I'm trying to design a CSS configuration that allows servers in the same vlan to be the source and destination of load-balanced traffic. My thought is to add two new vlans, one for the VIPs and one for the servers, then NAT the source IPs going from the LB to the servers.
Is this the right way to do it?I've never NATted using CSSs, so I wanted to verify what I'm thinking.Our current config trunks the vlans -
We have two Cisco ACE 4710 and we want to install both of the devices in HA with load balancing mode.While i have done HA mode configuration between ACE 4710.But unable to configure load balancing configuration between them.i want to tell you connectivity between server,client & loadbalancer.Our Web servers are connected to VLAN 152 on the L3 (3750) switch.Which are alreday working in redundancy between other L3.And ACE 4710 it is also connected to vlan 150 which are connected to same L3 (3750) switches and users are also connected to vlan 6 on the same L3 itself.
I have already raised this discussion on "LAN, Switching and Routing" group. But I guess this is the right group for my queries. So I am sending my queries in this group again.
We are using CSS 11503 with one 16FE line card. We have connected 3 servers with redundant link. So FE1-2 in Server1, FE 3-4 in Server2 and FE5-6 in Server3. Our system team has configured APA in their servers as they are using HP-Ux.
1) Do we need to do any configuration at line card.
2) Do we need to do ether-channel at loadbalancer end. if yes, can you share me any cisco doc on how to do it.
I've done a lot of ACE work over the years but this is the first time this has ever come up.
I have a request from an application group where I have 3 rserver in the server farm but they want all traffic to only go to the first server unless that server fails. If the first server fails, only then do they want traffic to go to the 2nd server instead and if that fails, then traffic goes to the 3rd.
I've read through the documentation but haven't figured out a way to do this. What to do this type of failover configuration?
SIP Load balancing Issue with ACE 4710?I have a Cisco ace 4710 with vesion Version A4(2.2). i configued simple SIP load balancing first without stickiness. without stikeiness we are having a problem because bye packet at the was not going to the same server all the time that left our port in used even though user hang up the phone. its happen randmly. i have a total 20 licenced ports and its fill out very quickly. so i dicided to use the stickiness with call-ID but still same issue. below is the config
rserver host CIN-VOX-31 ip address 172.20.130.31 inservice rserver host CIN-VOX-32 ip address 172.20.130.32 inservice
To start with following is our architectural request flow:
Load Balancer --> Webseal /(reverse proxy) --> HTTP Server --> Portal Server
We have Hardware Load Balancer Cisco ACE20. When we access our portal from Webseal server it works totally fine without any issue, but when we access the same application using ACE we face the following issues:
1) Some of the links on do not work. For eg: We have a link "subscribe" which points to [URL], whenever we click on this link, the request is directed to [URL] i.e homepage
2) URL redirection does not work We have some links which have a url forwarding or redirection for example when we open [URL] it forwards the requests to [URL] opendocument....., but this redirection fails and again the request is thrown to homepage i.e., [URL]
3) The response of the request and the overall portal when accessed via ACE is very sluggish and it takes 20 seconds for homepage to load, whereas the homepage loads in 4 secs when accessed via webseal.
We have a pair of CSS 11501,Currently it is using source ip for load balancing and 5 servers as backend , however we have users loggin in using http and based on its source IP (ISP PROXY) , it is forwarded to SERVER A.However, we have a SSL page and when the client switches over to SSL , it is forwarded to SERVER B/C/D/E based on its source IP ( REAL CLIENT IP) .This will cause the user to be terminated as the 5 servers are independent and not running in a cluster.
Is there any way that we can use the X-Forwarded-For address to load balance so that when users loging , they are sent to SERVER A (Based on X-Forwarded-For Header IP which translate to REAL CLIENT IP).This way we are able to also send it back to the same server when it uses SSL.I believe that we should be able to load balance using X-Forwarded-For IP or to rewrite the X-Forwarded-For IP into client source IP.
is there a possibility to get a load balancing across two rservers so: when client sends http://vip/ and it goes to rserver1 then url is sent without change when client sends http://vip/ and it goes to rserver2 then url is modified to http://vip/xyz/
Or maybe load balancing can be done across two serverfarms ?
I am performing a deployment, in which i require clarity on the following. Our setup has DC and DR , in each site we have two devices for HA.We have received One SSL Certificate from Public CA, Kindly clarify the following doubts i have on thisIn Doc, i found Cert.pem and key.pem is required to generate the pair ,do i receive both Cert.pem and key.pem from the CA or we can generate key.pem from Cert.pem ?SSL Offloading is planned for the X application, and it is running in both DC and DR ( Considering each having their own Public IP address ) , do i need to have two different public certificates or a single certificate can i use in both DC and DR.Load Balancing IssueIs it possible to configure in ACE to access the service in Business hours and in non Business hours to display HTML page showing this is available only during these hours ?In DC we have Three Web Servers ( only in One physical server the service is active, other two are backup ), and these three servers are under cluster and shares one cluster IP , In ACE we have created the VIP and Pointed to only Cluster IP ( like pass through only ). The issue we face is if active web server is down, even then ACE is sending the traffic to that webserver only instead of sending it to the new Active web server. let us know if any solution is there to overcome this issue ?as per my understanding instead of giving cluster IP as real server IP we can issue the three physical servers. now i dont require load balancing between three servers instead require failover king like if first server is down then it should forward to Second server ?
We are in the situation we have a active configuration with ACE30 doing normal load balancing in routed mode, we have tons of rservers going out on a VIP.we now had to add a new private network to a provider that strangely enough does not want to see our public or private addresses. we need to loadbalance towards him on a priovided subnet (still rfc1918) (IOS VRF bug? is that correct?)I have two options, add the network (new interface) to the active loadbalancers (contexts) and then tie in new policies to the active serverfarms or make a new context just to load balance towards this provider.(preferred)Now - If I do this, the rservers see the client source addresses from this new provider. as the loadbalancer does not "hide" the client IP's. I would then have to add static routers toward the new context - I would want to skip that.
is there a way, to make the loadbalancer hide the client addresses towards the rservers ? perhaps I'm just needing the correct search term to find the config example.
So for example rserver1 and rserver2 are put in serverfarm production1 and are in use with particular sticky and load balancing settings.
Can I then create serverfarm test_production and put both rserver1 and rserver2 in it? Then play around with the sticky and load balancing settings as a test without affecting the production serverfarm.
I have a number of web sites that are currently being load balanced by CSS 11503s runninng 8x code. I was recently requested to configure HTTP --> HTTPS redirects on the CSS for every site. In the past, I have only configured the redirects for sites that had a requirement. Now it appears that the server teams want all content encrypted.
1) What impact will this have on the CPU? 2) What impact will this have on Memory utilization? 3) Is there a maximum nubmer on redirects? 4) Are there other things I should be concerned about?
i have two CSS-11503 in redundant mode running 8.20 code. We had an incident in our network where a layer 2 loop caused some high traffic through the CSS' and had to shutdown some network gear(including the CSS) to clear the problem. When the CSS' were powered back up, the SSL service was suspended, why this would occur? There rest of the config appeared normal. I am the only person on these boxes, the configs were written, and I have never had a reason to suspend the ssl service.
We now have a new requirement . We are replacing existing pair of CSS with ACE 4710 appliances. The problem here is that I can see from the configuration that some SSL certificate installed in CSS .Is it possible to transfer the existing SSL certificate from the 11503 to the ACE? Or, do we need to generate a new key pair and CSR on the ACE? Is there any document available to know the steps for the same.
We have several pairs of CSS11501 and 11503 in our network.This issue affects only one pair of CSS11503 in one of our data centres. [code] We use vrrp in one-armed mode for load balancing and they units have performed great for a number of years. We're obviously going to be migrating to ACE ... but not just yet.We have started to experience a problem with replicating the configurations between two CSS11503 in a pair.When running the commit-VipRedundConfig, it starts off happily enough, though slowly.Ending with "working" and the spinning cursor, even after 1 hour the script hasn't completed.We noted on the backup CSS that the APP configuration disappears during the process and I can't remember if this is normal behaviour.
Re-adding the app session configuration seems to interrupt the process, and when checking the configuration on the backup CSS approximately half of it is missing. Everything after the first owner is gone.
1. Configuration is too large, or just large enough to make the commit script take too long for realistic service. 2. Software bug? 3. Combination of both. 4. From now on manually add config to both CSS's and maintain it by process management.
I only have configured load balancing on apache with a very simple setup. I have to deploy 2 applications on my clients environment that run inside jboss. One of these applications needs session to be sticky to work properly. The other does not.
In apache I can configure is the sticky parameter is true or false, based on the url, like /appA/* is sticky and /appB/* is not sticky. Can I do that in a CSS 11503? My client insists that it is impossible. That the CSS is only ip based.
I copied the configuration below from the manual: owner arrowpoint # content ruleWapSticky
I have a single cisco 11503 load balancer.There is a single Banner student information system which is load balanced on it with Virtual ip 10.3.20.101 which is working fine without any issues .I am now trying to add an Oracle ERP application with virtual IP 10.3.20.230 and physical ips 10.3.19.22 and 10.3.19.23 all on port 8003.When I just make the group ERP-Apps-Grp active , the vitual ip address 10.3.20.230 is pingable , but when I make the the content Erp_IAT active it stops pinging. [code]
content My_Group add service blade1 add service blade2 add service blade3 vip address 184.108.40.206 advanced-balance arrowpoint-cookie
So I have 3 blades which are proxy servers and user go first to an MS ISA server then the VIP of the CSS and then the rules processes them give them a blade and chuck them out onto the Internet.
I want to leave the above rule, but remove one blade create an additional content group with that blade and have it process requests for a particular site so, I would create the following
content My_Group2 add service blade3 vip address 220.127.116.11 advanced-balance arrowpoint-cookie
So my question is can I do that having the same VIP's etc so if a request comes in and it matches www.thewebsite.com that the second content rule matches it 'better' and therefore processes it or would it still be caught by the "/*" content group. I don't want to create more VIPS as I have a real ache getting firewall rules done.
I'm not sure if my terminology is correct when using hairpinning but i was wondering if there is any special config needed when you try to access a content rule VIP from a server that's configured as a member of a source group on the same CSS?
So say i have a content rule with a VIP 18.104.22.168 and i also have two servers 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.1.2 that are part of a source group with VIP of 22.214.171.124. My problem at the moment is if from the servers 192.168.1.x i try to ping the other VIP 126.96.36.199 that's configured on the same CSS then it doesn't work and ping fails. The same happens with HTTP traffic to the 188.8.131.52 VIP.
I would have thought that the NAT of the source group would happen before the routing so the 192.168.1.x IP's would be natted to 184.108.40.206 and then passed over for routing where the CSS would see that the VIP 220.127.116.11 is local and it would send it on it's way.
I thought it might be ACL related but i increased the verbosity of acl logging and couldn't see anything in the logs.The source group works fine on it's own and from the CSS itself i can ping the 18.104.22.168 VIP fine. It just seems that from the source group members i can't ping the VIP.
I have a CSS 11503 with a basic content rule for TCP 10000 going to a few backend servers. I was looking into the default timeout values for flows and when testing using telnet the flow didn't terminate as expected?
For example, i have no 'timeout multiplier' specified in the config and when i look at the output of 'show flow-timeout default' it tells me the default 16 seconds timeout is in effect for *. With that in mind, i telnet to the content rule vip on TCP 10000 and on the backend server using wireshark i can see the TCP threeway handshake. With no data passing i'd expect the CSS to terminate this flow after 16 seconds.. yet it takes exactly 128 seconds before wireshark shows the RST and the flow is terminated. 128 being 8 times the default 16 second flow timeout.
If i try to force the connection to close early by specifiying 'flow-timeout-multiplier 2' in the content rule, or even a multiplier of 40, it still waits 128 seconds to close the telnet connection.
We have a pair of CSS 11503 installed in our DC. Stickiness is configured for one of the application since long back and was working pretty fine till last couple of months. Since last two months, we observed that CSS is not distributing sessions the way it suppose to be. Mostly, it forwards the session to same server even though request is coming from different sources. Once we refresh the sessions manually, it starts working fine. We have to do this exercise manually every alternate day.