On a Catalyst 6509 switch I have configured wccp protocol in order to redirect the Http traffic to a Bluecoat SG8100. It was working fine until a new L3 interface implementation.Thereafter I was unable to redirect the http traffic due to an error reported from the Cat6509: [code] After some checks I supposed that the problem should be the UDP 2048 port connection between the Switch and the Bluecoat while the switch L3 port and the bluecoat are on the same Lan. A deep analysis found that the WCCP protocol seems to be as follow:
-Proxy address 10.64.28.240 to Switch Port 10.64.28.250 Here I Am -Switch Port 10.64.28.250 to Proxy address 10.64.28.240 I See You -Switch Port 10.66.0.251 to Proxy address 10.64.28.240 UDP 2048 packet (dropped by firewall)
It's strange to me that the first dialog is correctly handled by the correct Cat6509 interface while the UDP packets are flowing from another Vlan interface not configured with the WCCP and apparently not involved on the protocol.Last of all the WCCP is now disabled and unusable?
I need to setup my 6509 with PBR going to two different Firewalls. The 6509 has vlans and multiple serial interfaces. What/where do I install the policy-maps? I want to direct one of the vlans to one firewall and the other vlans and wan subnets to the other firewall.
I have a 1941 router configured for Policy based routing with two ISPs.Two static default routes configured to point the gateways of respoective ISPs with same metric.But the problem is, packets are going throug the one ISP only while doing traceroute.
ISP1-----> <----------------------> LAN1 | Router | ISP-------> <----------------------> LAN 2
Below is my configuration :
Current configuration : 5958 bytes ! ! Last configuration change at 05:18:56 UTC Mon Jun 25 2012 ! version 15.0 service timestamps debug datetime msec service timestamps log datetime msec no service password-encryption
I have a simple design with 3750. I configured a route-map which define a next hop. I defined this route-map on a policy on a vlan interface.When I test some ping and a debug ip policy and it seems that my policy never match.Is there any mechanism that prevent the switch from using PBR? I think of CEF .
In our datacenter we have a 3750 stack with IP base image. I have enabled PBR and reloaded the switch. Show sdm prefer says i am using default template. The reason i want to use PBR is that we have 2 firewalls on the same work and want to be able to have granular control over which gateway out of the network they use but still be able to access all internal resouces accross wan and locally.
Created access list to identify traffic:
access-list 10 permit 10.2.3.59 (test workstation on vlan 3)
route-map TestASA permit 10 match ip address 10 set ip next-hop 10.2.0.3
Assigned policy to the user vlan3:
ip policy route-map TestASA
Results:It changed the default gateway to the above gateway but i could not access any resources on any other vlan, could not access resouces accross wan.
I have tried to make policy based routing on Cisco 3560. I use ipservices ios (SW version 12.2.(50)SE3 and SW-IMAGE C3560-IPSERVICESK9-M) For below configuration there is no problem and pbr is working.
“Access-list 100 permit ip host 126.96.36.199 host 188.8.131.52 Access-list 101 permit ip host 184.108.40.206 host 220.127.116.11 Route-map pbr1 permit 10 Match ip address 100 Set ip next-hop verify-availability 18.104.22.168 1 track 11 interface fasthethernet 0/1 ip policy route-map pbr1”
But when i add another sequence to the "pbr1" with another sequence number like that.
“Route-map pbr1 permit 11 Match ip address 101 Set ip next-hop verify-availability 22.214.171.124 1 track 12”
pbr is not working. Switch gives message "PLATFORM_PBR-3-UNSUPPORTTED_RMP:Route-map pbr1 not supported for Policy Based Routing”"ip policy route-map pbr1" command not shown in the running config. And "show ip policy" output is blank.Configuration guide says you have insert many sequence to the route-map with the same name. And also this command is not in the unsupported command list.
I have a simple design with 3750.I configured a route-map which define a next hop.I defined this route-map on a policy on a vlan interface.When I test some ping and a debug ip policy and it seems that my policy never match.Is there any mechanism that prevent the switch from using PBR?
I have problem while implementing policy based routing with a firewall. Let me explain in detail.
I have 2 remote site(Site A-small , Site B - Big) , Site B is connected with HQ with Tunnels 1 and 2 , Site B and Site A is connected with Tunnel 9941.
What I want is: Scenirio for Communication :
1)Site A--------->VPN Router Site B-----------> FW-------------->VPN Router Site B------------------>Central Site 2)Central Site--------->VPN Router Site B-----------> FW---------->VPN Router Site B-------------->Site A 3)Site B--------->FW-------------------->VPN Router Site B------>Central Site 4)Central Site--------->VPN Router Site B-------------------->FW------>Site B 5)Site A--------->VPN Router Site B-----------> Site B(no firewall) 6)Site B--------->VPN Router Site B-----------> Site A(no firewall)
I am having a problem with PBR done on a 7604-S router - It seems like it is not done in harware. I have an Iperf client and an Iperf server, and would like to test the performance of 7600 router for PBR, supervisor is RSP720-3C-G and used interface card is 7600-ES20-GE3C ESM20G.
I have read numerous discussions about PBR that is supposed to happen in hardware when you use it with matching access-list and set ip next-hop.Although, when I start the iperf, the 7600 cpu is hitting the 80-90 % boundary, and transfer bandwidth can't go over 120-130 Mbit/s.The IP Policy is applied on an interface part of vrf ONE maybe this is casing the problem... ?
The diagram and configuration follows: Configuration:
c7604#sh run boot system flash disk0:c7600rsp72043-advipservicesk9-mz.122-33.SRE2.bin ! ip vrf one [Code]...
I've been implementing a setup where a remote office has a Cisco 1900 router. There are 2 GRE/ IP SEC tunnels to the headquarters, 1 over public internet, 1 over a private cloud. Because of some MTU issues we have to clear the DF bit for some of the traffic, but we also want to use PBR to send https traffic over the "public internet" tunnel and the rest of the traffic over the "private cloud" tunnel. I'm able to clear the DF bit and to do the PBR with route-maps, but I'm not able to implement both functionality at the same time.
I have a customer who wants his new ASA-5520 to load balance out-going traffic between 2 ISPs, fairly normal request. Now here's the twist. He wants to separate traffic based upon the protocol used, http to one ISP, https to the other.
i want to to ask about redirecting in MLS 7600 .assume the user a has an ip x.x.x.xand that user requested url...i want to to redirect his request to url...the users that have to pay the monthly bills , i want to give thim an ips and redirect all the http requests from this to a special local webpage .is is applicable to to it on router cisco 7600 ??or is it applicable on router 7206 npeg2 ? also i have siwtch 2960g.i dont want to do it by proxy server.
At one of my field offices I want to redirect internet traffic down a separate DSL connection instead of having it ride the T1 back to the main office then going out. At this office I have a 2600 router, 3560 switch, with a Fortigate firewall in between DSL connection and LAN, Fa0/0 on router and firewall are both plugged in to switch. I have seen posts that mention PBR or static routes which is the reccomended method for dealing with this?
interface Vlan24 description Internal Wireless Internet ip address 10.x.0.1 255.255.254.0
So, I am trying to limit the bandwidth used by this vlan. The service-policy output statement works, the service-policy input statement does not. My test is to get on that vlan and go to speedtest.net. My download speeds are about 3.5Mb/s, my upload speeds are about 20Mb/s.
it has something to do with this:
sh mls qos ip QoS Summary [IPv4]: (* - shared aggregates, Mod - switch module Sid - Switch Id) Int Sid Mod Dir Class-map DSCP Agg Trust Fl AgForward-By AgPoliced-By
i would like to use ISP2 for all http/https/ftp traffic.how could I force my ASA to set a different gateway for http/https/ftp traffic ?i have tried several solutions such as nat/pat rules, nothing seems to work.
I have made some test and i noticed that qos input policy does not classify the icmp packet based on their dscp.The "match dscp ef" or "match precedence 5" is not working only the "match protocol icmp" shows hits.
We need to classify the different icmp packets based on dscp ( TOS ) for measurement purpose.CISCO 7200, 12.4.25d and 12.4.20T have a same behavior.
I want to give limited access to our first level support so that they can execute certain basic commands like, port vlan change, access port shut/no-shut on Cisco 6509 and 3750E switches IOS based. I want to restrict them to only few options so they can not make changes to uplink (TenGig) ports and can not issue reload command etc. We do not have TACACS. What is the best way to achieve this?
We have W2K3 domain with Catalyst 4507 routers.Client (laptop, tablet etc) needs to redirect web traffic (port 80) to a proxy server that listens on port 8080.
Before you ask, this cannot be done using a PAC file distributed via Group Policy or the like because these devices are not controlled by us. These devices are client owned and could be non-Microsoft OS and/or non-IE browser. The theory is to have a WiFi network where clients can bring whatever they like - iPad, Android, Windows, whatever it may be but we do not control them and therefore cannot send a PAC file to it. In the case on Android it does not have a proxy setting even if we could force something.
I've looked at Policy Based Routing which appears to do half the job. I can route a web request that is on port 80 to a new location ie our proxy server. But the problem is that it arrives on the same port 80 when the proxy server only listens on port 8080.
I have 3560 with attached 3 networks, 172.16.1.0/24 172.16.2.0/24 and 172.16.4.0/24, all of them have a vlan interface, 172.16.1.254, 172.16.2.254, and 172.16.4.254, I have enabled intervlan routing with command ip routing and they have route beetwen each other. Now I want to create PBR and let them go to the internet from different gateways.
so i did 3 access list:
access-list 20 permit 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 10 permit 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 30 permit 172.16.4.0 0.0.0.255 and 3 pbr route-map supnet permit 20 match ip address 10 set ip next-hop 172.16.2.3 route-map blade permit 20 match ip address 30 set ip next-hop 172.16.4.250 route-map main permit 20 match ip address 20 set ip next-hop 172.16.1.4
attached them to corresponding vlan interfaces and everything ok they have different gateways to internet but now I dont have routing beetwen them?
Right now, in my network there is no proxy server and all users go straight through the ASA to access internet. I would like to put a squid with dansguardian (for web filtering). Steps in getting all http and https traffic from ASA go via my squid?
I am using ASA5510 and i want to know if it is possible to redirect http traffic to an internal proxy software. I explain : PC from the LAN use a internal proxy in their IE browser but some other PC doesn't use it.They are directy connected to the Internet using the Public IP from the WAN interface ( via NAT). Can we redirected this HTTP Traffic from the WAN interface to the Proxy in the LAN ?
Http Traffic will be routed like that : PC -> WAN interface -> Proxy -> WAN interface -> Internet In fact,can we create a rule saying : All http traffic which doesn"t come from the IP Proxy must be redirected toward proxy.
I am trying to mark http packets from a web server with DSCP ef, but when I am doing a traffic capture all http packets have tos 0x0.I am able to mark UDP and ICMP packets originated from this server, but not any TCP traffic.The web server is in VLAN 20This is my config mls qos ip access-list extended MARK-HTTP-ACL permit tcp host 10.10.10.10 eq www. [code]
We are using Cisco 3750 switches in our environment as distribution switches.We currently use to police inbound traffic, but we need to find a solution to limit inbound traffic per IP.Something like this “Inbound traffic for each IP can be maximum 1 Mbps” This can be done having, one ACL and one class-map for each IP, but in my situation is not a practical solution, because we have more than 500 IP’s on that site.
Is any way to accomplish this without writing 500 ACLs and 500 class-map?
I am facing problem with ACE configuration. I want to redirect 443 traffic to my Proxy Server. But I am not able to do this. I want to redirect only subnet 192.168.80.0/24..Then only it is working but I dont have to have this policy to be applied on all the users only one subnet I want to have under HTTPS policy.
how can I apply the policy only on specific subnet so that port 443 traffic can be redirect and rest of all subnets can go direclty to Internet.