route maps

Answered Question
Feb 19th, 2008

Hi, I have 2 T1s going to different ISPs. I want to direct my workstation subnet for http and ftp traffic to go out to one of the T1s. I just want to segregate users' web and ftp traffic from the server traffic going out to other ISP. I also want the users traffic have the ability to go out to other branches, which is the 10.x.x.x networks. I have route maps configured but all of the sudden the user T1 is bottlenecked, it is very slow. I used other t1 before for both server and workstation and it was faster then now with the segregation. Can route maps slow down the processing that much?

here are my route maps. Any help is greatly appriciate it. Thanks

access-list 102 permit tcp 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 any eq www

access-list 102 permit tcp 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 any eq 443

access-list 102 permit tcp 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 any eq ftp

access-list 102 permit tcp 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 any eq ftp-data

access-list 102 permit ip 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 any

access-list 105 permit ip 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255

access-list 105 permit ip 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 172.22.19.0 0.0.0.255

access-list 106 permit ip 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 10.1.0.0 0.0.255.255

access-list 106 permit ip 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 172.24.1.0 0.0.0.255

route-map UserInternet permit 7

match ip address 105

set ip next-hop 10.0.0.2

!

route-map UserInternet permit 8

match ip address 106

set ip next-hop 10.0.1.1

!

route-map UserInternet permit 9

match ip address 102

set ip next-hop 69.x.x.x

!

Correct Answer by Richard Burts about 9 years 5 days ago

Bart

I would not think that route maps (or more specifically the use of Policy Based Routing - which is what you have configured) would slow down the T1 in the way that you describe. I believe that you need to look for some other issue affecting the T1.

The PBR that you have configured seems pretty straightforward. I will note that if you have this configured in access list 102:

access-list 102 permit ip 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 any

then you really do not need any of the other statements in access list 102 since this line includes all of what the other lines would permit.

HTH

Rick

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
Loading.
Correct Answer
Richard Burts Tue, 02/19/2008 - 08:35

Bart

I would not think that route maps (or more specifically the use of Policy Based Routing - which is what you have configured) would slow down the T1 in the way that you describe. I believe that you need to look for some other issue affecting the T1.

The PBR that you have configured seems pretty straightforward. I will note that if you have this configured in access list 102:

access-list 102 permit ip 172.23.0.0 0.0.255.255 any

then you really do not need any of the other statements in access list 102 since this line includes all of what the other lines would permit.

HTH

Rick

Richard Burts Tue, 02/19/2008 - 10:56

Bart

I am glad that my answer was helpful. Thank you for using the rating system to indicate that your question was resolved (and thanks for the rating). It makes the forum more useful when people can read a question and can know that they will read a response which did successfully resolve the question.

The forum is an excellent place to learn about Cisco networking. I encourage you to continue your participation in the forum.

HTH

Rick

bsudol79p Tue, 02/19/2008 - 11:40

Thanks for yuor help. I learned a lot from this site, particularly from you as you answered several of my questions from the past. Thanks again.

Joseph W. Doherty Tue, 02/19/2008 - 16:53

I agree with Rick, I wouldn't think such a simple PBR would impact your performance, but something that's overlooked is there a policy cache that can be applied to interfaces when using PBR. Although I believe, it doesn't offer any benefit when using CEF.

Actions

This Discussion