What new cisco router replaced the 26xx series

datchcha

What new Cisco Routers replaced the 29xx series? Looking at getting a 1841, but i am not sure if this will be enough for my network of 50 -80 users with 2 T1s.

thanks

dynamik

You mean 2600s? The 2900s are the switches. I'm not familiar with the ISRs, but I believe the 2800 series are the next step up from the 2600s.

datchcha

dynamik wrote:

You mean 2600s? The 2900s are the switches. I'm not familiar with the ISRs, but I believe the 2800 series are the next step up from the 2600s.

Opps, you got me...yes i ment the 2600...thanks for looking at for me.

scheistermeister

Depending on needs 1800-2800

datchcha

scheistermeister wrote:

Depending on needs 1800-2800

I need to get the WIC DSU/CSU card which supprts 2x T1, so i can load balance. What i am unsure of is the scale ability. Not really worried about VOIP right now, but i know the 2800 will be better in the longer run since VOIP most likley will be on in my future. Would a 1841 with a 2-port T1 card be enough for a office of 80 users?

thank you

tiersten

No. The 1841 is only rated for E1/T1 speeds. It will do more but thats just if its doing basic NAT + routing. Turn on IPS or anything else and it'll drop like a stone. The 2800 ISRs can all cope with multiple E1/T1s.

If you actually want the router to do voice then you have to get a 2800 series. 1800 doesn't support voice. If you want all 80 users then you'll need the 2851 at a minimum handle that many.

datchcha

tiersten wrote:

No. The 1841 is only rated for E1/T1 speeds. It will do more but thats just if its doing basic NAT + routing. Turn on IPS or anything else and it'll drop like a stone. The 2800 ISRs can all cope with multiple E1/T1s.

If you actually want the router to do voice then you have to get a 2800 series. 1800 doesn't support voice. If you want all 80 users then you'll need the 2851 at a minimum handle that many.

I am just getting into the game, but how do you judge how much a the Router can handle? I understand the DRAM and Flash, and how your config and ISO in flash takes up space, but i still do not know how to judge what solution i will need.

can you offer and pointers?
thank you

keenon

take the 2800 router and keep it moving. the 2811 can handle up to 1gb flash and 768mb ram

datchcha

I am looking at the 2801 at this point, and i will add 2x WIC-1DSU-T1-V2 cards, so i can load balance between two different ISPs. Is this a good solution for my implentation? I am upgrading from a 2500 series with a stand alone DSU/CSU, so anythign is big upgrade.

dtlokee

How do you plan to load balance? Two static routes? If you are planning on using BGP then the 2800's may not be enough.

datchcha

dtlokee wrote:

How do you plan to load balance? Two static routes? If you are planning on using BGP then the 2800's may not be enough.

I was going to use BGP, but i also found this article on Cisco.com, which shows how to run EIGRP over Frame-Relay, so that might be another option.

rbutturini

I do know of one of our clients that use EIGRP over frame and it works really well. It's not terribly resouce intensive on the router either. That's the route I would go.

datchcha

rbutturini wrote:

I do know of one of our clients that use EIGRP over frame and it works really well. It's not terribly resouce intensive on the router either. That's the route I would go.

Most likly this was what i was going to do, and cut back the bandwidth EIGRP uses, since i will only be my site and the ISPs, but i am still working out the details.

networker050184

Is this a multisite implementation?

If not you are not going to need an IGP over the WAN. You could just use static routes, but if you want granularity and best routing you will need the BGP.

datchcha

networker050184 wrote:

Is this a multisite implementation?

If not you are not going to need an IGP over the WAN. You could just use static routes, but if you want granularity and best routing you will need the BGP.

No, this implementation is going to be for one site. Office <---Frame-Relay--->ISP, which will be for both links.

Static routes would work, but don't i lose the ability for redundency? I am only guessing i do not know. Because a while back i remember reading somethign about redundecy on static routes, and that i would have to get the ISP to allow ICMP packets to respond back. I could be wrong...

thank you

dtlokee

You can use static routes and rely on the line protocol state to determine if the route should be in the routing table, or you can also tie a ip sla configuration to the static route that will ping the other side and remove the route from the table if the pings fail.

datchcha

dtlokee wrote:

You can use static routes and rely on the line protocol state to determine if the route should be in the routing table, or you can also tie a ip sla configuration to the static route that will ping the other side and remove the route from the table if the pings fail.

"rely on the line protocol state to determine if the route should be in the routing table", i like the sound of this. CAn you tell me more ? How do I implement this? thank you

networker050184

Just make a static route to the interface. This will remove the route if the interface goes down.

datchcha

networker050184 wrote:

Just make a static route to the interface. This will remove the route if the interface goes down.

With static routes and load balance wouldn't this be per-destination, and only load balancing out of my network?

dtlokee

well there is more to it than just throwing in some static routes, you will need to configure policy nat so the router will translate your inside addresses to the correct address provided by your ISP. You will not want to use per packet load sharing as this will lead to packets being distributed over the two links even though they are part of the same flow.

Like networker said, if you create static default routes to the frame-relay point to point sub interfaces, they will be removed when the interface drops.