05-05-2009 05:35 AM - edited 03-06-2019 05:32 AM
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
05-05-2009 05:41 AM
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
05-05-2009 08:33 AM
Thanks a lot Giuseppe
05-05-2009 09:11 AM
Giuseppe,
Would this type situation be a load balanced scenario or failover?
Thanks,
John
05-05-2009 09:14 AM
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
05-05-2009 09:16 AM
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
05-05-2009 09:22 AM
John
As in per packet or per destination load balancing.
Jon
05-05-2009 09:25 AM
HEY HEY HEY!!!! >:-(
Don't you be steppin' in my space...Mr. Man!!!
:-)
05-05-2009 09:26 AM
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
05-05-2009 09:27 AM
LOL!
05-05-2009 09:23 AM
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
05-05-2009 09:25 AM
hmmmm....do you have a link to describe how to configure per-destination load sharing?
05-05-2009 09:27 AM
John
I could tell you but then Victor will have a go at me so i can't i'm afraid :-)
Jon
05-05-2009 09:28 AM
That's more like it...damn it. ;-)
05-05-2009 09:27 AM
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: