OSPF/EIGRP ROUTE MANIPULATION

[fmugambi]

Hello Team,Family.

I have attached topology.

Is it possible to manipulate routing such that for 192.168.40.0/24 to get to remote side to use r1, and 192.168.50.0/24 to get to remote side to use r2.

Assume all interfaces are of same speed.

Thank you in advance.

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Using PBR, yes, otherwise, from what you describe, don't believe so.

BTW, you could use QoS to guarantee each of those subnets half of each path's bandwidth. Not exactly the same thing but if one link fails that guarantee still holds.

[MHM Cisco World]

this is L3VPN over MPLS 
you can try use MPLS TE if you can 

MHM

[Giuseppe Larosa]

Hello @fmugambi ,

for choicing the outgoing path based on source address you need to use Policy Based Routing PBR that needs to be applied inbound in rx direction on interfaces . In your case on core switch L3 interface to access switch if you have a L3 access switch otherwise if your access switch is L2 only on core switch SVIs of the client subnets.

You need also to provide inter VLAN routing between subnets in the same site.

You can use extended ACL for this

access-list 101 remark ACL for 192.168.40.0  to remote

access-list 101 permit ip 192.168.40.0 0.0.0.255 10.168.40.0 0.0.0.255

access-list 101 permit ip 192.168.40.0 0.0.0.255 10.168.50.0 0.0.0.255

access-list 102 remark ACL for 192.168.50.0  to remote

access-list 102 permit ip 192.168.50.0 0.0.0.255 10.168.40.0 0.0.0.255

access-list 102 permit ip 192.168.40.0 0.0.0.255 10.168.50.0 0.0.0.255

route-map PBR-40 permit 10

match ip address 101

set ip next-hop x.x.x.x

route-map PBR-50 permit 10

match ip address 102

set ip next-hop y.y.y.y

interface vlan 40

ip policy route-map PBR-40

interface vlan 50

ip policy route-map PBR-50

traffic not matching the ACLs is not dropped it is routed using standard destination based routing

Note:

x.x.x.x is the IP address of R1 on the link between core switch and R1

y.y.y.y is the IP address of R2 on the link between core switch and R2

Hope to help

Giuseppe

[MHM Cisco World]

My bad' you are correct.

Even so it l3vpn he can use mpls te for this case.

MHM

[Giuseppe Larosa]

Hello @MHM Cisco World ,

I have looked at the picture from original poster and subnets in second site are 10.168.40.0/24 and 10.168.50.0/24 so my understanding is that routing is happening between the two sites and it can eventually go via an MPLS L3 VPN but this is transparent to the customer core switches.

First site use 192.168.40.0 and 192.168.50.0 and second site 10.168.40.0 and 10.168.50.0.

Best Regards

Giuseppe

[Joseph W. Doherty]

BTW, that's how I understood the OP too.