink

Redundant routes

Greetings,

This may be a trivial situation, but I am having a little bit of an
issue with redundant connections for a client.
Here is the setup:
= router1 =
vlan 123
ve 123 with network 10.0.0.0/30

ip route 10.0.1.0/24 10.0.0.2

= router2 =
vlan 123
ve 123 with network 10.0.0.5/30

ip route 10.0.1.0/24 10.0.0.7

I had a sneaking feeling it wasn't that easy though. One of the router
interfaces had to be shut down before traffic properly forwarded to
and from the client.

I substituted values for the interface /30's and /24 in the example
above. My goal is to pass both connections to the client. In the event
one router goes down, traffic can route over the standby router. I am
not sure if I need to set up any type of redundancy protocol in this
setup.

Any tips would be very helpful.

Thanks!
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

georgeb at gmail

Feb 7, 2012, 10:52 AM

Post #2 of 8 (488 views)
Permalink

Re: Redundant routes [In reply to]

> I had a sneaking feeling it wasn't that easy though. One of the router
> interfaces had to be shut down before traffic properly forwarded to
> and from the client.

The client side might be borked. Do you have any visibility into the
config on their side? I would also put the two connections on
separate vlans if vlan123 spans both routers on your side.

George
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

ngray at cyberwurx

Feb 7, 2012, 11:07 AM

Post #3 of 8 (486 views)
Permalink

Re: Redundant routes [In reply to]

'vlan123' is independent on either router but I can change it if
necessary. I had a feeling the client's side was having issues which
is why I was thrown figuring this out. Unfortunately, I do not have
access to the config on their side.

-Nick

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, George B. <georgeb [at] gmail> wrote:
>> I had a sneaking feeling it wasn't that easy though. One of the router
>> interfaces had to be shut down before traffic properly forwarded to
>> and from the client.
>
> The client side might be borked. Do you have any visibility into the
> config on their side? I would also put the two connections on
> separate vlans if vlan123 spans both routers on your side.
>
> George

_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

georgeb at gmail

Feb 7, 2012, 11:10 AM

Post #4 of 8 (492 views)
Permalink

Re: Redundant routes [In reply to]

Well, is the circuit delivered over Ethernet? They might have both
ports plugged into a switch on their side that is doing something
goofy.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Nick Gray <ngray [at] cyberwurx> wrote:
> 'vlan123' is independent on either router but I can change it if
> necessary. I had a feeling the client's side was having issues which
> is why I was thrown figuring this out. Unfortunately, I do not have
> access to the config on their side.
>
> -Nick
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, George B. <georgeb [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> I had a sneaking feeling it wasn't that easy though. One of the router
>>> interfaces had to be shut down before traffic properly forwarded to
>>> and from the client.
>>
>> The client side might be borked. Do you have any visibility into the
>> config on their side? I would also put the two connections on
>> separate vlans if vlan123 spans both routers on your side.
>>
>> George

_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

ngray at cyberwurx

Feb 7, 2012, 11:33 AM

Post #5 of 8 (486 views)
Permalink

Re: Redundant routes [In reply to]

The hand off is Ethernet. Appears to be handing off to two netgear
smart switches linked together ( 'switch1' and 'switch2' ) on the
client's side. The client may not be using managed switches. Would
this change anything on my side?
Thanks for your help!

-Nick

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM, George B. <georgeb [at] gmail> wrote:
> Well, is the circuit delivered over Ethernet? They might have both
> ports plugged into a switch on their side that is doing something
> goofy.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Nick Gray <ngray [at] cyberwurx> wrote:
>> 'vlan123' is independent on either router but I can change it if
>> necessary. I had a feeling the client's side was having issues which
>> is why I was thrown figuring this out. Unfortunately, I do not have
>> access to the config on their side.
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, George B. <georgeb [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>> I had a sneaking feeling it wasn't that easy though. One of the router
>>>> interfaces had to be shut down before traffic properly forwarded to
>>>> and from the client.
>>>
>>> The client side might be borked. Do you have any visibility into the
>>> config on their side? I would also put the two connections on
>>> separate vlans if vlan123 spans both routers on your side.
>>>
>>> George

_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

georgeb at gmail

Feb 7, 2012, 12:17 PM

Post #6 of 8 (486 views)
Permalink

Re: Redundant routes [In reply to]

The customer might have some kind of loop in their network and when
you shut down one interface, it allowed the loop to clear. I don't
see anything wrong with your config but generally I like to use
different vlans for things like that just to prevent layer2 loops
though any of my stuff.

What I do is put the ports in separate vlans that have only that one
port in them (yeah, I know that gets expensive if you have a lot of
customer handoffs) and turn spanning tree off on the ports,

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Nick Gray <ngray [at] cyberwurx> wrote:
> The hand off is Ethernet. Appears to be handing off to two netgear
> smart switches linked together ( 'switch1' and 'switch2' ) on the
> client's side. The client may not be using managed switches. Would
> this change anything on my side?
> Thanks for your help!
>
> -Nick
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM, George B. <georgeb [at] gmail> wrote:
>> Well, is the circuit delivered over Ethernet? They might have both
>> ports plugged into a switch on their side that is doing something
>> goofy.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Nick Gray <ngray [at] cyberwurx> wrote:
>>> 'vlan123' is independent on either router but I can change it if
>>> necessary. I had a feeling the client's side was having issues which
>>> is why I was thrown figuring this out. Unfortunately, I do not have
>>> access to the config on their side.
>>>
>>> -Nick
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, George B. <georgeb [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>>> I had a sneaking feeling it wasn't that easy though. One of the router
>>>>> interfaces had to be shut down before traffic properly forwarded to
>>>>> and from the client.
>>>>
>>>> The client side might be borked. Do you have any visibility into the
>>>> config on their side? I would also put the two connections on
>>>> separate vlans if vlan123 spans both routers on your side.
>>>>
>>>> George

_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

ngray at cyberwurx

Feb 7, 2012, 1:50 PM

Post #7 of 8 (479 views)
Permalink

Re: Redundant routes [In reply to]

Thanks for the input! I will not know for sure if this will work until
the client comes in later in the week.

Cheers!
-Nick

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM, George B. <georgeb [at] gmail> wrote:
> The customer might have some kind of loop in their network and when
> you shut down one interface, it allowed the loop to clear. I don't
> see anything wrong with your config but generally I like to use
> different vlans for things like that just to prevent layer2 loops
> though any of my stuff.
>
> What I do is put the ports in separate vlans that have only that one
> port in them (yeah, I know that gets expensive if you have a lot of
> customer handoffs) and turn spanning tree off on the ports,
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Nick Gray <ngray [at] cyberwurx> wrote:
>> The hand off is Ethernet. Appears to be handing off to two netgear
>> smart switches linked together ( 'switch1' and 'switch2' ) on the
>> client's side. The client may not be using managed switches. Would
>> this change anything on my side?
>> Thanks for your help!
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM, George B. <georgeb [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> Well, is the circuit delivered over Ethernet? They might have both
>>> ports plugged into a switch on their side that is doing something
>>> goofy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Nick Gray <ngray [at] cyberwurx> wrote:
>>>> 'vlan123' is independent on either router but I can change it if
>>>> necessary. I had a feeling the client's side was having issues which
>>>> is why I was thrown figuring this out. Unfortunately, I do not have
>>>> access to the config on their side.
>>>>
>>>> -Nick
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, George B. <georgeb [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>>>> I had a sneaking feeling it wasn't that easy though. One of the router
>>>>>> interfaces had to be shut down before traffic properly forwarded to
>>>>>> and from the client.
>>>>>
>>>>> The client side might be borked. Do you have any visibility into the
>>>>> config on their side? I would also put the two connections on
>>>>> separate vlans if vlan123 spans both routers on your side.
>>>>>
>>>>> George

_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

gk at ax

Feb 7, 2012, 2:16 PM

Post #8 of 8 (481 views)
Permalink

Re: Redundant routes [In reply to]

schrieb Nick Gray:
> The hand off is Ethernet. Appears to be handing off to two netgear
> smart switches linked together ( 'switch1' and 'switch2' ) on the
> client's side. The client may not be using managed switches. Would
> this change anything on my side?
> Thanks for your help!

In such a situation (flat layer 2 links between all systems) I would
prefer an VRRP(-E) setup on your side if your gear support this feature.
That should be much easier for you and the client/customer because it
usually works even with dumb gear on the remote end and do not need a
special configuration on that side.

The only drawback with an VRRP setup I could imagine is that the client
can't use/saturate both links simultaneous in an easy way.

--
Gerald

_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads