Does wccp redirect break routing protocol?

This may be a dumb question to ask, sorry i don't have equipment to test it at this moment.
If wccp redirect is configured on an interface running routing protocol (such as eigrp or ospf), will this redirect the "unicast" ospf database or eigrp topology update to WAAS? and/or will this also redirect ospf & eigrp "multicast" update which maintains neighbor relationship to WAAS?
Should this type of traffic be denied on wccp redirect-list?
Thanks

Hi Joe,
Since WAAS normally uses TCP promiscuous mode services, based on service group number 61 and 62 - you'll only get TCP redirected ... and neither OSPF nor EIGRP runs on top of TCP, so don't worry.
If you run a TCP based routing protocol like BGP, it will get redirected.
Later versions of WAAS don't, by default, try to optimize on BGP, as it has given some problems in the past due to sequence number manipulation.
Best Regards
Finn Poulsen

Similar Messages

Does inverse arp forward routing protocols?

I know by doing the, frame-relay map ip <x.x.x.x> (dlci #) broadcast routing protocols work in my lab inside of packet tracer. But when I was just doing inverse arp dynamically, "Serial0/0 (up): ip 80.53.32.1 dlci 25, dynamic, broadcast, CISCO, status defined, active" the routing protocols do not work. Is there a way to have inverse arp to work with broadcast?

Cool, i'll read it in just a big. Would you also happen to know if a cloud in Packet Tracer is able to work from point-to-point (sub interfaces) frame relay networks? I am attempting it and I can't get the cloud to except more then a few mappings of the sub interfaces dlci's so only half of it works, the rest I get an error message

Router WCCP redirect ACLs for WAAS

Since WAAS accelerates TCP connections only, would it be more efficient to code my router WCCP redirect ACLS for protocol TCP instead of all IP traffic between my source and dest subnets I want redirected?

Greg,
The protocol (TCP) is an attribute of the WCCP service group, so using IP in your ACL is fine.
Regards,
Zach

Does introducing WCCP redirect for WAAS disrupt Netflow information?

Before installing WAAS and WCCP redirect on some 6500 interfaces in our data center, those interfaces showed Netflow flows for users at a remote location accessing servers at our data center. Now with WCCP redirecting that traffic to the WAEs, I notice the only netflow flows for that remote location are UDP flows and some ICMP stuff.
Is this an unintended consequence of installing WAAS - that netflow statistics are going to be skewed by not showing flows that are now accelerated?

I believe your problem may be due to the fact that you are redirecting http
based traffic per the ACL configuration. The sup720 uses wccp v2 as a default
version,however, the Sup720 does NOT support the hardware-based redirection for the TCP port 80 when we enable wccpv2.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/122sx/swcg/wccp.
htm#wp1017009
Support for Non-HTTP Services:
WCCPv2 allows redirection of traffic other than HTTP (TCP port 80 traffic), including a variety of UDP and TCP traffic. WCCPv1 supported the redirection of HTTP (TCP port 80)traffic only. WCCPv2 supports the redirection of packets intended for other ports, including those used for proxy-web cache handling, File Transfer Protocol (FTP) caching, FTP proxy handling, web caching for ports other than 80, and real audio, video, and telephony applications.

Does WCCP support traffic from different VLANs(mapped to VRFs)?

Hello,
I have the following scenario from the WAN to the Data Center and from the WAN to the Branch:
1. Router 2800/7200 with three (3) MPLS VRFs (VRF Lite)
2. Switch 3750 with three (3) WAN VLANs (one for each VRF) and three (3) LAN User Traffic VLANs (one for each ASA Context) and one WAE VLAN
3. WAE with WCCP enabled for one VLAN in the switch
4. ASA with three (3) Contexts
5. Three (3) Internal LANs (one for each Context)
In summary, there are three flows of traffic which are separated along the way from Branch to Data Center. WAEs are working for one VLAN(VRF1) and WCCP is enabled at the 3750 Switch to do the redirection (not in the router). The question is: does WCCP support traffic from different VLANs (similar to inline 802.1Q) and handle all three flows separate? If so, what should the configuration be at the switch and the WAE?
Thanks.

The VRF awareness for 12.4(T) is still probably 8-12 months out. VRF aware WCCP features are definitely in the pipeline, but nothing has been publically published on availability timelines.
It's now publically available on the forum... but , I've only found it on the 3750 and 3550 documentation.
at the 3750 you will need to place the redirect statement on each of the VLANs, ip wccp 61 redirect in
Kindly find here GRE Tunnel with VRF Configuration Example:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk436/tk428/technologies_configuration_example09186a00801e1294.shtml
I have gotten as far as the WAE registering the router:
"WCCP configuration for TCP Promiscuous service 61 and 62 succeeded.
WCCP configuration for TCP Promiscuous succeeded.Please remember to
configure WCCP service 61 and 62 on the corresponding router."
wae01#sh wccp router
Router Information for Service: TCP Promiscuous 61
Routers Configured and Seeing this Wide Area Engine(1)
Router Id Sent To Recv ID
0.0.0.0 209.1.1.1 0000022F
The router registers the WAE as a WCCP client:
router04#
"*Feb 4 18:56:09.892: %WCCP-5-SERVICEFOUND: Service 61 acquired on WCCP
client 209.1.1.2"
"*Feb 4 18:56:09.892: %WCCP-5-SERVICEFOUND: Service 62 acquired on WCCP
client 209.1.1.2"
The router however cannot figure out what its ID is and does not see
itself as a WCCP group router.
router04#sh ip wccp
Global WCCP information:
Router information:
Router Identifier: -not yet determined-
Protocol Version: 2.0
Service Identifier: 61
Number of Service Group Clients: 1
Number of Service Group Routers: 0
Total Packets s/w Redirected: 0
Process: 0
Fast: 0
CEF: 0
Redirect access-list: ACCELERATED-TRAFFIC
Total Packets Denied Redirect: 0
Total Packets Unassigned: 25957
Group access-list: -none-
Total Messages Denied to Group: 0
Total Authentication failures: 0
Total Bypassed Packets Received: 0
This is a short summary of important commands for working with VRF's.
View the VRF instances and the associated interfaces.
ml-mr-c6-gs#show ip vrf
Name Default RD Interfaces
blurvrf 100:2 Vlan215
Vlan326
tgvrf 100:1 Vlan132
Vlan325
TenGigabitEthernet1/1
ml-mr-c6-gs#
Show the routing table for a specific VRF.
ml-mr-c6-gs#show ip route vrf tgvrf
Routing Table: tgvrf
Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external,
---More--
Gateway of last resort is 128.117.243.57 to network 0.0.0.0
O E2 192.52.106.0/24 [110/1] via 128.117.243.57, 1d19h, Vlan325
O E2 192.168.150.0/24 [110/160] via 128.117.243.57, 1d19h, Vlan325
172.17.0.0/29 is subnetted, 3 subnets
O E2 172.17.1.16 [110/0] via 128.117.243.57, 1d19h, Vlan325
O E2 172.17.1.8 [110/1] via 128.117.243.57, 1d19h, Vlan325
O E2 172.17.1.0 [110/1] via 128.117.243.57, 1d19h, Vlan325
--More--
Debugging should otherwise be similar to a regular switch or router.
Final Teragrid VRF Design and Diagrams
http://www.cisl.ucar.edu/nets/devices/routers/cisco/vrf/final.shtml
Teragrid Testbed Design
http://www.cisl.ucar.edu/nets/devices/routers/cisco/vrf/testbed.shtml
Cisco 4500 Series Switch Cisco IOS s/w config guide 12.1(20)EW
Configuring VRF-Lite
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/12.1/20ew/configuration/guide/vrf.html
sachin garg

WCCP problem or routing

Hi,
We have two datacenters same logical LAN.
Two ISP routers and two WAE 674 and using WCCP "egress-method negotiated-return intercept-method wccp"
See attached file.
The problem is when one of the "line" WAN interface goes down, some of the network are not reach from the LAN side and some are.
We are using BGP as routing protocol in the ISP routers.
Any suggestion for the problem?
Jan

Hello I am from the ISP and wanted to address these issues
2. When WAN goes down and LAN remains up, your WCCP is still UP and hence, it continues to forward packets out of same WAN interface but because that interface is down, packets ultimately die / gets blackholed.
3. Another speculation is: Asymmetric routing. When WAN is down but LAN is up, you are forwarding soem traffic out of LAN but as WAN goes down, the return packets then come up on different interface and creates asymmetric routing.
On question 2 with WCCP the router would still try to send packets out the wan interface even though its down?   Wouldn't the router be able to tell that routing changed to the source/dest subnets and not blindly send packets to a down interface?   If not then this most likely is what happened.
Here is the WAN interface config WCCP is enabled for inbound redirection but the same for the actual data LAN interface
interface GigabitEthernet0/0
description link to PE
bandwidth 9000
no ip address
ip route-cache flow
duplex full
speed 10
media-type rj45
no cdp enable
interface GigabitEthernet0/0.22
encapsulation dot1Q 22
ip address **********omit ****** 255.255.255.252
ip wccp 62 redirect in
no cdp enable
and here is the LAN side
interface GigabitEthernet0/1
no ip address
ip access-group 113 in
ip route-cache flow
duplex full
speed 100
media-type rj45
service-policy output CE_OUT_MARK_0
interface GigabitEthernet0/1.2450
description Customer LAN
encapsulation dot1Q 2450
ip address ********* 255.255.255.224
ip wccp 61 redirect in
no cdp enable
interface GigabitEthernet0/1.2459
description Connection to customer-managed WAE Device For WCCP
encapsulation dot1Q 2459
ip address ******** 255.255.255.224
ip wccp redirect exclude in
no cdp enable
interface GigabitEthernet0/1.2460
encapsulation dot1Q 2460
ip address ******* 255.255.255.224
ip wccp redirect exclude in
no cdp enable
The sister router is configured in much the same way.
On question 3
3. Another speculation is: Asymmetric routing. When WAN is down but LAN is up, you are forwarding soem traffic out of LAN but as WAN goes down, the return packets then come up on different interface and creates asymmetric routing.
Wouldn't Asymetric routing just result in non optimized connections as it would never see the tcp option set for optimization?
We are going to run this same test this weekend and I will look at all these things but it seems as though asymetric routing would result in no optimization but not packet blockage.   Regarding question 2 if wccp remains up and is black holing traffic I can see this as an issue for sure.
One last question also regarding the loopbacks and GRE return. There are distribute lists that block each router from learning the others loopback when the WAN is down.   Do you think this would matter?    Reason I ask is because on the Asymetric side again lets say a packet comes into router #1 via the lan and gets redirected to the WAE with source ip of the Loopback.   When the Was returns the packet to the router I would think it would not need routing to the #2 routers loopback as the destination at this point would be back to the client/server.   Also when the router forwards to the WAE what ip on the WAE does it use?

Wccp redirection for waas on same platform as wccp for websense?

just wondering if anyone knows if a Cisco router or switch can handle wccp redirection enabled for both waas and some other web content filtering appliance using a different service group?
seems like the priority value would come into play determining which service group gets handled first?
we currently do WCCP for WaaS on our 3945s.
I am going to advocate to my customer that we separate this out for CPU load issues, config complexity issues, IOS issues, etc... but the question is going to come up - "can we do WCCP for different applications on our Catalyst 3750 core switch, or our 3945 WAN routers?"
Thanks,
Paul

Hi Paul,
Yes, it's technically possible to have WCCP redirection for several services even in those devices that don't support setting the priority. However, in this case, both WAAS and Websense need to redirect HTTP traffic, and that's what makes things complicated.
Assuming you first want to send the traffic to Websense and then to WAAS, I would recommend doing the WAAS redirection only on the WAN link (with one service inbound and the other outbound). You can then configure Web-cache redirection inbound on the client vlan and, a service for the return traffic (I'm not sure if this is required for websense), inbound on the interface where the WAE is connected (with a redirect-list to match only the return direction)
Even if it's possible to have both redirections in the same device, if possible, I would strongly suggest you to either use different devices for the redirection or to make them mutually exclusive (for example, not sending HTTP to WAAS), otherwise, if you make a small mistake with the configuration, you can end up with a redirection loop.
Regards
Daniel

WCCP redirections over IPv6

Hi,
I've a question related to WCCP and IPv6.
Let's imagine a web-cache cluster, all the nodes dual stack (IPv4+IPv6) and all of them supporting WCCP (also IPv4+IPv6) for transparent web-cache, so they can cache either IPv6 or IPv4 web pages.
Let's imagine one Cisco router that is also dual-stack and having WCCP support (AFAIK only for IPv4). I assume that the router and the web-cache nodes are able to communicate to each other through either IPv6 and/or IPv4 for any protocol different than WCCP. For WCCP only communication through IPv4 is feasible (IPv4 only support for WCC in the cisco router).
My question is what about the port-80 IPv6 traffic (http queries indeed) forwarded to the router from the user's hosts?
Would such a traffic be forwarded to the external IPv6 HTTP public server (like no-http traffic)?
Would such a traffic be forwarded to the web-cache farm (like IPv4-http traffic does) in spite of WCCP supports only IPv4?
In other words, the IPv4-only-WCCP capable cisco router (but dual-stack) inspects only the IPv4 packets looking for the TCP-80 port or it does it also for IPv6 packets?
Regards
Miguel

This URL should help you:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6350/prod_bulletin09186a0080457b39.html

WAAS - WCCP redirect inbound

Hello Everyone,
I notice on our 1841 router running version 12.4(22)T, the wccp redirect inbound method does not process through CEF. It will only process it through an outbound redirection. The 61 redirect inbound is applied to the subinterface on fas 0/0.
Any ideas ?
interface FastEthernet0/0.999
description ****Dublin User Vlan****
encapsulation dot1Q 999 native
ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.192
ip helper-address 134.65.181.11
no ip redirects
no ip proxy-arp
ip wccp 61 redirect in
ip wccp 62 redirect out
ip flow ingress
no ip mroute-cache
service-policy input DBN_LAN

You must configure these devices to use WCCP Version 2 instead of WCCP Version 1 because WCCP Version 1 supports web traffic (port 80) only. When you enable the TCP promiscuous mode service (WCCP Version 2 services 61 and 62) on a WAE and a router, you do not need to enable the CIFS caching service (WCCP Version 2 service 89) on the router or WAE.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/app_ntwk_services/waas/waas/v401/quick/guide/wsqcg401.html#wp1357416

WCCP on 1841 router

Having a problem with a configuration of our guest network and our content filter (S170 IronPort). The 1841 has 3 interfaces. 0/0 is on the LAN side, 0/1/0 is connected to the Ironport, 0/1 is connected to the ISP. So we would like to redirect all traffic from the LAn interface to the Ironport and then out to the internet. For some reason with the configuration below it does not redirect the traffic. When I apply WCCP to the LAN interface it redirects but the cleints stop gettin g internet traffic. Does anyone have any expereince or ideas on how to make this work in the environment?
The ironport is 10.x.5.30 and conneted to fa0/1/0
ip wccp web-cache redirect-list https-cache
ip wccp 80 redirect-list https-cache
interface FastEthernet0/1/0
description WCCP port
ip address 10.x.5.10 255.255.255.0
no ip redirects
no ip unreachables
no ip proxy-arp
ip wccp web-cache redirect in
ip wccp 80 redirect in
no ip nat inside
ip virtual-reassembly
ip route-cache flow
exit
interface FastEthernet0/0
description $ES_LAN$$FW_INSIDE$
ip address 10.x.4.20 255.255.255.0
ip nat inside
ip virtual-reassembly in
duplex auto
speed auto
interface FastEthernet0/1
description outside$ETH-WAN$
ip address 50.x.89.145 255.255.255.248
no ip redirects
no ip unreachables
no ip proxy-arp
ip flow ingress
ip nat outside
ip virtual-reassembly in
duplex auto
speed auto
no cdp enable
no mop enabled
ip access-list extended https-cache
permit ip 10.245.4.0 0.0.0.255 any
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 50.x.89.150
ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.x.4.1
ip route 172.16.0.0 255.248.0.0 10.x.4.1

Hi Corey,
CME is not supported on the 1841 (minimum 1861)
Here's why;
Both slots on the Cisco 1841 router are HWIC slots and provide compatibility with WICs and multiflex trunk (VWICs) interface cards
(for data only).
VoIP Support
Voice-over-IP (VoIP) pass-through only
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5853/product_data_sheet0900aecd8016a59b.html
Cheers!
Rob

CE dial-in to PE. What routing protocol I should use ?

Hi,
Situation - CE connected to PE via some ethernet interface (primary) and ISDN dial-up as backup, so I need to use some dynamic routing protocol to distribute customers networks to other sites. Now I'm looking towards extended (triggered) RIP, but maybe there are better choices?
As I know, only triggereg RIP and OSPF supports 'on-demand' circuits, but OSPF isn't recommended as CE-PE protocol because it has no VRF awareness and we would have to run separate OSPF process for every VRF what isn't nice. This makes RIP only choice? Or there are another possibilities, maybe BGP ?

Hi,
over all there is static, RIPv2, EIGRP, OSPF, ISIS and BGP for PE-CE.
Well floating static alone seems no possibility in your case.
RIP and EIGRP have some issues when running on redundant links into the VPN (possibility of routing loops), which would be the case with backup active and primary coming back. Depending on the exact topology there might or might not be a workaround.
OSPF has to be run as separate processes. Might be tough on PE resources, depending on your exact setup details. Other than that it does the job.
eBGP with ebgp-multihop and static routes is an option. So eBGP doesn´t go down, just is directed over backup link in case primary is down.
Pick your poison! :-)
regards
Martin

Apply WCCP redirect to logical or physical interface?

If there is a logical subinterface configured under its physical interface (for example serial0/0/0.100 for routing), I should apply WCCP redirect (ip wccp 62 redirect in) to the logical interface, not the physical interface. Is that correct?
Thanks

Yes. You apply WCCP redirect to subinterface if you are using sub interfaces.
Regards.
PS: Please mark this Answered, if it answers your question.

Does WCCP skew results of 'ip flow top-talkers'?

I have a router that has been configured to show ip flow top-talker information. I recently added a WAAS to this site that is using WCCP redirection. The 'top-talkers' output on the router still works - but shows source/destination of the router and WAAS device as the talkers for all traffic that has been redirected. I'm not able to see that actual client IPs for that traffic .. and that is the majority of my traffic. Is there any way to still be able to view this traffic as I did before? If I dump netflow to an actual netflow server instead of using top-talkers will that work - or will it display the same thing?
Router configuration:
interface multilink1
ip flow ingress
interface gi0/0
ip flow ingress
ip flow-top-talkers
top 25
sort-by bytes
Now when I do a 'show ip flow top-talkers', here's what I see: 10.10.11.18 is WAAS and 10.10.255.11 is loopback of the router.
SrcIf         SrcIPaddress    DstIf         DstIPaddress    Pr SrcP DstP Bytes
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.18     Mu1           10.10.255.11    2F 0000 0000   141M
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.18     Mu1           10.10.255.11    2F 0000 0000    12M
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.124    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.53     06 1058 0A26 1801K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.54     Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.5      06 0E0C 0A26   882K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.107    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.50     06 043D 05D6   736K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.60     Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.5      06 0409 0A26   723K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.103    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.5      06 0407 0A26   713K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.120    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.14     06 0456 05D6   531K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.237    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.27     06 238C 110E   527K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.62     Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.53     06 C00E 05D6   463K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.125    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.30     06 12A1 1F90   355K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.115    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.14     06 042C 05D6   336K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.137    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.6      06 04AC 0D3D   244K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.154    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.53     06 0A0D 0A26   216K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.66     Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.6      06 C018 05D6   195K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.91     Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.5      06 0439 05D6   145K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.58     Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.14     06 0458 05D6   134K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.127    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.30     06 0618 1F90   115K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.18     Local         10.10.255.11    11 0800 0800    96K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.147    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.14     06 118F 0A26    88K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.95     Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.14     06 0C35 0D3D    84K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.105    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.27     06 C98F 01BD    70K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.117    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.53     06 CB1A 0D3D    41K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.65     Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.14     06 0EF9 05D6    40K
Gi0/0.1       10.10.11.112    Gi0/0.1       10.10.10.21     06 08D5 0D3D    37K
Thanks!

I believe the problem is caused because I have the WAAS appliance in the same subnet as users. I am using the 'egress-method negotiated-return intercept-method wccp' on the WAAS to send the traffic back to the router. This uses GRE, which is causing the cache flow data to show up the way it is.
I will have to move the WAAS to a different subnet and change the return method.

DMVPN Routing Protocols

Hi all, I have a couple of questions about routing protocols over DMVPN.
I'm a bit rusty so I'd appreciate if there's mistakes in my understanding if you could correct me.
I understand the EIGRP doesn't ordinarily use the next hop field, receiving routers insert the source of the EIGRP update as the next hop. It uses split horizoning and feasibility tests to detect loops. Over DMVPN you can use the no ip next hop self eigrp command to force eigrp to insert the originating router as the next hop.
OSPF you can specify different OSPF network types - I cannot remember exactly but it may be broadcast networks or multi-access that don't change the next hop?
RIPv2 - I do not understand how RIPv2 works with DMVPN (although I know it does) as to my knowledge Ripv2 does indeed change the next hop.
Can anyone explain how Ripv2 integrates with DMVPN and confirm or correct my understanding of EIGRP/OSPF?
Thanks very much

You're correct on EIGRP. OSPF preserves the next hop of the originating router in all modes except point-to-multipoint. RIPv2 always preserves the original next-hop and this can't be turned off... so it works with DMVPN with no modification except for the split-horizon considerations.
For scaling DMVPN, your worst choice is OSPF because of the large link-state database that forms with so many routers on a single subnet. EIGRP and RIPv2 are very good for DMVPN because the updates are small and simple. These days, I'm moving to BGP for just about all of my DMVPN work... mostly because it scales better than any IGP.

If support dynamic routing protocol?

Hi, guys
I know RRAS can support only RIP protocol. However, I cant find any way to configure dynamic routing protocol on TMG, some people say TMG cant support that even rip. That’s right? Is it possible or is there any plug-in can help TMG to do that?
Nice Day

Hi,
Thank you for your post here.
As far as I know, it is impossible to do that. By default, TMG does not support it.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee796231.aspx#t4t4e4t
Best Regards
Quan Gu

Does wccp redirect break routing protocol?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for