Redudancy and Load Balancing Configuration

[Dinesh Kumar Mariappan]

We have 2 Location DC & DR.

both are connected by ISP through P2P.

DC-- 2 Core switches..(Primarry Link & secondary Link)

DR-2 Core switches.(Primary Link & secondary Link)

data are sharing b/w these two location via static route.. No Protcols Configured.,

DC Primary IP 192.168.1.1

DC Secondary IP :192.168.2.1

DR primary IP:192.168.1.2

DR secondary IP :192.168.2.2

there is no connectivity b/w Primary DC core switch to  Secondary DR core switch vice versa.

Application 1 IP at DC  10.10.10.1

Application 2 IP at DC   10.10.10.2

Application 3 IP at DC   10.10.10.3

Application 1 IP at DR  20.20.20.1

Application 2 IP at DR   20.20.20.2

Application 3 IP at DR   20.20.20.3

Application 1 & 2 Traffic was sharing in Primary P2P link

Application 3 Traffic was sharing in Secondary P2P Link

Now my question if Primary goes down..  Application 1 & 2 should utilize secondary link and vice versa

How to Load balance  fos sharing the bandwidth..

Primary Link have 10 Mbps Band width and Secondary also 10 Mbps Bandwithd

Primary is fully utilized but secondary was only 20% was utilizing .. I need more solution for these.. then finally i will choose which one is the best.. Please help me on this..

[Kelvin Willacey]

I would say using a routing protocol would be the best option as it will allow you to load balance across the links and provide redundancy in the event of a link failure. Otherwise you can always use PBR.

[Dinesh Kumar Mariappan]

Redudancy routing Protocol is best.. but this is DC-->DR site would be prefer static route.. Because data is transfering from one point other only.. Routing Protocol come in picture if packet have to transfer to more hops, thats y routing protocol was prefered.. We can do the Static routing failover with help of IPLA rechablity command.. But i expecting the different solution for above scenario.

[Kelvin Willacey]

If you are looking for something that would be a bit easier to configure and that can scale then routing is your best option regardless of the number of hops, in my humble opinion. It just seems like unnecessary overhead to be configuring static routes and IP SLA when a routing protocol can handle the load balancing and failover quite nicely.

[Dinesh Kumar Mariappan]

any one?

[Bharat Negi]

Hi Dinesh

Can I assume that primary & secondary core switches are connected to each other and are you running HSRP from server to reach core switches? If yes, then you can divide 10.x.x.x subnet into half and configure half of the subnet active on primary switch and other half active on secondary switch (this spilt would need to change gateway IP at server end).  This way you can achieve load sharing between two core switches and the WAN links.

To achieve redundancy, you can configure track feature in HSRP.  This will track the WAN link and switchover to other switch if WAN link fails.

However, I would also recommend to use a protocol for better control and less manageability.

[Joseph W. Doherty]

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

If your hardware supports it, you may want to consider PfR.  It does dynamic load balancing.