Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Diverse routing using Primary Rate ISDN at Core/ multiple BRI at remote

I'm trying to configure the following using a Cisco2651 at remote site with multiple BRI interfaces and a Cisco 3640 with PRI at the core.

Remote:

I have 1 x Server dual attached to two ethernets A (contains user workstations) & B

1x 2651 with e0/0 on Ethernet A - e0/1 on Ethernet B

I have configured 2 x Rotary Groups (to multilink the BRI) one for Eth A (Link A) the other for Eth B (Link B)

Core:

I have 1 x 3640 with a PRI interface/FastEthernet connected to EthC at the core

I've configured Dialer1 (Link A) to connect to Eth A and Dialer 2 (Link B) to connect to EthB (Both are configured with ppp multilink)

At the core I have an Exchange server and an FTP Server

I'm not using any routing protocols, but have configured static routes to enable remote workstations (on Eth A) to use Link A and FTP traffic to and from the Server to use EthB and Link B, and therefore keeping the user traffic separate from the DATA traffic.

Simultaneous calls seems to work when both Links are initiated from the 3640.

It seems a bit tempremental when the calls are initiated from the remote site, or if one call is initiated from remote and the is initiated from the core. This is a problem as it highly likely that the initial traffic is likely to be initiated from the remote site.

Firstly, I'm trying verify that this configuration is possible?

Secondly, is there any reason why I seem to experience problems when calls are initiated from the remote site (I have verified that my CHAP configuration is correct, as both links work correctly both ways when use individually!)

1 REPLY

Re: Diverse routing using Primary Rate ISDN at Core/ multiple BR

It might work but I do not see the benefits. You will be better off defining one big multilink bundle that serves both A and B. In that way you achieve a better load balancing and it also makes you configs substantially simpler.

When you apply WFQ you will not have problems with FTP vs small-volume sessions.

105
Views
0
Helpful
1
Replies
CreatePlease login to create content