What new cisco router replaced the 26xx series

datchchadatchcha Member Posts: 265
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
Arrakis

Comments

  • dynamikdynamik Banned Posts: 12,312 ■■■■■■■■■□
    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.
  • datchchadatchcha Member Posts: 265
    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.
    Arrakis
  • scheistermeisterscheistermeister Member Posts: 748 ■□□□□□□□□□
    Depending on needs 1800-2800
    Give a man fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  • datchchadatchcha Member Posts: 265
    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
    Arrakis
  • tierstentiersten Member Posts: 4,505
    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.
  • datchchadatchcha Member Posts: 265
    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
    Arrakis
  • keenonkeenon Member Posts: 1,922 ■■■■□□□□□□
    take the 2800 router and keep it moving. the 2811 can handle up to 1gb flash and 768mb ram
    Become the stainless steel sharp knife in a drawer full of rusty spoons
  • datchchadatchcha Member Posts: 265
    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.
    Arrakis
  • dtlokeedtlokee Member Posts: 2,378 ■■■■□□□□□□
    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.
    The only easy day was yesterday!
  • datchchadatchcha Member Posts: 265
    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.
    Arrakis
  • rbutturinirbutturini Member Posts: 123
    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.
  • datchchadatchcha Member Posts: 265
    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.
    Arrakis
  • networker050184networker050184 Mod Posts: 11,962 Mod
    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.
    An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made.
  • datchchadatchcha Member Posts: 265
    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
    Arrakis
  • dtlokeedtlokee Member Posts: 2,378 ■■■■□□□□□□
    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.
    The only easy day was yesterday!
  • datchchadatchcha Member Posts: 265
    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
    Arrakis
  • networker050184networker050184 Mod Posts: 11,962 Mod
    Just make a static route to the interface. This will remove the route if the interface goes down.
    An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made.
  • datchchadatchcha Member Posts: 265
    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?
    Arrakis
  • dtlokeedtlokee Member Posts: 2,378 ■■■■□□□□□□
    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.
    The only easy day was yesterday!
Sign In or Register to comment.