this router (RV016v3, Firmware: v4.1.1.01-sp (Dec 6 2011 20:03:18)) in regards to it not properly directing UDP packets out of the right WAN, as per the settings stored in Protocol Binding section of [System Management, Multi-WAN].I use the section to direct all traffic from desktop computers (192.168.5.100 ~ 192.168.5.199) through WAN4, and all VoIP related traffic (192.168.5.200 ~ 192.168.5.239) through WAN2(PPPoE).Everything seems to be working well except for some of the UDP traffic from 192.168.5.200 which is seen in the log going out of WAN4 instead of WAN2.I have even created a new entry for [UDP/5060~5060]->192.168.5.200~192.168.5.200(0.0.0.0~255.255.255.255)WAN2, and placed it at the very top of the list.Here are a few lines that I've observed in the log: (Refreshed the registration of two SIP Trunks configured in our PBX)
Feb 23 18:11:47 2012 Connection Accepted UDP 192.168.5.200:5060->184.72.227.214:5060 on eth4
Feb 23 18:11:46 2012 Connection Accepted UDP 192.168.5.200:5060->50.56.59.168:5060 on ppp2
Feb 23 18:11:46 2012 Connection Accepted UDP 192.168.5.200:5060->184.72.227.214:5060 on eth4
Feb 23 18:11:46 2012 Connection Accepted UDP 192.168.5.200:5060->50.56.59.168:5060 on ppp2
There are no static routes configured, so i'm baffled by what could cause some of the UDP packets to go through the wrong WAN.All TCP Traffic from 192.168.5.200 is seen going though WAN2 as it should.
We have a RV016 load balancing between two broadband WAN connections. On protocols that are sensitive to a change in IP address such as ssh and https, if the client connection goes inactive for a short time (sometimes as short as 10 seconds), the RV016 often changes WAN connection as part of its "load balancing" feature. Most protocols do not even notice, but the more sensitive protocols do and often lock a session or timeout the session which is not a good thing.
We have been able to bind these sensitive protcolols to a particular WAN port but (in our minds) this is not an "ideal" situation. In fact I would consider this to be a broken "load balancing" solution and should be fixed.
I have several RV16 with two internet connections each one, but different speed each wan connection, it takes the slowest wan connection allways, I use the round robin option, any clue in configuring?
We have a network topology like 2821 router with MPLS link and 881 Router with DSL Connection(DMVPN).
MPLS Link runs in BGP DSL Connection runs in EIGRP.
So the existing scenario is like When ever MPLS link goes down Traffic will be moved to DSL connection. and once it come again it will be moved back to DSL using HSRP we are doing this. in this case most of the times my DSL connection will be in standby mode.Now my management decided to use both the links in active state and want to do some load balance between the links for some specific traffic like Internet, WSUS Updates, Antivirus updates need to go through the DSL connection even the MPLS is up and running.
I have a rv042 router with two internet connections. I have setp the WAN1 and WAN2 and set the load balance mode. Surfing on internet is then not a problem and I checked that I was using the two internet connection.However if I try to connect to my corporate (OWA) outlook web access i am looping on the first page where I should provide my credentials.I know that most of the load balancer could be set up with a sticky bit to keep the session on the same WAN connection.
I bought one of these I am very disappointed by the management interface which is very limited/restricitve.I completely agree with Antonio here. In my case, most of my traffic is HTTPS sobinding https ports to a given WAN port makes the load balancing completely useless!!I also hope there will be a software update including the possibility to keep the session on the same WAN connection.
Our office of 40 employees has two internet connections: a fractional T1 (1.5Mbps up, 1.5 down) and an ADSL (386Kbps up, 6Mbps down). I have our RV082 configured in load balancing mode. Most of the high-bandwidth upstream protocols are bound to the T1 (FTP, SMTP, etc). HTTP is bound to the DSL in order to give users the fastest download experience.Things get fouled up when users attempt to upload via http (for instance, Youtube, Facebook, and Yousendit.com). Since the router recognizes the traffic as HTTP, it sends it up the very slow DSL line. Not only does the user experience long upload times, but downstream http traffic effectively grinds to a halt, due to the nature of ADSL (maximum download speed while uploading is 386kbps).
We are looking at purchasing and RV042 soon and have one cruitcial question. I am looking at having two internet connections running into the RV042. The only load balancing is going to be that all the VOIP traffic will go through one connection (eg WAN2) and then have all other traffic (such as web and email) through WAN1.
I am looking to have it so that if one of the internet connections goes down then it will failover EVERYTHING to the one that is working so both the VOIP and all the other traffic share the same connection until both WANs then go back online.
I have dual WAN connections on rv042G in "office 1". LAN is 192.168.10.x
A gateway to gateway VPN is made with another "office 2" on rv042G too.
The goal is to reach the LAN of the other "office 2" : 192.168.5.x
Working good. Now I need to use protocol binding : One LAN ip need to use WAN 2 : All traffic :192.168.10.77~77(0.0.0.0~0.0.0.0)WAN2 -> Working
The rest of LAN should use WAN 1 (same as the VPN) When I create this rules, I can't reach the "office 2" LAN : All traffic : 192.168.10.100~150(0.0.0.0~0.0.0.0)WAN1
We have tried a variety of options in an attempt to use Load Balancing (Protocol Binding) with an RV082 that has a site to site IPsec tunnel with another RV082. Both are v3.
Here is the issue. We have dual ISPs, one has great bandwidth, but we incur overages. The other has mediocre bandwidth, but has unlimited usage.
GROUP1 - We want most PCs to use the "unlimited" ISP for general surfing, email, etc. (Bound all ports for range of internal IPs to ANY dest to WAN1)
GROUP2 - We want to use the "faster" ISP for our VPN tunnel (mostly RDP and SIP traffic). (Bound all ports for range of internal IPs to ANY dest to WAN2)
So far everything works. The router will route traffic appropriately and GROUP 1 uses WAN1 and GROUP 2 uses WAN2.
Unfortunately, sometimes GROUP1 users need access to resources over the VPN (WAN2).
There is something not right with the routing. For example GROUP1 can ping and receive responses from devices on the other side of the tunnel, but GROUP1 can't access intranet sites on the other side of the tunnel. They also can't RDP to PCs on the other side of the tunnel.
Why does the router correctly route ICMP, but not RDP?
We've tried adding additional protocol binding rules for specific ports(80, 3389, etc) and ip ranges (both local and remote) to see if we could force GROUP1 traffic destined via VPN through WAN2, but it doesn't work.
Shouldn't VPN tunnels created and configured in the RVs not adhere to protocol binding? It just seems logical to me, but maybe I am missing something.
i'm trying to accomplish the following:I want to trasport a bunch of vlan layer 2 etherchannel on a pair of layer3 connections, using L3 to load balance.i was considering a pair of options:
1) bridging + gre (non applicable since i cant bridge 2 interface beloging to a etherchannel to a tunnel)
2) L2TP is it possible to accomplish this with the above tecnology? any reference, configuration example?
3) AoMLPS is it possible to accomplish this with the above tecnology ? any reference, configuration example?
I cant modify topology, the routers used are ASR1001 It is mandatory that both sites have a layer2 connection between them.
I have a Cisco 2811 router with two HWIC-ADSL cards configured for dsl connection. I have two lines from the same ISP and i am load balancing between them. I have created a couple of SLA's to check the state of the connections and add to the routing table the two default routes if both are up or any one of them is up.My problem is that when i try to download big files (especially antivirus updates) the download at some point stops (especially the antivirus exits with an error of unreachability). If i shut down one line everything works fine.Could i use something (configuration-wise) to prevent this problem from happening?????Is there any way i can combine the two lines? They are simple ADSL connctions with static ip's.
One of our customer just purchased ASR1002 router, they have three internet links from different ISPs and they dont have any remote site, they have three different public IP pool as their respective ISPs. So, is it possible to load balance the internet traffic using all three link on Cisco ASR router ( IOS - Advance Enterprise Services)
I need to configure DSL Load Balancing on Core Cisco Switch 4506-E. I have a Router Cisco 2811 with 2GE Ports and a Firewall Cisco ASA5505. I have 8 Physical DSL Connections with 1Mb each. I need to combine that 8 Mb on Core Switch and allow each end user to access the Internet via the available DSL connection which means that every user has 8 Mb available.
We have an ASA5520 pair that we will be installing to load balance SSLVPN connections. Below is a portion of our configs pertaining to the VPN load-balancing feature (configured on both ASAs):My specific question is related to routing of return traffic to load-balanced VPN sessions. Is there some kind of persistence function that tells the return traffic which ASA to route back to? For instance, if ASA1 has a VPN connection having IP address 10.211.112.1 associated to it, and ASA2 has a VPN connection having IP address 10.211.112.100, how does the return traffic for each connection know which ASA to route back to?
Currently we have deployed site to site vpn between 2 asa 5510 model. one is corporate site and one is remote site. now we plan to use radware load balancer in which 2 isp will terminate. now if at a remote site wecreate only 1 ipsec tunnel and mention sigle isp peering. if one isp fails at corporate how remote site will be access by site to site vpn through 2 isp vpn. what thing we need to do over asa as well as load balancer at both end.
We have Cisco CSS 11501 and connected in One-Arm way.Currently there are 4 source sending traffic and 3 server to receive the request. We are using Advance-balancing with Source IP. So the ratio become 2:1:1 or 1:2:1 or 1:1:2.But our target is to do the load balancing in equal ratio.
I want to load balance my Internet traffic between two ASR 1001 routers that are connected to our core switches. Both routers are connected to the same ISP (Comcast) going to the same BGP AS on different /30 subnets. Is there a way for me to load balance my Internet traffic using both connections with BGP rather than having one of these connections sitting idle? If not, the only solution I see is to configure my layer 3 devices to split internet traffic between both routers (i.e. default routes with same AD).
I have two Internet connections which are connected to two ISR 2951s. Also I have two ASAs 5545-Xs, which I want to use in Active/Active failover mode with multicontext. The question is: how can I configure ASAs to perform ISP load-balancing as well?
I came up with a few ideas to Load Balance based on multiple ISPs. In our network setup we have a distribution layer of 3750s going to an ASR 1000 Series Router, which goes out to multiple ISPs, ISP1 and ISP2.
we also have a virtual fortinet appliance behind the 3750. If I say all traffic going to 0 - 126 goto ISP1, and 128 - 254 goto ISP2,and then obviously whatever NATd IP the customer has (ISP1 or ISP2), the return traffic will have to go to that specific IP. The traffic will allgo back to the virtual fortinet on the same interface, so I would assume I would be safe with uPF.I don't know of any ways to load balance based on Link Optimization, without implementing a load balancer?
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
We have two asa5520 configured as primary and standby unit in fail over configuration, and all is working properly. Is it possible, with this configuration (fail over), to configure vpn load balancing/clustering?
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 an ASA5510 with two ADSL lines connected and the auto fail-over set up - this is all tested and if the main line fails, the backup line is used in it's place - no problem there.
However, I'd like to increase our connection speed, and one way I've done this in the past is to add a couple of extra ADSL lines to a router that is capable of load balancing.
I'm aware that the ASA5510 does not load balance (seems a waste as we've got the backup line just sitting there doing nothing!), but would it be feasible to add another router in front of the ASA device to perform this load balancing function?
I'm running an ACE 4700 appliance, i have a 4 server serverfarm setup, non-ssl, with leastconns predictor...i have tried round robin as well, and nothing...
I've taken each rserver out of service, and placed back in, and still, the traffic is handed off only to 1 server...
I'm workig with a friend on a project. The setup in place is on yacht that has 4 V-Sats and they are wanting to load balance across all four of these links via a Cisco 2911. My recommendation to him was to just create 4 static default routes to each V-SAT's ip address.
Would this accomplish the goal of load balancing? My concern is that would it actually load balance amongst the 4 links or just choose one and then move other to another link once the initial primary went down? Also would enabling CEF be an option if its a feature the 2911 can do? I've attached the visio to give a better idea.
Is it possible to enable load balancing for a particular group of APs and disabled for the rest. Perhaps AP groups. Running 8500 WLC with 3600 series APs. It will enhance the service concurrent user capacities for areas with a high device count.
