×

Warning message

  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.
  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.

MLPPP over 2 x WAN links

Answered Question
Feb 6th, 2012
User Badges:

Hi,


My current setup is as such:


router A --- link 1 --- router B

            --- link 2 ---


They are connected via MLPPP, on top of that, RIP is being used as the dynamic routing protocol.


There is a requirement to let a group of user from router A to reach another group of user a router B via link 1 only (including the return traffic).


Can this be achieved in the above scenario?


Any writes-up on this?

Correct Answer by Joseph W. Doherty about 5 years 6 months ago

Disclaimer


The   Author of this posting offers the information contained within this   posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that   there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose.   Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not   be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of  this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.


Liability Disclaimer


In   no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including,   without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising  out  of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if  Author  has been advised of the possibility of such damage.


Posting


Are you using routers?  If so, QoS features would seem to be the solution.

Correct Answer by vmiller about 5 years 6 months ago

How many links are available logically? If you have 2 circuits bound as an MLPP link there is no way you can carve that up unless you break MLPP and run 2 serial connections with different addresses etc....

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (2 ratings)
Loading.
vmiller Mon, 02/06/2012 - 08:52
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more

If you are running mlppp then both links are logically bound together.

so, no you can't accompllish that request.


What is the purpose of attempting that anyway?

noobieee7 Wed, 02/08/2012 - 22:08
User Badges:

Hi vmiller,


Thanks for the assistance.


The reason is that there is a specific group of user that they want to force using link A only, to make sure they do not congest up the bandwidth on the other links. The second requirement is that when that is no traffic from the specific group of user, the rest of the traffic will be able to load balance between the 2 links.

ebarticel Wed, 02/08/2012 - 22:38
User Badges:
  • Bronze, 100 points or more

What about a time-based ACL on LAN interface pointing to link 1? Of course you need to know the hours that group is most active.


Hope this helps

Eugen

noobieee7 Thu, 02/09/2012 - 07:16
User Badges:

Hi Eugen,


Able to elaborate? I understand that I cannot do any form of PBR via the physcial interface because there is only 1 logical interface IP.

ebarticel Fri, 02/10/2012 - 02:05
User Badges:
  • Bronze, 100 points or more

I was thinking of creating a dhcp pool and assign that pool to the multilink, then map the acl to one of those ip addresses in the pool.


It is just a thought....how valid is I don't know.


Eugen

ebarticel Fri, 02/10/2012 - 18:08
User Badges:
  • Bronze, 100 points or more

Just to add something more....


Multilink ignores the ip addresses on the interfaces, but by creating a dhcp pool of those addresses configured on the interfaces it may force MLPPP to map a certain ip to another ip from its pool if for example you have an acl comming in.


Eugen

Correct Answer
vmiller Thu, 02/09/2012 - 07:41
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more

How many links are available logically? If you have 2 circuits bound as an MLPP link there is no way you can carve that up unless you break MLPP and run 2 serial connections with different addresses etc....

Correct Answer
Joseph W. Doherty Thu, 02/09/2012 - 18:34
User Badges:
  • Super Bronze, 10000 points or more

Disclaimer


The   Author of this posting offers the information contained within this   posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that   there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose.   Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not   be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of  this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.


Liability Disclaimer


In   no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including,   without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising  out  of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if  Author  has been advised of the possibility of such damage.


Posting


Are you using routers?  If so, QoS features would seem to be the solution.

Actions

This Discussion