I've got a setup where we have a wireless connection coming in and using mikrotik router. We have multiple stores coming in via the wireless with a dmvpn.
The vpn's terminate on the cisco c870 and can be seen when running: show dmvpn.The cisco has a default route to the fibre router (10.0.0.252). The wireless router is the default gateway for the network. The failover from wireless to adsl fails. (due to the cisco routing traffic back to the wireless router when wireless fails)
If I change the default route on the cisco to dialer1, the failover works, but none of the vpn's connect. The Branches all have dynamic ip addresses. The HO has a static ip.
My goal: I want to achieve adsl failover for when the wireless goes down and still have the vpn's connected.
Can I have some sort of "Dynamic" route on the cisco. So when the vpn traffic comes in via wireless and hits the cisco, the vpn traffic can then go back out that way via the wireless router, but still have a default gateway on the dialer interface for failover?
We are in the process of switching our infrastructure of our routing/firewalls/vpns over to cisco. We are switching our first location and one of the issues I'm struggling with is windows authentication pass-through for internally hosted web pages. Meaning, user inside our network has the 2921 as their default gateway, they try to access a web page that is hosted on the internal network but is secured with windows authentication. In the past, because they are logged into the domain internally, the website authenticates and loads. After switching to the Cisco, it asks for a password even though they are logged in.
Because its the web server that actually authenticates I'm not sure why the router isn't allowing that to happen, but I can't think of anything else that could be causing this behavior.
I'm working with a client who has a site to site VPN between the main office and a branch office. The main office is 192.168.200.0/24 and the branch office is 192.168.1.0/24. The issue is when the branch office users use the VPN in they receive a 192.168.200.x address, however, they cannot access a server or any other resources at the branch office.
They have a SSL-VPN 2000 connected to a TZ100 at the main office and a Juniper device at the branch office. I did try setting the Tunnel All mode on the NetExtender but that does not allow me to access the resources at the branch office. Additionally, those users at the main office can access the resources at the branch office without getting on the VPN.
We have two Cisco 3560E layer 3 switches at the core of our network. The switches are configured as an HSRP pair and the clients on our network point to the HSRP address as their default gateway. So if CORE-A dies, then CORE-B will pick up the address and the default route for the clients will continue to be available.We also need to specify a few static routes on the core switch to allow us to get to specific networks. Is there a way to do this so that the routes failover in the same way that the default gateway does?
We're in the process of swapping in a new pair of ASA5520s and Catalyst 3750s to support two separate business units. We want Firewall A and Switch A to handle traffic for Org A (VLAN 100). Similarly, firewall B and Switch B should handle traffic for Org B (VLAN200). But we want to be able to fail traffic over in case of firewall or switch failure. Traffic between the two Orgs is being routed at the switch level. [code]
The uplink interface on each switch is currently a routed port with a static address on the uplink subnet. This works fine in a normal state. However, when we fail over one of the firewall contexts to the other chassis, this results in the inability to route internal traffic because the internal interface is now physically connected to a different switch with a different IP port address (obvious in hindsight). The question is, rather than a routed port, what would be the proper way to handle traffic between the switches and firewalls in a failover scenario? If I make the uplink ports into trunks, won't this cause all packets destined for either firewall to hit both both? Seems like that's not the way to go either? [code]
Overview Firewall is ASA 5510 running 8.4(9)Core network at Head Office uses OSPFStatic routes on ASA are redistributed into OSPFStatic routes on ASA for VPN are redistributed into OSPF with Metric of 130 so redistributed BGP routes are preferredCore network has a static route of 10.0.0.0/8 to Corporate WAN, which is redistributed into OSPFBranch Office WAN uses BGP - Routes are redistributed into OSPFThe routers at the Branch Office use VRRP for IP redundancy for the local clients default gateway.Primary Branch Office router will pass off VRRP IP to backup router when the WAN interface is downBackup BO router (.253) only contains a default route to internetUnder normal operation, traffic to/from BO uses Local Branch Office WANIf local BO WAN link fails, traffic to/from BO uses IPSec VPN across public internet I'm trying to configure dynamic routing on our network for when a branch office fails over to the IPsec VPN. What I would like to happen (not sure if it's possible) is for the ASA to advertise the subnet at the remote end of the VPN back into OSPF at the Head Office.
I've managed to get this to work using RRI, but for some reason the VPN stays up all the time when we're not in a failover scenario. This causes the ASA to add the remote subnet into it's routing table as a Static route, and not use the route advertised from OSPF from the core network. This prevents clients at the BO from accessing the Internet. If I remove the RRI setting on the VPN, the ASA learns the route to the subnet via the BO WAN - normal operation is resumed.I have configured the metric of the static routes that get redistributed into OSPF by the ASA to be higher than 110. This is so that the routes redistributed by BGP from the BO WAN into OSPF, are preferred. The idea being, that when the WAN link is available again, the routing changes automatically and the site fails back to the BO WAN.
I am putting an pre-labbed DMVPN Hub config onto a production 1841. We had to upgrade the IOS to support protection with NAT so the current IOS we're running is c1841-adventerprisek9-mz.124-25g.bin.I can paste the configuration in fine (via the tunnel interfaces) and the router accepts it however the 'show dmvpn', 'debug dmvpn' and other related commands don't work. I have checked the IOS feature navigator and it definitely shows that DMVPN phase 1 and 2 are supported in this image.
Actually I have to make a VPN between an 5520 ASA and a Cisco 887VA-K9 Router. Connected to ASA I have the outside interface, the inside-DMZ interface, the PCs interface and the VoIP interface. In the other site I will need to have a new subnet and a VoIP phone which I need to connect to the VoIP subnet in the other side in order to work with our CCM servers.I need two VPN established between ASA and 887 Router?
I have a pair of 5505s with an IPsec VPN between them. On the first 5505, I also have a user connecting to it via client based vpn. The user cannot access systems on the other side of the ipsec tunnel. That 5505 protects subnet a.b.c.d, the user is on subnet a.b.e.d which is not inclusive to a.b.c.d. First, am I correct in the assumption that I need to add the vpn network of a.b.e.d to the list of protected networks, and second if I change the list, does it drop and reset the ipsec vpn?
How much the CPU is impacted by SSL VPNs on Cisco ASA 5500's?I believe that the ASA offloads a lot of its encryption/decryption on a built in VPN accelerator rather than placing load on the main CPU. Is this correct?
According to the ASA 5520 specs - it can handle a throughput of up to 225Mbps of VPN traffic. Of course, it does not say whether this is SSL or IPSEC but I would like to understand what impact say 100Mbps of SSL VPN traffic would have on the main CPU.
We need this information to gauge whether an existing firewall has enough capacity to cope with existing load plus additional new SSL VPNs.
I have been endlessly searching around online, and trying things on the firewall, and cant seem to find an answer to this problem. Its probably something really simple right under my nose! I am using an ASA 5510, which currently has a few seperate site-to-site VPN connections configured, which connect to other Cisco devices on clients networks.
I work from home, so also connect to our network using Remote Access VPN (any connect) to connect to the network at the data centre.
Just to be clear, here is my amazingly drawn network diagram:
[[my house]]-------------- <any connect VPN>------------[[ASA 5510 / Data centre]]-----------<site-to-site>-----------------[[Client network]]
The problem I am having, is that I cannot connect directly from my house to the client network, I need to RDP into some server in the data center, then from there I can see the Clients network. Is there routing to be setup somewhere? between VPN's? Ive looked into the routing options on the firewall and cant seem to find anything that works. I've searched for this and cant find answers, even some sources saying its impossible.
The MPLS connection is currently down, I'm trying to run a failover Site-to-Site VPN over the internet. All of the examples I've read have both connections involved in the failover coming out of one device. Since I'm not working that way, what is going to be the best way to failover? Do I need to set up some sort of IP SLA in the config? Or can I somehow weight routes in EIGRP in a way that the connection will failover from Internet to MPLS when the MPLS goes down and vice versa when the MPLS connection comes back up?
Here iis a diagram of my current lab where I am using IP SLA to automatically switch from ISP 1 to ISP 2 should the connection go down (and vice versa)
My switches are C3550 Layer 3 switches. Both ISP's do work so connectivity is not the problem.
If I shutdown the fa0/19 port on SW1 the SLA kicks in and changes my defualt route out 10.0.1.0 without a problem. And when I do a no shut it comes back to tge 192.168.10.0 netowrk just as we would expect. No problem there.
When I disconnect the ISP 1 cell phone the SLA does switch the defualt route to the 10.0.1.0 netowrk. Okay, just fine so far. Here isthe problem, when i reconnect the cell phone the SLA does not come back to the 192.168.10.0 netowrk without first having to delete the SLA and then recresting it (both switches).
I have a Cisco 877 ADSL router which won't let me play with my VPNs like I used to in pre-Cisco days.I have a VPN server which resides on the inside of the network which used to get it's L2TP as well as PPTP tunnels passed straight through the ADSL router. No problems there with the old router.Now I opened the relevant ports for both TCP and UDP on the 877, but VPN simply won't establish when trying to connect from the outside. Process of getting the 877 to stop wanting to take charge of things VPN and just pass them off to an inside server?
I need to VPN into my work from my laptop on the private side of the 877. This works fine until after authentication, then the VPN connection goes silent, no traffic going through. Works fine when for instance using my iphone hotspot to connect through from my laptop. It's only not working when the 877 is in the equation.
We have a corporate site with a Cisco ASA 5580 (8.1), a remote office with a Cisco ASA 5510 (8.2) with a L2L VPN to corporate. A vendor has a L2L VPN to the corporate ASA with access to the remote office across the VPNs (hairpinning). The corporate office accesses an application at the vendor on port 23. Everything is working with regards to the vendor accessing resources to the remote office and the corporate office accessing the application at the vendor. Our goal now is to restrict the vendor to port 23 from the corporate network and port 9100 to the remote office. On the corporate ASA I setup a VPN filter and applied to the vendor's L2L vpn but when I apply the filter (see below) all traffic stops to the vendor such as telnet.
I've two Cisco 4500 running as core switches for huge and complex network. The two 4500 are going to act as dhcp server for several subnets. The easiest solution would be to split each DHCP pool in two, and assign the first half of the pool to one of the core switch and the second half of the pool to the second core switch. This would be a partial solution since if one of the two fails, the second core switch would not have enough dhcp leases available for all the devices connected for each subnet.For such a reason, I'm wondering if it the 4500 switches support a stateful redundant DHCP servers, so that the two switches can synchronize their DHCP lease tables. If this feature is available, I could define the same pools for both the switches without the risk of having duplicate ip addresses within the network.
Below is a basic image of the HSRP and backup link setup for our LAN.
The virtual IP 192.168.178.50 resides on the primary router and fails over to the backup router. Internal default gateways for the switches are set to 178.50.
Switch1 is Layer3 and has two static default routes configured as:
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.179.50 track 1 - - - (interface line-protocol track) ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.178.50 2
And the primary router has a static route out 179.50 which tracks the interface (route goes down if interface is down), and a backup static route.
ip route (internal LAN) Gi0/1 track 1 - - - (interface line-protocol track) ip route (internal LAN) Gi0/2 2
Everything works fine. If the primary router fails, Switch1 tears down the route across Vlan179, HSRP fails over the IP to the backup router and routing continues as normal. If the link across Vlan179 fails, the routers tear down the primary routes and again, things continue as normal.
The problem comes when the primary WAN link fails but the router remains up. This means the default route is still across Vlan179. Normally, Id set an IP SLA on Switch1 to track the WAN link BUT Switch1 only has the BASE IOS and the company wont pay for the Advanced IP IOS so I dont have IP SLA as an option.
How can I get the static default route to failover in the event that only the primary WAN link goes down?
Our servers are hosted at the Main site, site office A access to the Main site for Internet and servers. We are thinking NextG to take over when the link between sites goes down.
To start with, what is the configuration for 3750 at Site A and the Main site:
1) Trunking for both switches
2) Routing
3) the automatic failover configuration for the switch at Site A.
So I have a server running Linux and am looking to add VPN functionality to my home network. I have OpenSSH running and it works great for tunneling and remote file transfers but doesn't quite get the job done.I would like to be able to map a network drive in Windows to my Linux box and understand a VPN could accomplish this, problem is I really don't know anything about Virtual Private Networking! I was hoping someone could explain to me the differences between SSH / VPNs and point me in the right direction towards configuring OpenVPN on my Linux box.
I have two Cisco ASA 5510s that I would like to configure in an active passive failover setup. The ASAs are at the top of our rack and handle all our routing. We have been only using one ASA unit with one line from our ISP connected to the WAN/outside interface of the ASA. We recently had our ISP setup two lines into our rack using HSRP. I do not know what equipment they are running upstream of our ASAs but it is HSRP so it should be a set of Cisco routers/switches. Originally I thought I could just connect the 2nd new line to our 2nd ASAs WAN/outside port and setup failover using a crossover cable between the ASAs. After doing this config I had problems accessing some of our IPs in the subnet that the HSRP is part of. If I disconnected the 2nd ASAs WAN/outside line everything was fine. After talking with my ISP they explained that I need to connect both of my lines into our L2 network and then from there into the ASAs. Currently below the ASAs I have two Catalyst 3560-X switches. They are connected together with an ISL trunk and ASA-1s inside network connects to switch-1 and ASA-2 to switch-2. One idea was to connect each of the HSRP lines to each of my current switches and then from the switches to the ASA's WAN/outside interface. Finally back down from the ASA's to the switches via the inside interface that we have currently. This kind of seems messy and a poor choice. The other idea is to get two switches that would sit above the ASAs and connect the HSRP lines to them with the switches connected together. They would then connect to the ASAs. I like this idea better but I don't like having to buy two more full switches for this. These switches would only use a couple of ports and only handle just the HSRP ISP lines to the ASAs. Putting in two more 3560-Xs would be a big waste of money and space for this. So I was thinking of using two Cisco SG200-08, 8 port gigabit basic managed switches for this.
I'm a bit perplexed atm with trying to set up multiple failover routes on a 2821 router. Let me say that I have more experieince in a switched network as routing is seldom required where I work atm. Here's my problem. I have a routing table set up as follows but only the primary routes work. The failover routes will not kick in once the primary route is not there.
ip route 10.32.11.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.8.11 ip route 10.32.11.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.24.11 100 ip route 10.32.12.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.8.12 ip route 10.32.12.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.24.12 100 ip route 10.32.14.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.8.14 ip route 10.32.14.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.24.14 100
Ip addresses are not exact but it gets the point across.
Why the failover routes are not failing over? The failover routes work if I remove the primary route from the config.
Any have experience on triggered failover on VSS deployment with 1 VS-720-10G-3C in each chassis? I tried using "redundancy force-switchover" but after that the 20G VSL is flapping up & down and cannot be up normally, we got 1 FWSM in each chassis, any configuration need to fit in this kind deployment? BTW, if I shutdown the power source of VSS active chassis, both FWSM & VSS can failover normally.
I have run into a problem testing static route failovers using ECMP. I have an edge device (SUT) that has 2 NIC interfaces to an internal Loopback. Each NIC is a unique Gi port on an 7609 VLAN tagged with unique IP subnets. The 7600 is configured to route the loopback via the 2 NIC. I am using CEF in the network for other traffic performance testing. Using an external sniffer we can verify that when a ping is initiated externall to the SUT loopback a specific path is selected by the router.
Now, when the selected path is taken out of server (pulling cable for example), the 7609 is not clearing the routing table to indicate that particular path is down and failing over to the secondary path. Other things I have noticed is the show ip cef still shows both peers as well as the arp table but the interface shows down (show interface gi1/21 for example). I am running 15.1. My understanding is that since the ports are directly connected to the router, the ports should be detected as down and any association of the IP for the down port should removed. This should trigger the static route to update the static route for the end destination to use the second path and traffic should continue.
ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.2(17r)S2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)BOOTLDR: Cisco IOS Software, c7600s72033_rp Software (c7600s72033_rp-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M), Version 15.1(1)S1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
I have a 6500 serious switch that one port (portfast enabled) hold a server .This server has sort of a Cluster configured for high availability .
During primary server failure the failover server acquires the cluster IP address (ie virtual IP).
Cluster IP 192.168.10.1
Primary server =192.168.10.2 Failover server =192.168.10.3
when failover happen , i am unable to learn arp. need to reboot the server for arp . After reboot i am getting different mac address(secondary) with cluster IP.
query:-normal clustering how mac address generating(means logicaly any mac address will be created or LAN card mac address)? Is ther any issue with portfast configuration(with out portfast configuration TCN will generate and max age timeout decrease 15 second from 300second) ?
Note : we checked a scenario same ip address with two system(ipconflit) and removed arp learned system from network and same thing happen we need to clear the arp manually in L3switch
We have Nexus 5K switches at the aggregation layer and VPC domain has been configured on them. VPC domain includes switches at the access layer as an identity.But when primary switch reboots failover didn,t happened. We are attaching architecture diagram for the setup along with show tech for Nexus 5K both switches.
I've been reading this site for a while, and finally decided to post I'm really interested to see what everyones opinion on this is.My company currently uses what i would call traditional site to site VPN's using crypto maps, main site has a pair of ASA's in HA and remote sites use ISR's like 1801's.I've recently been playing in my lab with GRE tunnels using IPSec protection (note this is config from my labs, so ip's and key's are just randomly selected)
