Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: (ASCEND) Multiple MAXen w/o OSPF?

If you only use RIP for you Maxen (like we do because of the unstable
OSPF), then you could change your timers for the RIP in the Cisco. Thats
the way we do it and it works now for about 4 months without any crashes
:-). Here are the commands for you cisco:
router rip xxxx
timers basic 30 180 5 240
which means: Interval between updates / Invalid / Holddown (which is
normaly 180) / Flush

Hope that helps

Daniel Nussbaum
TIC The Internet Company LTD
dn@tic.ch
http://www.tic.ch

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von:	Rogers, Kirk [SMTP:KirkR@trant.sp.trw.com]
> Gesendet am:	Samstag, 21. Februar 1998 16:57
> An:	'ascend-users@max.bungi.com'
> Betreff:	(ASCEND) Multiple MAXen w/o OSPF?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, is there anyone out there using more than 1 MAX
> on a single LAN segment (sharing the work load with multiple PRI's)
> and
> NOT using OSPF (got to be several I'm sure)?  I have a situation where
> I
> need to utilize two MAXen side by side running Appletalk and IP (thus
> the MAX cannot run OSPF), but I also need to connect it to a Cisco
> running OSPF to the rest of our network.  
> We currently are using RIPV2 on both MAXen and the Cisco which is kind
> of...well, limping along.  We've been experiencing connection delays
> (up
> to 30 seconds) with user IP sessions due to the RIPV2 updates and
> router
> suppressed hold times, so we came up with a scenario to override the
> problem.
> The Cisco (router A) is directly connected to both MAXen (routers B
> and
> C).  In Cisco (router A), we added static route entry's (with a higher
> metric than default) for all subnets related to the dialup clients,
> and
> pointed it to MAX (router b).  In MAX (router b), we added the same
> static routes (again, with a higher metric than default) to point to
> MAX
> (router C).  Anyone dialing into MAX (router C) gets connected and
> immediately gets an IP session (via default route from A to B to C,
> until RIPV2 kicks in to optimize a direct connection from A to C).  If
> he losses his connection and then reestablishes within a minute or
> two,
> the static entry's kick in (overriding the RIPV2 hold down timers) and
> the user gets his packets (via A to B to C).  The hold down timers
> expire after ~180 seconds at which time he then gets his packets
> directly from Cisco (router A).
> Now, if someone dials into MAX (router B), the session is established
> as
> before and everything appears to work.  If he looses his connection
> and
> then reestablishes within the 180 seconds, the static route kicks in
> and
> he gets his packets directly from the Cisco (router A).  The hold down
> timer expires, at which time he then the gets his packets (again)
> directly from the Cisco (router A) from the RIPV2 update.
> We are now seeing the delay times for all profiles down to a minimum
> (acceptable for the moment), but now the performance (transfer rates)
> for anyone connected to MAX (router B) has dropped ~20-30%.  As far as
> I
> can tell, the routing is correct (theoretically) but it appears the
> MAXen together are doing something with MAX B's packets.  The Cisco
> looks happy with its configuration and is sending the packets to
> either
> MAX router (depending on which MAX the call was placed).  Can anyone
> confirm this? 
> Now, I'm no routing expert but this configuration is anything but
> optimal for more than several reasons.  So, what I'm looking for is
> some
> advice from those out there with similar configurations and how you
> got
> around this issue.
> 
> TIA 
> Kirk
> 
>  
> ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
> To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to
> ascend-users-request@bungi.com
> To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>