Attempting to migrate service from T1 to Opt-E-Man service with 2811 router

[Thedocfox]

First - While my cisco experience is limited I'm attempting to learn. I becamse the default Cisco guy at our shop and while I do ok with the switches routers give me an issue. Any help for a newbie that's trying is greatly appreciated!!

We recently upgraded one of our remote facilities from their T1 line to bring them into our already existent ATT Opt-e-man service. I'm trying to get some assistance configuring the 2811 router at the remote location to flow the traffic across the opteman. I attempted to compare the port settings from one of our remote locations that's arleady on opteman to the port I"m trying to configure on the 2811, but since I'm comparing a 2960 switch to the 2811 there are some glaring differences and difficulties. Here's what I got, what I think I need to do, and where I"m failing will be conspicuously obvious

Remote site 1 - 2811. Trying to configure for opteman service

Remote site 2 - 2960. Already configured for Opteman, and using as a point of reference for configuration

(IP Address changed to protect the innocent)

Remote site 1 fa0/1 port config (for opteman):

interface FastEthernet0/1

ip address 10.10.10.106 255.255.255.252

ip pim sparse-dense-mode

duplex full

speed 10

end

Remote site 1 s0/3/0 config  (for current t1)

description T1 to MAIN

ip address 10.10.10. 255.255.255.252

ip pim sparse-dense-mode

encapsulation ppp

service-module t1 timeslots 1-24

service-policy output WAN

end

Remote site 1 desired configuration:

description UPLINK TO MAIN

switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q

switchport trunk native vlan 999

switchport trunk allowed vlan 76

switchport mode trunk

switchport nonegotiate

srr-queue bandwidth share 10 10 60 20

srr-queue bandwidth shape 10 0 0 0

priority-queue out

mls qos trust cos

auto qos voip trust

spanning-tree guard root

Remote site 2 configuraiton is the same as remote site 1 desired configuration except the allowed vlan is 84 instead of 76:

interface FastEthernet0/1

description UPLINK TO MAIN

switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q

switchport trunk native vlan 999

switchport trunk allowed vlan 84

switchport mode trunk

switchport nonegotiate

srr-queue bandwidth share 10 10 60 20

srr-queue bandwidth shape 10 0 0 0

priority-queue out

mls qos trust cos

auto qos voip trust

spanning-tree guard root

Unfortunately I"m missing the switchport command because I"m working on the router. I can't even get the encapsulation to work on the port. Is what I"m attempting to do even possible or do I just need to quit and call in a Cisco engineer for configuration assistance? I'd rather not and get the pride from learning the right way to do it.

Thanks again in advance!

THanks
Dustin

P.S. My first post to cisco forums. Apologies if I'm in the wrong thread.

[Giuseppe Larosa]

Hello Dustin,

ok step by step.

By using hierarchical QoS you can re-use your existing WAN policy on the new link using the following

policy-map SHAPE-6Mbps

class class-default

shape average 6000000

! notice the added command:

service-policy WAN

!

int fas0/1

service-policy output SHAPE-6Mbps

the WAN policy is a child policy invoked by parent policy (the shaper)

The shaper builds a logical pipe of 6 Mbps,  traffic when shaped uses the queues defined by WAN policy

if you want to read something

see

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/qos_hrhqf/configuration/12-4t/qos-hrhqf.html#GUID-CA2A2E1C-2A44-429B-A787-FA00D5575CBE

Hope to help

Giuseppe

[Thedocfox]

Ok that actually makes sense. I checked out the link too. Some of it anyway. After having your commands to compare it to in my environment and the process for the framework it makes sense..

I checked my running config and my show policy-map for the fa0/1 interface and it appears everything applied successfully. I'm going to head down there swap the cables and see what happens.

Thank you again for all of your help! I'll respond back as soon as I know.

[Thedocfox]

Well this did not work. Unfortunately when I changed over and unshut the interface I lost all my routes. I'd be happy to send you my output log from the switchover, but at this point I am going to have to call Cisco and have them assign an engineer. Not saying you can't do it it's just that I used my two shots to get it up and running. It is just really dissapointing. I really thought after the instruction you gave me that I had it.

If you'd still like to see the log though let me know and I'll be happy to give you a copy to see if you can pinpoint where I went wrong! I appreciate all of your help!!

Thanks
Dustin

[Giuseppe Larosa]

Hello Dustin,

>> Unfortunately when I changed over and unshut the interface I lost all my routes

I''m sorry that you haven't been able to terminate the migration successfully.

I encourage you to send the logs of the switchover.

However, if there are strict time requirements to complete the migration it is wise to ask for an engineer to be assigned to the task as you are going to do.

I should have suggested a less intrusive method for attempting the migration using offset lists to increase the received and transmitted metric of routes exchanged on the new link.

access-list 11 permit any

router rip

offset-list 11 in 5 fas0/1

offset-list 11 out 5 fas0/1

! this adds 5 to metric of received and sent routes on the new link

To understand what didn't work you should have checked the following:

- was the peer address on the new link reachable 1010.10.105 ?

if it is not reachable, does an ARP entry exists in the router for this specific IP address?

- if it was reachable was an RIP neighbor detected on the link ?

Or you faced basic connectivity issues on the new link (more likely), or the RIP neighborship didn't formed for missing the counter part configuration, or missing or mismatched authentication information.

Hope to help

Giuseppe

[Thedocfox]

Well I had a cisco engineer out at the facility yesterday. AFter working with him and confirming everything was set up correctly we got ATT on the phone. Turns out they were wrapping the packets in an incorrect vlan. As soon as we got them to change to the correct vlan they should have been things started flowing wonderfully.

THank you again for all of your help!!! You have no idea how appreciative I am!!

Thanks

Dustin

[Horacio Gutierrez]

Hello Giuseppe, 

why do you configure the port as sub interface and encapsulation?