Cisco Support Community
Community Member

Redundant or Parallel Routers?

Hi! I am setting up a new network for a client. One Win DC, one Win File Srv & 8 PCs. ISP is ADSL. They will also use RDP. I am concerned about the router as the single point of failure. Can I setup two Cisco Small Business 107 Secure ADSL Routers. Put 4 PCs on one and 4PCs on the other? So in case of failure at least 4 PCs will connect until replacement. If so will I need two static IPs and two NICs on the DC? Is there a better similarly inexpensive solution?

Thanks in advance.

Hall of Fame Super Red

Re: Redundant or Parallel Routers?

Hi Ken,

I just wanted to note that the Cisco Small Business 107 Secure ADSL Router is EoL. You may want to look at the much newer 800 seies ISR Routers :)

EOL/EOS for the Cisco SB 100 Series Small-Business Routers

Cisco 800 Series Routers

Hope this helps!


Community Member

Re: Redundant or Parallel Routers?

Hi net100tec,

Look at the 800 Series as was mentioned in a previous post and take out SMARTnet on the ISR with 4 hour response, expensive but if failure is a worry and something does go wrong with the Router then the business will be offline for a maximum of 4 hours.

Community Member

Re: Redundant or Parallel Routers?

I am not familiar with the 107 routers and didn't see anything in the docs to show that they support HSRP, but it is an IOS router so it may. The recommendation to go to an 800 series is a good idea. They are cheap and have been pretty dependable. I run a handful for some remote locations running DMVPN over the internet. They also should support HSRP which would solve your problem nicely. You would configure both routers in a standby pair that shares a virtual IP address that you would use for you network default gateway. Check out the following for config info:

CreatePlease to create content