Let's take a look at how we can change our default route using IP SLA.First we create our IP SLA. In this example we want to ping our default gateway of our primary internet connection. In the above diagram that would relate to 11.b.c.d.ip sla monitor 10type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 11.b.c.dtimeout 1000frequency 3threshold 2ip sla monitor schedule 1 life forever start-time nowNext we create a tracked object. This one points to the reachability of the IP SLA. Note that the number 10 relates to the ip sla monitor number.track 10 rtr 1 reachabilityNext we create an ACL. This permits ICMP to our default gateway. This is used in our route map to determine the reachability.ip access-list 101 permit icmp any host 11.b.c.d echoNext we create our route map.
We macth on the ACL we just created, then set the next hop as the preferred provider IP (11.b.c.d). You must set the interface to null0.route-map DEFAULT-ROUTE-POLICY permit 10match ip address 101set ip next-hop 11.b.c.dset interface null 0Next we create a local routing policy to use our newly created route map.ip local policy route-map DEFAULT-ROUTE-POLICYFinally we put in our default routes. The first default route points to our preferred provide and we append the tracking to it. We then add the second default route with a higher weight (floating static route).
Cisco Inter As Option Ab
What this does for us is the router will track the preffered default route. If for some reason we lose connectivity (from the IPS SLA) the route will be removed and any secondary default route will be added. In this example the new default route will point to 10.136.5.200ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 11.b.c.d track 10ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.4.5 200Let's take a look at see what happens when we fail over.
First let's check IP SLA and make sure it's working.Router#show ip sla statisticsRound Trip Time (RTT) for Index 10Latest RTT: NoConnection/Busy/TimeoutLatest operation start time:.19:41:46.411 UTC Sun Jul 14 2002Latest operation return code: TimeoutNumber of successes: 233Number of failures: 0Operation time to live: ForeverGreat, that's working. I would like to test this in a virtual lab environment first, but in Cisco Packet Tracer Student 6.1 when I type ip sla it says invalid input detected at '^' marker. (pointed at sla).ip? Cisco Packet Tracer is very limited in functionality, so it's not surprising that it doesn't support IP SLA commands. IP SLA is a CCNP concept, Packet Tracer is for CCNA students.The commands are slightly different in different versions of IOS. For example on the Catalyst 3750 that I implemented this on the following isn't recognized:ip sla monitor 10Instead, I had to use:ip sla 10The differences are minor, but they are there. For learning purposes I would try to use GNS3 with whatever version of IOS you can get your hands on.
Hey,Your explanation got me curious and yes you are right, the route-map and policy routing ensures that the ping tests are sent directly to 11.b.c.d. I was curious what the local policy command was for, but for those who doesn't know (like me a few hours ago), this command is necessary for the solution above since the icmp echo packets are generated by the router itself.An alternative solution that I thought of would be to specify the source interface for the ip sla command.ip sla 1icmp-echo 11.b.c.d source-interface Serial0/0/0;then the ip policy routing (local policy & route-map) wouldn't be necessary (i guess) since the ping tests will always come out of the correct interface.:D.
So I'm reading this document from Cisco:andaswell as RFC 4364 section 10 'Multi-AS Backbones'.I'm wondering if anyone is actually doing any flavor of Multi-AS backbonethis in the real world? Option A doesn't seem scalable at all. Option Bseems scalable, but the level of trust and lack of QoS may be a concern.Option AB - I'm trying to fully understand w/o a ton of lab time. As I readthe first Cisco link above, with Option AB - you must configure asub-interface PER VPN/Client in it's own VRF on each SP's ASBR.
So if youhave 100 different customers, on that interconnect between SP1 and SP2 youmust configure 100 sub-interfaces, VRF's with unique (agree'd upon)RD's.Then you configure a single MP-BGP session to carry the VPNv4 addresses forall VRF's. So really you are only saving X number of BGP sessions withOption AB compared to say just Option A correct?Anyone out there with practical experience doing this in a productionenvironment?Thanks,KennyIs there any other technology for 'exteding VRF' to an Application Serviceprovider type network?cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.netarchive at. On Friday 06 November 2009 03:40:57 am Kenny Sallee wrote: I'm wondering if anyone is actually doing any flavor of Multi-AS backbone this in the real world? Option A doesn't seem scalable at all. Option B seems scalable, but the level of trust and lack of QoS may be a concern. Option AB - I'm trying to fully understand w/o a ton of lab time.
Microsoft Office 2019 Product Key Crack Free Download Full Version Working 100%Microsoft Office? Will you buy Microsoft Office 2019 Product Key that will be shipped this year, or will you update Office 365?Microsoft Office is a set of software frequently used in business fields such as Excel, Word, PowerPoint, and Outlook. This Microsoft Office recently announced that it will ship the next version of permanent licensed Office, “Microsoft Office 2019 Product Key” in the second half of 2018. Next version of permanent license type Office, “Office 2019” released in the second half of this yearThe permanent license version of Microsoft Office 2019 Product Key will be released in the second half of 2018. The Office 2019 released in the second half of 2018 is a package made of familiar software such as Word, Excel, Power Point, Outlook, etc. Now, there is a subscription version of “Office 365”, a permanent license version “Office 2016”, and “Office Premium” attached to a computer, but what has changed with “Office 2019”? Which one should you buy in the future? Let’s sort out here.
As I read the first Cisco link above, with Option AB - you must configure a sub-interface PER VPN/Client in it's own VRF on each SP's ASBR. So if you have 100 different customers, on that interconnect between SP1 and SP2 you must configure 100 sub-interfaces, VRF's with unique (agree'd upon)RD's. Then you configure a single MP-BGP session to carry the VPNv4 addresses for all VRF's. So really you are only saving X number of BGP sessions with Option AB compared to say just Option A correct?Yes, the difference between Option AB (a.k.a Option D) andOption A or Option B is that with Option AB, only a singleeBGP session between the ASBR's is required. Furthermore,while forwarding can be based on MPLS, IP forwarding is alsosupported, which preserves QoS values that can be used forprocessing across the ASBRASBR link.My suggestion; for any NNI option you choose, it should go along way in making your life easy, i.e., you don't havecreate a sub-interface for each customer VPN, you don't haveto create an eBGP session for each customer VPN.While Option AB is in an IETF draft state, I only know ofCisco being the only vendor implementing it (there could beothers, though - I haven't researched beyond the vendors weuse in production).
However, some of the other vendors areable to implement the methods Option AB uses to operate, butin such a manner that it may not necessarily be compatibleto Cisco's, or if it is, implementing it may not be asscalable, requiring that a number of boxes in the end-to-endVPN connection be touched for co-ordination.Personally, I think Option AB is rather complicated in itsdesign, but based on Cisco's implementation, a lot of thatcomplexity is hidden from the operators, with the routersdoing all that automatically. It is an interesting option,but the need to configure a sub-interface for each VPNleaves a strange taste in my mouth.One of the other vendors we're working with is able toimplement Option B + IP processing, which is cool because wemaintain a single interface for all VPN's, and a single eBGPsession for all VPN's, without losing the ability to do QoS.Still checking with Cisco whether they can do this.Things get a lot more interesting when you try to inter-opNNI relationships. If Cisco can't do Option B + IPprocessing, it may make sense for us to have both a Ciscoand non-Cisco NNI router at each NNI site in order to havesmooth NNI relationships depending on what platforms ourpartners can support. Of course, we can only support twoplatforms, so work becomes trickier if our NNI partnerbrings along an unsupported device - but, it won't be theend of the world:-).Things get a lot more interesting if you want to NNI forl2vpn/VPLS services.Cheers,Mark.