IP route

Unanswered Question
May 5th, 2009

Hi all,

I have a router with the following configuration: ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0/1/0:1 172.16.200.153

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0/0/0:1 172.16.200.157

show ip route

<Output Omitted>

Gateway of last resort is 172.16.200.157 to network 0.0.0.0

show ip route static

S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 172.16.200.157, Serial0/0/0:1

[1/0] via 172.16.200.153, Serial0/1/0:1

Because I have two default routes does that mean the router is using both for internet traffic even though the gateway of last resort is just one?

Thanks in advance

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (5 ratings)
Loading.
Giuseppe Larosa Tue, 05/05/2009 - 05:41

Hello Hipolito,

yes both default routes are used you can see this on the sh ip route

show ip route static

S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 172.16.200.157, Serial0/0/0:1

[1/0] via 172.16.200.153, Serial0/1/0:1

both are listed so both are installed and used.

Hope to help

Giuseppe

John Blakley Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:11

Giuseppe,

Would this type situation be a load balanced scenario or failover?

Thanks,

John

lamav Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:14

John, both routes will be active in the routing table, so they would both be utilized. The manner in which you share the traffic load across the two links would depend on what kind of load balancing you are using.

HTH

Victor

John Blakley Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:16

Victor,

The manner in which you share the traffic load across the two links would depend on what kind of load balancing you are using.

As in glbp, or more like the type of routing protocol you're using like bgp?

Thanks!

John

lamav Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:25

HEY HEY HEY!!!! >:-(

Don't you be steppin' in my space...Mr. Man!!!

:-)

Jon Marshall Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:26

Sorry Victor couldn't resist :-)

Besides, since when has your name been Giuseppe as in

"Giuseppe,

Would this type situation be a load balanced scenario or failover?"

Jon

lamav Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:23

The routing protocol will discover 2 equal cost paths and place them both in the routing table (forget about EIGRP variance for now).

What I was referring to is wether you have per-packet- or per-destination-based load sharing configured.

With per-packet load balancing, each path is utilized alternately on a packet by packet basis. This utilizes both links pretty evenly, but you may get an issue with a disparity in delay and packets being received at the distant end out of order.

With per-destination, it is as the name suggests; each source-destination flow will be examined and one path selected based on that.

HTH

Victor

John Blakley Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:25

hmmmm....do you have a link to describe how to configure per-destination load sharing?

Jon Marshall Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:27

John

I could tell you but then Victor will have a go at me so i can't i'm afraid :-)

Jon

lamav Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:33

John:

You're welcome.

Jon:

I rated the post in which you show that you have finally come to your senses and realized that I am someone you should be afraid of!

LOLOL

Victor

Jon Marshall Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:34

Typical

I spend half the day providing some of my best technical advice to multiple posters and the only rating i get is for this !!

I am afraid Victor, very afraid....

Jon Marshall Tue, 05/05/2009 - 14:27

John

Indeed you do and it is much appreciated. My comments were really directed at Victor as i hope you realise. NO offense intended.

Victor - see what problems you cause :-)

Jon

Actions

This Discussion