RIP, Link Failure, and IP SLA 2

[tNscheffer]

I have asked a few questions here regarding one of my ongoing network designs and have received some very helpful answers. I now have another question (or two). (BTW, I don't require EIGRP or OSPF on this network, RIP can handle it just fine)

When using RIP, it is my understanding that when a route is removed from the table due to a link going down, when the link comes back up, the route will be automatically reinstated, whereas if it were a static route it would have to be re-added manually.

I plan on using a combination of RIP, floating static routes, and IP SLA tracking to ensure transparent failover connectivity (from one set of WAN links to another) in the event of a physical or logical link failure.

My question is, does IP SLA tracking remove AND reinstate static routes? Basically, I want to know if I could eliminate RIP all together and just use IP SLA to ensure that the static routes are removed when in the event of a link failure and reinstated when the link comes back up (either logically or physically). Please let me know thanks.

 

[unclerico]

does IP SLA tracking remove AND reinstate static routes?

yep

I want to know if I could eliminate RIP all together and just use IP SLA to ensure that the static routes are removed when in the event of a link failure and reinstated when the link comes back up (either logically or physically)

it all depends on your network design. As Vince stated in your other thread, if you have your network designed correctly all you'll need is a single summary route added to your routing table. if, on the other hand, you have a whole boat load of different network ranges running maintaining the static routes gets to be a pain and then you need to employ dynamic routing to ease your administration. so, yes, you could potentially eliminate RIP all together from your design and to be honest, when you're talking about achieving near transparent failover RIP is most definitely not the routing protocol of choice

I hate all Uppercase... I don't want my groups to seem angry at me all the time! =)
- ColdFlame (vbscript forum)

 

[tNscheffer]

Thank you. I very much appreciate it.

 

[burtsbees]

Then star the man!

/

tim@tim-laptop ~ $ sudo apt-get install windows
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package windows...Thank Goodness!

 

[tNscheffer]

Oops, I was unaware of this feature. I have begun "starring" others as well. Thanks.

 

[tNscheffer]

Unclerico...I am unable (at least from my understanding) to use a simple summary route as I will have both an internet connection and a private line (to the rest of the internal network) at each site. For this, it is my understanding that I would need to use the summary route for internet traffic and, thus, would not be able to use it for routing to the other sites through the private line. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Thanks again.

 

[VinceWhirlwind]

You use a default route for your internet traffic pointing at the internet, and a summary route for all your internal network pointing at your WAN link (if the IP addressing scheme is sensible).

 

[tNscheffer]

<---Stupid LOL! My addressing scheme is already setup in a way that supports this. Duh. I'm so used to small One-Site networks that I completely forgot about this feature. Thanks!!!!!

 

[JPancrazio]

tNscheffer did u get this all worked out?.. I am working on the same thing and would like some help.. I have a c/o and 3 remote locations with a MPLS connection and a internet connection with a DVPN tunnel set up, i would like to create failover for the mpls to goto the tunnel if on of the mpls goes down.. i am using bgp on the MPLS and eigrp/static on the WAN and network.. Any help would be great, thanks!