I don't think I was assuming maybe the ISP changed something on that link On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Tony Gacheru <tonygacheru@gmail.com> wrote:
Or the block on the lan side is managed at 2mbps
*From:* skunkworks-bounces@lists.my.co.ke [mailto: skunkworks-bounces@lists.my.co.ke] *On Behalf Of *Thuo Wilson *Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2014 4:13 PM *To:* Skunkworks Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [Skunkworks] Network Issues
On 8 May 2014 15:56, Dennis Mugaya <mudenasi@gmail.com> wrote:
ecure-server ! ip nat inside source list 1 interface GigabitEthernet0/0 overload ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 41.57.103.253 ! ! ! snmp-server community public RO R0 snmp-server community private RW !
scheduler allocate 20000 1000
Since i don't see ACL for acl-no1 i assume you aren't using NAT but rather routed IPs - right?
Both IP (confirmed) pass via 2 different link; throughput may not be same.
You could tell the provider to get you better IPs (controversial) - of the same network/provider as WAN link IPs.
You could NAT the LAN ips to WAN and test if same throughput is achieved under NAT. Just add "access-list 1 permit 41.57.104.16 0.0.0.15
[image: Inline images 2]
[image: Inline images 1]
Kind Regards,
Wilson./
_______________________________________________ skunkworks mailing list skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
-- *Dennis MugayaNetwork AdministratorMoi Teaching & Referral Hospital*
