Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
New Member

FREEK vs floating static


I am testing and adjusting some of our ISDN backups for our frame-relay wan links and just had a couple of Q's

If the frame-relay link is congested and the keepalives can get through, will this cause the frame-links to go up and down or will the keep-alives get priority over other types of traffic?

If I am implementing a floating static instead of keepalives, could bw congestion cause route flapping and bring the isdn link up and down too often?

Any thoughts would be appreciated, I have both of these implemented at the moment and would like to avoid any potential problems.



Re: FREEK vs floating static

Frame keeps should have priority over other types of trafffic at the routers, but I don't know that they do at the switches--it would depend on the switch, and the configuration of the switch. I don't ever recall seeing a frame link go down due to congestion, though--I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that I've never seen it happen. :-)

What would a floating static give you over or under a keepalive? They servec completely different purposes.


New Member

Re: FREEK vs floating static

What would you go for, I use EIGRP and have tended to lean towards floating statics - but If there is congestion on a wan link using EIGRP, would the eigrp keepalives get through or have priority over other traffic on the congested link, or would a congested wan link cause a router to possibly drop its routes and hence bring up the floating static and backup isdn. I guess I dont want congestion on a wan link to bring up the backup ISDN. The good think about frame keeps as you have said is that they should get priority - is this the same for routing keepalives. I was possibly in some places going to use the backup int command on some frame links with freek enabled but I do prefer the flexibilty of floating statics ....... if congestion isnt going to cause a problem.



CreatePlease to create content