I would like configure a CSS content, that uses the sorry service principal in an advanced way.
I am familiar with the primary Sorry Server command and see that the CSS would send all connections to the named service that is configured as the primary Sorry Server.
What I would like to do is to configure the CSS, so that once it’s decided it’s in a “sorry” state (all the services that are configured with “add service” are down) that it load balances to a different set of services.
To explain what I’ve been trying to do in the form of configuration on the CSS, I’ve pasted some pretend config below.
Connections come into IP address 1.1.1.1, which normally get load balanced between 9.1.1.1, 9.1.1.2 and 9.1.1.3.
If 9.1.1.1, 9.1.1.2 and 9.1.1.3 are all down, the sorry service is used and the CSS starts passing traffic to 1.1.2.1, which I want it to load balance between 9.1.2.1, 9.1.2.2 and 9.1.2.3.
The order that I have applied the config, is different to the below, as I set out to configure in this order: secondary services, secondary content, sorry service, primary services, primary content.
The order of the config below is different, because I wanted it in the order that the traffic flows and the CSS won’t take the config in that order!
The wall I have ran into, is that when I try to create the service I have named “Sorry Service”, I get the following error:
%% Service IP Address conflicts with a local I/F, VIP, mg mt route.
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 have an issue with the device in subject. I need that some server, listed as service on CSS, can contact a content VIP on the same subnet. To allow that traffic I configured grouping on CSS (group 1) with vip address and an ACL that allow traffic from subnet 10.1.1.0/24 toward same subnet 10.1.1.0/24 and I have bound this ACL with sourcegroup 1. The nat and portmap works but never at first attempt, instead since second attempts it works. Seem like a CSS require to much time to create nat entry.
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.
We have Nexus 7K on production. 7K chasis is not load balancing with non-cisco devices with etherchannel or LACP..I have tried all load balancing algorithms but in vain. [code]
I have conneccted a server with LACP on Nexus extender. I am starting different file copy from diffferent sources to this server, it does not load balance.
We have to cisco WS-C4900M with Cisco IOS Software, Catalyst 4500 L3 Switch Software (cat4500e-IPBASE-M), Version 12.2(53)SG5, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1).We have four gigabit link connected between those two switches.We have create a LACP port channel with those four ports on both switches. Ether-channel is up and running and defined with a load-balancing method of src-dst-ip.But when we test the load-balancing, it's not using the src-dst-ip rule with the XOR: [code]
The best option for load balancing between 2 X Cisco nexus 5548UP switches located at one site and connecting to 2 X Cisco nexus 5548UP switches located at another site.
The sites are connected via a 1GB fibre connection. I am unable to use GLBP until GLBP is supported in further software releases.
I have probem with symmetric load balancig, in case when both ends of ether channel are on the sam switch (we are using VLAN translation).We need to create L2 port channel with both ends on same switch (Cisco WS-C4500X-24X-ES), for example:Po1 – Gi0/1, Gi0/3 (one end of port channel )Po2 – Gi0/2, Gi0/4 (other end of port channel)On ports in Po2 we will configure VLAN mapping.My question is what is the best ether-channel load-balancing scheme with wich we can accomplish full symmetry in both directions? For example, if traffic in one direction goes through Gi0/1 (member of Po1), in other direction also must go through Gi0/1. This is required because we need to connect four appliances for DPI (they are full L2 transparent) and traffic through each appliance need to be symmetric.
I can set-up src-ip, dst-ip, src-dst-ip etc. load balancing, but, actually I need src-ip on Po1 and dst-ip on Po2. Is there any way to set up different load balancing mechanism for different ether channel on same switch (4500X).
If the load balancing is set to src-dst-ip, will a layer 2 switch forward based on that information? Particularly talking about a 6500, with trunk interfaces, since those packets never go to the layer 3 engine, will the load-balancing work as intended?
I have an inquiry about a configuration I deploy in a C2960 switch. I have configured a ether channel with 8 ports, the load balanced method is source mac address. The bundling protocol is LACP.
I have found the ether channel is not balanced as I expect. One of the eight interfaces is congested.
Right now I have 2 default routes load balancing 100MB internet links. This is on my 2 6509's.
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.47.2.1 (FWSM) ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.47.2.250 (5510)
Is there anyway to make the first default route take more of the traffic, like 60/40 or 70/30?Any program that I could use to see top users going through the FWSM?
I have the requirement to provide a Cisco Router with 3 x ADSL lines (768k) to increase the internet speed.PPP multilink is not supported from the ISP.
Is it possbile to distribute the traffic between this three ADSL lines?How can I configure this?
I have the following hardware configuration:
1 x CISCO1921-SEC/K9 2 x EHWIC-VA-DSL-B
The third ADSL line is connected over an ADSL modem at one fixed Router Gigabit interface.
I am trying to understand what load balancing method is used on a port channel on a Nexus switch . I have a server connected by a VPC to two Nexus switches. The nexus switches are only acting as layer 2 switches. I have a 6509 connected via a upstream link that does all of the routing for my VLANS. If have a server connected to the Nexus switches and it talks to a server on my 6509 what load balancing happens on the Nexus going across VPC 27 which is a layer 2 trunk going up to my 6509. Is it done on layer 2 or layer 3 flows?
My Nexus shows the default load balancing configurations
Port Channel Load-Balancing Configuration:System: source-dest-ip Port Channel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol:Non-IP: source-dest-macIP: source-dest-ip source-dest-mac
Is it possible to use two different load balancing methods at each end of a port-channel between two switches?
We have a Cisco 6509 at one end of the port-channel and a Cisco blade switch 3020 at the other end. Right now, we are using "src-dst-ip" at both end of the port-channel. We would like to change this. That is, we would like the #3020 switch to use "src-dst-ip" while the 6509 switch should use the "src-dst-port".
Why we want to do this, the reason is that we have FWSMs on the 6509. I've read that by configuring "src-dst-port" on the 6509, one can get a better performance of traffic going through the FWSM. However, the issue is that the 3020 switch does not support "src-dst-port".
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.
What I am attempting to achieve is to aggregate trunk ports out of a VMware server into a single logical connection to give as much bandwidth as possible, the switches are 3750X and are three stacked together with the server connections spread across the stack. What I am not sure about is if two port channel load balance protocols can happy co-exist on the switch, by default the switch is using MAC address load balancing and Vmware wants to use IP Source load balancing. As other trunks and channels exist on the switch I don't want to make a change that will affect the other live connections if changing this is a global setting and not local on the channel.
I have a dual-homed fabric (Nexus 2248 dual attached to two Nexus 5020's via vPC). On this Nexus 2248 is a server that has a four port LACP etherchannel. The ports do not appear to be load balancing correctly. The output below shows the four ports in use and it clearly shows port e138/1/10 as getting the most use. When I use the "show port-channel load-balance forwarding-path..." command on either of the vPC switches for various source and destination IP's that use this link, it shows them correctly load-balancing across the four ports. But we do not see this when looking at stats on both the server side and the switch side.
**************** Config info below. This is a vPC pair and the port configs are identical on both switches so I'm only showing the configs for one switch to keep it simple.
dc5020-3g# sh port-channel load-balance Port Channel Load-Balancing Configuration: System: source-dest-ip Port Channel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol: Non-IP: source-dest-mac IP: source-dest-ip source-dest-mac
Will there be some pause in traffic on formed ether channel interfaces (4500E switch), when i will change the default ether channel load balancing method to src-dst-port (or any other non-default method)?
I am testing on lab equipment (2 Catalyst 3550 and 1 Catalyst 3560) HSRP version 1 and 2.I successfully created a load balancing between the two Catalyst 3550 on a couple of vlans (11 and 12) on ver 1
now, just adding the command "standby xx version 2" my hosts on the 2 vlans are completely unable to ping the virtual IP def. gw on debugging i checked that msgs are exchangedthe two cat 3550 are seeing each other on HSRP (active / standby roles)the real ip addresses are pingable rebooted the swiches (just as a last resort try)deleted arp chache on hostsremoved the auth on hsrp all of this no effect.
i also tried to modify the priority on the cat 3560 (before he was on both vlans in standby) to make it the active one and with the same config it worked flawlessly.
My only idea is that there is a bug on CATs 3550 (IOS: c3550-ipservicesk9-mz.122-55.SE4.bin) [code]
I have 2 pair of 11501 switches and 1 pair of 11503 switches on 3 sites(LA, China, Taiwan).Each site has a pair of 1105x switch running as redundancy between them and is a standalone which will not interact with others.Recently a series of interfaces(ports) down happened to every active 1150x switches without any reason and log.Especially today, it happened to active switches at 5:39 AM meanwhile on 3 sites.
My environment have two device ,a cisco css11501 and a cisco 2960 ,when I reboot CSS11501 then 2960 shutdown fa0/41
I command "sh logging | in 0/41" just up down two time,not five times in 10 seconds
.May 17 11:13:18: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthernet0/41, changed state to down .May 17 11:13:19: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/41, changed state to down .May 17 11:14:53: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: link-flap error detected on Fa0/41, putting Fa0/41 in err-disable state .May 17 13:44:35: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/41, changed state to up .May 17 13:44:36: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthernet0/41, changed state to up
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?
