Cisco routing with redudancy

Discussion in 'Networking' started by Danimal1209, Oct 31, 2012.

  1. Danimal1209

    Danimal1209 Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Take a look at this beautiful network topology I have laid out here. Question is at the end.

    [​IMG]

    I need a way for R1 and R2 to route to the internet through ASA1 normally,
    and through ASA2 if ASA1 fails.

    Would it be ok to have ASA1 and ASA2 both advertise 0.0.0.0 and just forward to the gateway? So, lets say under normal circumstances, R1 routes to ASA1 to get to the internet. Then if ASA1 fails, the routers are updated with the link no longer being active and then will accordingly route to ASA2. Is this the correct way to do this?
     
    #1 Danimal1209, Oct 31, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads - Cisco routing redudancy Forum Date
    [Cisco Packet Tracer]Routing through switches? Networking Mar 24, 2013
    whats a good router to learn CISCO IOS and general routing on? Networking Dec 22, 2010
    cisco 3600 routing woes Networking Jan 7, 2010
    Cisco 1811 routing question Networking Oct 2, 2009
    Cisco route load balancing Networking Jul 16, 2008

  3. Cooky

    Cooky Golden Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    1,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are ASA1 & ASA2 in active/standby cluster?
    If so, routing redundancy is achieved as part of the normal ASA fail-over process.
    As long as the routers & ASA's peer w/ each other, you shouldn't need to do anything extra to achieve redundancy.
     
  4. Danimal1209

    Danimal1209 Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure what that means.

    Actually, ASA1 and ASA2 are in different AS's. ASA1 is running ospf with its routers and ASA2 is running RIP with its routers. Both AS's are conncted via BGP with redistributed routes.
     
  5. m1ldslide1

    m1ldslide1 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,322
    Likes Received:
    0
    Before we talk default routing: The problem with two standalone ASA's is that they do not exchange state information. So if one ASA or its Internet link fails, the other ASA will drop return traffic since the sessions were not established through it initially. This will resolve itself eventually, but will cause significant user impact.

    In my opinion you are better off running OSPF throughout, setting up the ASA's as active/standby (preferably in transparent mode), and then redistributing a default route from BGP into OSPF on both border routers. Is this possible? Why RIP? Why have the ASA's running a routing protocol at all? Why are the ASA's set up independently from each other?
     
  6. Danimal1209

    Danimal1209 Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is for class.

    In this scenario, the two networks are supposed to be a corporate office and a remote office. If one of the ASA's goes down then an office is supposed to route its traffic through to the other office. When I am doing this in class, both of the ASA's are connected in to the same switch.