Load Balancing on 837 router

HI Prof,
I've two cisco 837 router with cisco IOS 12.3 currently. I would like to configure load balancing on both the router, have tried to configure GLBP but it show me that the hardware not supported.
Is there any other protocol or technology to achieve my desire?
Thank and Advice.

What are your requirements. Do you have multiple segments to support? Are you only looking for load-balancing or do you have a high availibility requirement?
In that case you can use multiple HSRP groups for instance.
Do both 837 routers have a separate xDSL connection?
Are you using NAT to translate between private and public address pools?
There is more than one solution to achieve load-balancing. Please answer the above questions and if possible draw a simple diagram of your desired topology.
HTH
Leon

Similar Messages

LRT224 Load Balance "dumb" DHCP router setup... HELP!

Hi
I'm trying to set up a LRT224 with two ADSL modems connected to one network with load balancing.
I'm not going to use vlan or vpn at all.
All I need it to do is be a "dumb" router that combines the speed of both Internet connections.
Working mode is set to Router
LAN 192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0 (I changed the LAN ip range)
WAN 1 and 2 gets IP, default gateway and DNS trough DHCP from the modems.
Wan 1: IP 192.168.1.65 Gateway 192.168.1.1 DNS 192.168.1.1
Wan 2: IP 192.168.2.38 Gateway 192.168.2.1 DNS 192.168.2.1
DHCP setup:
Device IP: 192.168.0.1
Subnet: 255.255.255.0
DHCP Server
Range 192.168.0.50/254
DNS: Use DNS from ISP
Dual Wan:
Load Balance
I'm no IT expert at but I have set up a few routers before that was close to "plug and play"
My problem is that connected computers indicate that they are connected to Internet, but I'm not able to access any websites.
When trying to use windows troubleshooter it indicates that there is a DNS problem.
I'm not even able to connect to the modems.
Installed latest firmware and done a fabric restore.
Network is built as follows (still working as I'm not running anything trough the lrt224 before I can get it to work)
ADSL Modem with built in DHCP and Switch --> Switch --> Ubiquiti Unifi AP --> User
Some of the AP's is connected via Ubiquiti NanoStation (wireless bridge between 4 houses, works great)
Any idea how to get this to work or do I have the wrong router?

I recommend:
Modem1 (192.168.1.1)=> LRT WAN1 (192.168.1.254)
Modem2 (10.10.10.1) => LRT WAN2 (10.10.10.254)
LRT WAN1 SN (255.255.255.0)
LRT WAN2 SN (255.255.255.0)
LRT WAN1 GW (192.168.1.1)
LRT WAN2 GW (10.10.10.1)
LRT WAN1 DNS (192.168.1.1)
LRT WAN2 DNS (10.10.10.1)
System Management => Load Balance
LRT DHCP Device IP (192.168.200.1)
LRT LAN => Switch => Ubiquiti Unifi AP => User
Nothing other than the LRT's connected to the modems.
If the modems DHCP is set to 192.168.1.x and 10.10.10.x subnet 255.255.255.0 then DHCP setting will work on the LRT WANs.
Please remember to Kudo those that help you.
Linksys
Communities Technical Support

Server Load-balancing and ACL router decision

Hello,
My 2 server farm distribution switches are running in "hybrid" mode, with CAT OS on the switch and IOS on the MSFC.
My server team is asking to block traffic to a specific server that is load balanced using Cisco's CSM load-balancer which is also installed in the chassis.
The question that I have is this.
Does anyone know in what order the MSFC will inspect and apply the ACL and when will the CSM make the load balancing decision?
The reason I need to know this is that the CSM is setup in bridged mode, where traffic to the server comes into the MSFC with a destination IP of a VIP which resides on the CSM. Subsequently, the CSM forwards the traffic to the one of the real servers in the load-balanced server farm after it makes its load-balancing decision. Which ocurrs first??
Does anyone have any info on what ocurrs first and so forth??
Is there a link to Cisco's website that explains this process??
Thanks in advance for your help.
Tony

Tony,
It sounds as if your setup is like this:
Client VLAN----MSFC----VLAN A----CSM----Server VLAN
With VLAN A and Server VLAN being the same IP subnet.
In this case all client traffic reaching the VIPs on the CSM first traverses the MSFC. So, if you want to block traffic to a specific VIP or Server IP you can do that on the MSFC's Interface for Client VLAN. You could configure an access list that filters inbound traffic on that VLAN interface.
Make sense?
-Brad

Hardware clustering/load balancing/failover with Tomcat

Hello forum!
I recently bought a Cisco 1801, and it sure is capable! Anyhow, I've got a hobby website that is getting a fair bit of traffic - approaching too much for one node to handle and it's time to start thinking about distributing the load.
I'd like to do a little clustering of server nodes running Apache Geronimo, which is J2EE running atop Apache Tomcat. For the sake of keeping things generic, let's just call it Tomcat because it configures the same way.
I do not run Apache HTTP Server as a proxy, I only run Tomcat directly connected to the internet. I do this for performance reasons.
Anyhow, I'm wondering if any of you evil geniuses could suggest a way that I could cluster Tomcat nodes directly using the router to serve as a hardware load balancer and have the whole sticky session thing with failover, etc... All of the documents I find on the subject discuss clustering by way of Apache HTTP with Mod_JK.
I have already asked this question on the hardware side, and got great information about the capable load balancing features my router sports (but limited compared to Cisco CSS products.)
Now I'm wondering if anyone has experience taking an open source application server like Geronimo or Tomcat or JBoss and clustering it using hardware load balancing. What kinds of Tomcat configurations, if any, do I need to add for things like sticky sessions and failover? Or, is all that automatic?
Thanks so much for reading and for any replies. If there is a better forum for my question, please direct me there.
Cheers,
Dave Woldrich
http://CardMeeting.com

This occurs rarely when the Tomcat process is not able to connect to the database. The database connection problem is an internal cause which manifests externally as missing fields in reports.
Workaround: Restart the Apache process and the Tomcat process. From the CLI on your CiscoWorks Server, enter the following commands in the specified sequence:
1. pdterm Apache
2. pdterm Tomcat
3. pdexec Tomcat
4. pdexec Apache

HTTP logs not created when using software load balancer

This is my setup:
1. I have a server running a software load balancer - call it A
2. There are two servers clustered under A - call it X and Y
3. I am able to access the application deployed on X and Y through A.
Fail-over also works. Shutting down X when the application is up and running routes the requests to Y and vice-versa. All is well until this point.
Problem is:
Let us take server X.
$ORACLE_HOME/Apache/Apache/logs does not have an access log in it. (It
however has an error log.)
Access logs are not created when accessing the servers in the cluster (X and Y) through the load balancer URL.
However, when accessing the individual servers in the cluster (with their URLs), access logs are created.
Specifics on the setup:
1. A, X, Y - all three are OAS 10.1.3.2
2. All three are deployed on individual server machines
3. All three servers have one OC4J instance each running in them
4. The software load balancer used is from WebLogic 8.1sp5 - basically to create a *.war file that has the details of X and Y (servers in the cluster)
5. This *.war file is deployed on A
6. Server A, the one that has the software load balancer, DOES NOT have AS control. One of the other servers in the cluster does.
Has anybody encountered this problem before? Or is there anything wrong
with the setup? What is the resolution for the same?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.

Thank you, Jacco. You are right in saying that the software load balancer does not route the request to Apache and hence the logs are not created.
While the logs are not critical to the component we are working on, was just wondering why they were not being created.
As regards your comment on FastCGI, there is a FastCGI directory created under $ORACLE_HOME/Apache/Apache/logs - but there is nothing in it. Neither do the error logs have any information pertaining to FastCGI.
Anyway, I am not going to worry about this issue anymore - may be sometime in the future will try to use a different software load balancer and see if it makes any difference.

Load Balancing using Virtual IP on DMZ interface of 5520 ASA

We want to achieve a load balancing scenario using Virtual IP on DMZ interface on a Cisco ASA 5520.
The IPs we are going to use on DMZ are 10.15.1.2 and 10.15.1.3
These IPs are going to be NATted to all inside IPs.
Lets say our outside IP is X.X.X.X
This IP points to 10.15.1.2 and 10.15.1.3 with .2 being the primary and .3 being the secondary.
When I hit the outside IP, it should point me to .2 and that .2 should take me to the inside IPs.
I need configuration assistance with that.

Hi Pratik,
The ASA does not support having 1 global/translated IP address on the outside mapped to multiple local/real IP addresses on the DMZ. If it did, the ASA would have no way of deciding if traffic destined to X.X.X.X is really meant for 10.15.1.2 or 10.15.1.3. For this scenario, you should use a dedicated load balancer or a router that supports policy-based routing.
-Mike

Load Balancing 2 routers

Hi all
Can someone tell me the best way to load balance between 2 routers, can someone post a typical config ?
thanks a million
Carl

Hi Carl,
You can use the following load-blancing methods between the routers.
1. Static routes or default route load-balancing
2. Multilink PPP
3. Equal/unequal cost path load-balancing with Dynamic Routing protocol.
4. CEF load-balancing.
Please see the DOC below.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2033/products_white_paper09186a0080091d4b.shtml
I have multilink PPP and static route load-balancing config handy with me. Please see below :
interface Multilink1
ip address 193.193.193.1 255.255.255.252
ppp multilink
multilink-group 1
interface Serial0/2
no ip address
encapsulation ppp
ppp multilink
multilink-group 1
interface Serial0/3
no ip address
encapsulation ppp
ppp multilink
multilink-group 1
interface Serial1/1:0
ip address 192.168.170.1 255.255.255.0
encapsulation ppp
no ip route-cache
interface Serial1/2:0
ip address 192.168.180.1 255.255.255.0
encapsulation ppp
no ip route-cache
ip route 172.28.20.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.170.2
ip route 172.28.20.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.180.2
HTH,
-amit singh

Cisco RV320 Load balance

Dear all,
I have 2 ADSL routers (4MB and 2MB). Can anyone advice me to can I use the RV320 for load balancing (4+2=6MB)?. Also, please advice me how the other 2 ADSL router should be setup to support for this load balancing?
Thank you,

Hello phoutsavong,
To learn more about load balancing and how to configure the WAN Interface on the RV320, you can refer to the article, Dual WAN Configuration on RV320 and RV325 VPN Router Series. This article will help you configure the WAN Interface. To start, select Load Balance in the Router configuration Utility.
I hope this helps and if you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kevin Yen

Load balancing weirdness using NAT and same-metric route

Hi.
I'm trying to set up a double-WAN load-balancing scenario:
I decided to attempt the "multiple same-metric routes with NAT" approach so I went for the example used in the IOS NAT Load-Balancing for Two ISP Connections Configuration Guide [1].
I decided to use an upside-down Cisco 871-SEC/K9: use Vlan1 and Vlan2 for the routers and Fa4 for the LAN. I am hoping this is not an issue.
There is this weirdness with some connections, particularly FTP. I pinpointed the problem to the following scenario: if I do a couple of pings to 100.1.1.1 using the FastEthernet4 as the source address, this is what I get in the logs:
=== PING 1 ECHO REQUEST ===
*Mar 3 04:38:43.521: IP: tableid=0, s=192.168.60.4 (FastEthernet4), d=100.1.1.1 (Vlan1), routed via RIB
*Mar 3 04:38:43.521: NAT: s=192.168.60.4->10.129.124.2, d=100.1.1.1 [14152]
*Mar 3 04:38:43.521: IP: s=10.129.124.2 (FastEthernet4), d=100.1.1.1 (Vlan1), g=10.129.124.1, len 60, forward
*Mar 3 04:38:43.521: ICMP type=8, code=0
=== PING 1 ECHO REPLY ===
*Mar 3 04:38:45.589: NAT*: s=100.1.1.1, d=10.129.124.2->192.168.60.4 [19824]
*Mar 3 04:38:45.589: IP: tableid=0, s=100.1.1.1 (Vlan1), d=192.168.60.4 (FastEthernet4), routed via RIB
*Mar 3 04:38:45.589: IP: s=100.1.1.1 (Vlan1), d=192.168.60.4 (FastEthernet4), g=192.168.60.4, len 60, forward
*Mar 3 04:38:45.589: ICMP type=0, code=0
=== (something else) ===
*Mar 3 04:38:52.353: RT: SET_LAST_RDB for 0.0.0.0/0
OLD rdb: via 10.129.124.33, Vlan2
NEW rdb: via 10.129.124.1, Vlan1
=== PING 2 ECHO REQUEST ===
*Mar 3 04:38:52.353: IP: tableid=0, s=192.168.60.4 (FastEthernet4), d=100.1.1.1 (Vlan2), routed via RIB
*Mar 3 04:38:52.353: NAT: s=192.168.60.4->10.129.124.2, d=100.1.1.1 [14159]
*Mar 3 04:38:52.353: IP: s=10.129.124.2 (FastEthernet4), d=100.1.1.1 (Vlan2), g=10.129.124.33, len 60, forward
*Mar 3 04:38:52.353: ICMP type=8, code=0
=== PING 2 ECHO REPLY ===
*Mar 3 04:38:53.029: NAT*: s=100.1.1.1, d=10.129.124.2->192.168.60.4 [19825]
*Mar 3 04:38:53.029: IP: tableid=0, s=100.1.1.1 (Vlan1), d=192.168.60.4 (FastEthernet4), routed via RIB
*Mar 3 04:38:53.033: IP: s=100.1.1.1 (Vlan1), d=192.168.60.4 (FastEthernet4), g=192.168.60.4, len 60, forward
*Mar 3 04:38:53.033: ICMP type=0, code=0
In the section "Ping 2 Echo Request" line 2 shows the NAT translating the packet to the address for the first provider but line 3 shows it routing it through the second one.
In this case, the ICMP packet goes through but it is problematic if the ISP restricts the service by source-address (like RPF) or there is some acceleration mechanism inside the provider cloud, other than just plain routing.
What am I missing? Here is the relevant part of the configuration. I deliberately disabled CEF to be able to debug the messages, but I *think* this may be altering the actual router behavior. This router does not have a "debug ip cef packet" command.
no ip cef
ip dhcp pool lan-side
import all
network 192.168.60.0 255.255.255.0
default-router 192.168.60.1
domain-name doublewan.local
dns-server 8.8.8.8 8.8.4.4
lease infinite
ip domain name doublewan
interface FastEthernet0
!doesn't appear on running-config: vlan 1 is the default access vlan
!switchport access vlan 1
interface FastEthernet1
switchport access vlan 2
interface FastEthernet2
shutdown
interface FastEthernet3
shutdown
interface FastEthernet4
ip address 192.168.60.1 255.255.255.0
ip nat inside
ip virtual-reassembly
no ip route-cache
duplex auto
speed auto
interface Vlan1
ip address 10.129.124.2 255.255.255.224
ip nat outside
ip virtual-reassembly
no ip route-cache
interface Vlan2
ip address 10.129.124.35 255.255.255.224
ip nat outside
ip virtual-reassembly
no ip route-cache
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Vlan1 10.129.124.1
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Vlan2 10.129.124.33
ip nat inside source route-map nat1 interface Vlan1 overload
ip nat inside source route-map nat2 interface Vlan2 overload
ip access-list standard acl4-nexthop-vlan1
permit 10.129.124.1
ip access-list standard acl4-nexthop-vlan2
permit 10.129.124.33
route-map nat2 permit 10
match ip address 102
match ip next-hop acl4-nexthop-vlan2
match interface Vlan2
route-map nat1 permit 10
match ip address 101
match ip next-hop acl4-nexthop-vlan1
match interface Vlan1
control-plane
Of course, there is some configuration pending for redundancy and stuff.
Thanks a lot in advance.
[1] http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/network-address-translation-nat/100658-ios-nat-load-balancing-2isp.html

Hello.
This might be a bug in debug command or the IOS (without ip cef) you use; as routing is done before NAT (inside to outside).
To make sure it works fine with ip cef, just enable strict uRPF (or just ACL) on .1 and .33 interfaces and see if you see any packet sent over wrong interface.
PS: please check "sh ip cef 100.1.1.1"; I guess ip cef would tell you "per-destination sharing".

Multiple WAN connections all through one router with load balancing?

I am setting up a network in my dormatory for myself and about 20 friends. about half of us have DSL connections at the moment. Is there a way to have all the DSL connections (possibly run through cheap home DSL routers) all connect into a cisco router that then acts as the gateway for our entire network? woudl it be possible for each internet request to go out over the connection that has the least load AND also be able to use some sort of load balancing, so one user cant use all of the outgoing/incoming bandwidth?
If you have any ideas please let me know

Hi Ian,
To get this working, you would either need to use something like PPP to bundle your links together or use a dynamic protocol.
In bundling the links, you could make them appear as one link, with a single IP address each end and the router takes care of distributing the load. To implement this though, you would need control of both sides of the link, or be terminating with one carrier who is happy to implement this for you.
The second is to use a dynamic protocol (such as eigrp, ospf, etc), which can build up a map of the network to router from point a to point b. For this you also need control of the link.
I can't think of another method, unless you can control the link from both sides. Your other option it to pool your money and buy a larger link or a leased line. If you bought a leased line or two, your carrier would be more than happy to talk to you about routing over that, but generally you're looking at mega bucks for that.
HTH,
Mark

Load balancing using multiple default routes

Hi Guys,
I just want to ask does creating multiple default routes on my router provides load-balancing on my WAN side? As far as i know, for example if I have two default routes on my router and let say I have two users connecting to the internet, the first one might go to the first WAN link while the second user might go to the second WAN link.
Thank you so much
Rex

there are the difference between, load balancing and load sharing..which we need to understand.
load sharing means you have 2 users, user A and User B, user A wants to use ISP1 and user B wants to use ISP2. this is called load sharing. and can be achieved via PBR (Policy based routing).
we should not try to use load balancing for Internet traffic with 2 different ISPs.

Load balancing with use of router 881.

Hello,
I have two MPLS line and i want load balancing with the help of CISCO router 881. is it necessary that i require two router on both location.? if one location have firewall and one location have cisco router 881 then can i do a load balancing or i require two router each on both location ? What are the basic requirement that i need.
Thanks,
Kuntal

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
An 881 should be able to load share across multiple ports. Many routing protocol support ECMP, including BGP, but you need "special" hidden/secret commands to enable. EIGRP also supports unequal cost load sharing.
If an 881 supports OER or PfR, those too will do unequal load sharing, dynamically.

Internet Load Balancing - Routing Issue

Dear all, good day...
in our ministry we are going to contract with 2 ISPs to provide us with the internet service (one of them will be the main line 16 MB, and the other line will be working as a backup line). Now, here is my question, is there any router that can holds the 2 ISPs lines at the same time and have the fail over property and load balancing, or i have to use 2 different routers (we have CISCO 2821) to do the load balancing between the 2 internet lines. Thankx

Hi Tareq
There are many ways you can do.But depending on your requirement.If you are using 2 ISPs and all of ISPs are willing to do BGP then that is the right way you should do. For doing load-sharing.please check this link out.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_configuration_example09186a00800945bf.shtml
Just my thought.In case one of your ISPs can't do BGP then you can use the policy-based routing feature to do out-bound load-sharing(inside to ISPs) by classifying traffics you want.
Try to understand technology first.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6599/products_white_paper09186a00800a4409.shtml
Hope this helps
Thot

Cisco 2811 Router with 3 ADSL card and load balancing

Dear All,
I have few queries:
1. Does Cisco 2811 Router support 3 ADSL card?
2. We are the ISP. I want to do load balancing with 3 dsl
line on Cisco 2811 Router.
Please send me the linke for this configuration.
Thanks/Regards
Atul

hi
In 2811 you have 4 HWIC and 1 NME you can install 1-port ADSL WAN Interface Cardon the HWIC slots.
Also just enable 3 default (equal cost) routes towards the interfaces which will take care of the load balancing.
if you need more info and inputs do post out with ur requirements along with network topology in place at present..
regds

2 x 2911 HSEC router 3 ADSL connections each Site ti Site VPN Load Balancing Failover

Hello,
My senario is as described in Title.
Site A Headquarters. The router is Cisco 2911HSEC with 3 ADSL connections
Site B Remote Office. The router is Cisco 2911HSEC with 3 ADSL connections and 10 Users.
All ADSL connections have static IPs and belong to same ISP.
Need - Site to Site VPN between the routers.
Client requests to load balance the traffic, due to poor ADSL speed and have a failover senarion in case an ADSL line goes down.
Any help will be appreciated.

I don't believe you will find a One solution for this.
An idea would be to have all three ADSLs paired with ADSL on the other side.
Have 3 VTI (or GRE) tunnels up all the time (VRF-lite anybody?) and advertise routes to the other side with same metric.
This will cause IOS to load balance natively.
Potential problem: return path might not be the same as forward path, but it should not matter much for most applications.
Potential cool thing you can do: All the "magical" things in routing world (Did I head PfR?). FlexVPN on top to make it more flexible.
Benefit: Rely on IKE to bring down connections which are going down. Little-to-no management once it's up and running.

Load Balancing on 837 router

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for