This is more FYI. 10.82.4.0/24 is a subnet on switch C. The path to it is split across vlans 10 and 11 but once it hits the port channel interfaces only one side of each is chosen. I'd like to avoid creating more vlan interfaces but right now that appears to be the only way to load balance equally across the four interfaces out of switch A.
ME3600#sh ip route 10.82.4.0
Routing entry for 10.82.4.0/24
Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 154, type extern 1
Last update from x.x.x.153 on Vlan10, 01:20:46 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
x.x.x.153, from 10.82.15.1, 01:20:46 ago, via Vlan10
Route metric is 154, traffic share count is 1
* x.x.x.135, from 10.82.15.1, 01:20:46 ago, via Vlan11
Route metric is 154, traffic share count is 1
ME3600#sh ip cef 10.82.4.0
10.82.4.0/24
nexthop x.x.x.135 Vlan11
nexthop x.x.x.153 Vlan10
ME3600#sh ip cef 10.82.4.0 internal
10.82.4.0/24, epoch 0, RIB[I], refcount 5, per-destination sharing
sources: RIB
ifnums:
Vlan10(1157): x.x.x.153
Vlan11(1192): x.x.x.135
path 093DBC20, path list 0937412C, share 1/1, type attached nexthop, for IPv4
nexthop x.x.x.135 Vlan11, adjacency IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
path 093DC204, path list 0937412C, share 1/1, type attached nexthop, for IPv4
nexthop x.x.x.153 Vlan10, adjacency IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
output chain:
loadinfo 088225C0, per-session, 2 choices, flags 0003, 88 locks
flags: Per-session, for-rx-IPv4
16 hash buckets
< 0 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
< 1 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
< 2 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
< 3 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
< 4 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
< 5 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
< 6 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
< 7 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
< 8 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
< 9 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
<10 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
<11 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
<12 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
<13 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
<14 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
<15 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
Subblocks:
None

Similar Messages

Load balancing across multiple machines

I am looking for assistance in configuring Tuxedo to perform load balancing across
multiple machines. I have successfully performed load balancing for a service
across different servers hosted on one machine but not to another server that's
hosted on a different machine.
Any assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Hello, Christina.
Load balancing with multiple machines is a little bit different than
in the same machine. One of the important resource in this kind
of application is network bandwidth, so tuxedo tries to keep the
traffic among the machines as low as possible. So, it only
balance the load (call services in other machine) in case all the
services are busy in the machine where they are call.
I mean, if you have workstation clients attached only to one
machine, then tuxedo will call services in this machine untill
all servers are busy.
If you want load balancing, try to put one WSL in each machine,
and the corresponding configuration in your WSC ( with the | to
make tuxedo randomly choose one or the other) or spread your
native clients among all the machines.
And so, be carefull with the routing!
Ramón Gordillo
"Christina" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
I am looking for assistance in configuring Tuxedo to perform load balancing
across
multiple machines. I have successfully performed load balancing for a
service
across different servers hosted on one machine but not to another server
that's
hosted on a different machine.
Any assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Load balancing across multiple paths to Internet

Hello,
I have a 2821 router. Currently, I have two bonded T-1 circuits to the Internet.
I would like to add a DSL circuit to augment the T1s. I would also like to load balance across all of the circuits. Currently, IOS performs inherent load balancing for the T1 circuits. The DSL circuit is from a different provider than the T1s.
The T1s are coming from a local ISP that runs no routing protocols within their infrastructure. (They run static routes and rely on the upstream provider for BGP.) The DSL provider is a national telecom carrier.
What is the best way to perform load balancing for this scenario?

Here is the answer (sort of) for anyone reading this post with the same question:
No matter which way I choose to do it, the trick is to have the local ISP subnet advertised via BGP through both pipes. The national telecom DSL provider will not advertise a /20 subnet down a DSL pipe. (Ahh, why not? =:)
Had the secondary pipe been a T-1,T-3, or other traditional pipe, I could have used a load balancer like a BigIP, or FatPipe device or possibly CEF within the IOS.
Case closed. Thanks to everyone that took a look.
Doug.

Sticky load balancing across 2 ports with cookies

Hi,
I have a server configuration where I have 1 top level Apache server that deals with SSL termination (and handles static content) and proxy passes dynamic content onto 2 Tomcat servers on 2 ports, one for http requests (9001) and one for the requests that were secure, but have now been un-encrypted by Apache (9002). My 2 Tomcat servers are load balanced using a CSS and I need this load balancing to stick to the tomcat servers regardless of port so that the user is stuck to the same Tomcat server for their entire session.
I would like to use arrowpoint cookies to perform this stickyness, but the documentation suggests that arrowpoint cookie load balancing (in fact any cookie based load balancing) requires the port to be specified in the content rule. Is this correct? Is my only option to use the source IP for stickyness? I don't understand why the port should be required if the stickyness is via a cookie. Can I not simply configure my 2 tomcat servers as services with no port and add a single content rule that load balances these services using arrowpoint-cookie advanced balancing?
service tomcat1
ip address x.x.x.x
active
service tomcat2
ip address x.x.x.x
active
owner me
   content sticky
     vip address x.x.x.x
     protocol tcp
     url "/*"
     add service tomcat-1
     add service tomcat-2
     advanced-balance arrowpoint-cookie
     active

Angela-
The issue with port is that cookies are very specifically HTTP only and the CSS has no way of knowing what protocol will hit a VIP prior to trying to address it as HTTP. Your issue is actually a bit clearer than it is initially led to be - you can still use 2 different rules by using the configuration below.
However, you might be headed for a headache if you don't implicitly control the client's actions. By default, browsers don't generally send cookies cross-protocol and definitely not cross-domain. Use something like httpwatch or iewatch to check out the headers your client sends to your site. Make sure when the 200ok arrives with the set-cookie that the client sends that cookie in all preceeding packets that are HTTP and HTTPS both.
service tomcat1
string "tomcat1"
ip address x.x.x.x
active
service tomcat2
string "tomcat2"
ip address x.x.x.x
active
owner me
   content sticky9001
     vip address x.x.x.x
     protocol tcp
     url "/*"
     port 9001
     add service tomcat-1
     add service tomcat-2
     advanced-balance arrowpoint-cookie
     active
   content sticky9002
     vip address x.x.x.x
     protocol tcp
     url "/*"
     port 9002
     add service tomcat-1
     add service tomcat-2
     advanced-balance arrowpoint-cookie
     active
With this configuration, the CSS will use the "string" as the cookie value. So if the client were to recieve set-cookie: ArrowpointCookie=tomcat1, it should use it for either rule, and end up on tomcat1 accessing either VIP.
Regards,
Chris

Load balancing across multiple application servers not working with JCo RFC

We have a problem where inbound messages to the Mapping Runtime engine (ABAP -> J2EE) are not load balanced over application servers. However, load balancing does take place across server nodes within one application server.
Our system comprises of the following:
Central Instance (2 X server nodes)
Database Instance
2 X Dialog Instances (with 2 X server nodes each)
The 1st application server that starts is usually the one that is used for inbound messaging.
We have looked at the sap gateway configuration and have tried various options without much luck:
i.e.: local gateways vs. one central gateway, load balancing type by changing parameter gw/reg_lb_level, see: http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70/helpdata/EN/bb/9f12f24b9b11d189750000e8322d00/frameset.htm
Here are our release levels:
SAP_ABA     700     0012     SAPKA70012
SAP_BASIS     700     0012     SAPKB70012
PI_BASIS     2005_1_700     0012     SAPKIPYJ7C
ST-PI     2005_1_700     0005     SAPKITLQI5
SAP_BW     700     0013     SAPKW70013
ST-A/PI     01J_BCO700     0000          -
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks

Tim
Did you follow the guide here:
How to Scale Up SAP Exchange Infrastructure 3.0
Learn what the most likely scaled system architecture looks like, and read about a step by step procedure to install additional dialog instances. The guide also walks you through additional configuration steps and the application of Support Package Stacks.
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/c3d9d710-0d01-0010-7486-9a51ab92b927
We followed this guide for XI3.0 and PI7.0 and works successfully!

Load Balancing across Multiple DMZ's

Can you split one Css11503 across two separate DMZ's securely. I have a group of server that are currently being load balanced in one DMZ I now have a requirement to Load balance another set of server in another DMZ is it possible spilt the CSS across two DMZ's and still maintain a high level of Security

You need a separate CSS for each interface of the firewall.
If you use the same CSS for 2 DMZ, traffic inter DMZ will be routed by CSS and will bypass the firewall.
Gilles.

Load balancing across DMZs - Revisited

I know this question has been asked before and the answer is to have separate content switches per DMZ in order to maintain the security policy. There is an option to have the content switch in front of the firewall and then use only one content switch to load balance across multiple DMZs. Is this an acceptable design or the recommendation is to have a separate content switch behind the firewall for each DMZ of the firewall?
Can a Cisco 6500 with CSM be configured for multiple layer 2 load balanced VLANs thus achieving a mutiple DMZ load balancing scenario with only one switch/CSM?

How do you connect the router to the firewall ?
Problem is the response from the server to a client on the internet.
Traffic needs to get back to the CSS and if the firewall default gateway is the router, the response will not go to the CSS and the CSS will reset it.
If you configure the default gateway of the firewall to be the CSS, than all traffic from your network to the outside will go through the CSS.
This could be a concern as well.
If you don't need to know the ip address of the client for your reporting, you can enable client nat on the CSS to guarantee that server response is sent to the css without having the firewall default gateway pointing at the CSS.
Gilles.

IPTV load balancing across broadcast servers.

I know that across Archive servers in the same cluster that IPTV control server will load balance , is there is a similar function with Broadcast servers. I know broadcast servers use a different delivery mechanism (Multicast). We have multiple broadcast servers that take in an identical live stream, but the only way to advertise thru a URL is a seperate URL per server. Is there some way to hide the multiple URL's to the client population?

No. There is no way to load balance across multiple broadcast servers for live streams. Since this is going to be multicast, there should not be any additional load on the servers when the number of users are more.

Load balancing across database connection

Do you provide load balancing across database connections and allow RDBMS load
balancing for read only access?
Thanks in advance.

Hello, Christina.
Load balancing with multiple machines is a little bit different than
in the same machine. One of the important resource in this kind
of application is network bandwidth, so tuxedo tries to keep the
traffic among the machines as low as possible. So, it only
balance the load (call services in other machine) in case all the
services are busy in the machine where they are call.
I mean, if you have workstation clients attached only to one
machine, then tuxedo will call services in this machine untill
all servers are busy.
If you want load balancing, try to put one WSL in each machine,
and the corresponding configuration in your WSC ( with the | to
make tuxedo randomly choose one or the other) or spread your
native clients among all the machines.
And so, be carefull with the routing!
Ramón Gordillo
"Christina" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
I am looking for assistance in configuring Tuxedo to perform load balancing
across
multiple machines. I have successfully performed load balancing for a
service
across different servers hosted on one machine but not to another server
that's
hosted on a different machine.
Any assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ACE30 load balancing across two slightly different rservers

Hi,
is there a possibility to get a load balancing across two rservers so:
when client sends http://vip/ and it goes to rserver1 then url is sent without change
when client sends http://vip/ and it goes to rserver2 then url is modified to http://vip/xyz/
Or maybe load balancing can be done across two serverfarms ?
thanks

Ryszard,
I hope you are doing great.
I do not think that´s possible since the ACE just load balance the traffic to the servers and once the load balance decision has been taken it will pass the "ball" to the chosen server.
Think about this, let´s say user A needs to go to Server1 but guess what? based on the load balance decision it was sent to Server2 which unfortunately does not have what the customer was looking for. OK, fine, user A close the connection and tries again but now the Server1 is down then the only available is Server2 then the ACE sends it to Server2 again then user A just decides to leave, you see how bad that can be.
A better approach would be to have either 2 VIPs ( different IP addresses) or 2 with the same IP address but hearing on another port, perhaps, one port per server.
Hope this helps!
Jorge

Load balancing over multiple E3s

Hi all,
For the same VP , can I make load balancing over multiple E3s connected bet the BPX 8600 and MGX 8850.
Asking the question in another way:
Is there a possibility for load balancing over multiple LSPs (multiple E3 interfaces) in Cell-Mode MPLS...and if possible,plz provide me with any good links for configuration.

Following link might be useful to you
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wanbu/bpx8600/9_2/ref92/bpxrtag.htm

Load balancing across 4 web servers in same datacentre - advice please

Hi All
Im looking for some advice please
The apps team have asked me about load balancing across some servers but im not that well up on it for applications
Basically we have 4 apache web servers with about 2000 clients connecting to them, they would like to load balance connections to all these servers, they all need the same DNS name etc.
what load balancing methods would I need for this, I believe they run on Linux
Would I need some sort of device, or can the servers run some software that can do this, how would it work? and how would load balancing be achieved here?
cheers

Carl,
What you have mentioned sounds very straightforward then everything should go well.
The ACE is a load balancer which takes a load balancing decisions based on different matching methods like matching virtual address, url, source address, etc then once the load balance decision has been taken then the ACE will load balance the traffic based on the load balance method which you have configured (if you do not configure anything then it will use the default which is "round robin"), then it will send the traffic to the servers which it has available and finally the client should get the content.
If you want to get some details about the load balancing methods here you have them:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/app_ntwk_services/data_center_app_services/ace_appliances/vA3_1_0/configuration/slb/guide/overview.html#wp1000976
For ACE deployments the most common designs are the following.
Bridge Mode
One Arm Mode
Routed Mode
Here you have a link for Bridge Mode and a sample for that:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Basic_Load_Balancing_Using_Bridged_Mode_on_the_Cisco_Application_Control_Engine_Configuration_Example
Here you have a link for One Arm Mode and a sample for that:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Basic_Load_Balancing_Using_One_Arm_Mode_with_Source_NAT_on_the_Cisco_Application_Control_Engine_Configuration_Example
Here you have a link for Routed Mode and a sample for that:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Basic_Load_Balancing_Using_Routed_Mode_on_the_Cisco_Application_Control_Engine_Configuration_Example
Then as you could see in all those links you may end up having a configuration like this:
interface vlan 40
description "Default gateway of real servers"
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
service-policy input remote-access
no shutdown
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.16.1.1
class-map match-all slb-vip
2 match virtual-address 172.16.1.100 any
policy-map multi-match client-vips
class slb-vip
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy slb
policy-map type loadbalance http first-match slb
class class-default
    serverfarm web
serverfarm host web
rserver lnx1
    inservice
rserver lnx2
    inservice
rserver lnx3
    inservice
rserver host lnx1
ip address 192.168.1.11
inservice
rserver host lnx2
ip address 192.168.1.12
inservice
rserver host lnx3
ip address 192.168.1.13
inservice
Please mark it if it answered you question then other users can use it as reference in the future.
Hope this helps!
Jorge

SA520 load balancing for multiple IPSec connections

Hello,
I just would like to ask whether the following is possible or what other people think might be the best way to go.
Let me describe the current setup:
Our company has a main office which is connected to the internet through an SA520W appliance, and two satellite offices which have other IPSec routers installed. The SA520W is currently only connected through the main WAN interface to a DSL line (DSL 16000). The tunnels are established and it all works quite well.
However, we have experienced lags and slow connections when someone transfers a larger file from the main office to the outside (either satellite office or, say, some FTP server on the internet). This is of course due to the limited upload capacity of the DSL line. Therefore, I am thinking about getting another DSL line for use as the optional WAN port of the SA520W.
My question is: Is it possible to establish two IPSec tunnels from a satellite office to the main office, one to the main WAN port and one to the optional WAN port of the SA520W? The two main hurdles I see with that is that a) the SA520W can only bind IPSec to one port and b) the network mask of each IPSec phase 2 needs to identify the subnet uniquely. Am I correct with the assumption that this cannot be done?
If so, the only way I can see right now is to bind all IPsec traffic to the optional port and have at least main office <-> internet traffic separated from all IPSec traffic. Or has anyone a better solution to this?
Thanks in advance,
Roland

I honestly don't recall any issues with the load balancing. I've personally never seen an issue, opened a case for one or observed a problem in my lab using multiple T1 lines...
That's not to say there could be a problem. But as far as I know this aspect of the router is solid.
The only thing I strongly dislike about most modern DSL deployments, the ISP like to give out "residential" or "business" gateways. These things just make life terrible since it is a router/nat device.
-Tom
Please rate helpful posts

Tuxedo load balancing across system

Hi there,
does bea tuxedo version 8 or above has feature like weblogic to configure load balancing/failover across multiple system?
Thanks,
Simon

Simon,
Tuxedo does offer load balancing. A high-level description of this feature
for Tuxedo 8.0 is at http://edocs.bea.com/tuxedo/tux80/atmi/intatm24.htm
A description of the configuration file parameters used to set up load
balancing is at http://edocs.bea.com/tuxedo/tux80/atmi/rf537.htm ; look for
the LDBAL, NETLOAD, and LOAD parameters.
<Simon Leong> wrote in message news:[email protected]..
Hi there,
does bea tuxedo version 8 or above has feature like weblogic to configureload balancing/failover across multiple system?
>
Thanks,
Simon

Load balancing with multiple clusters (HTTPProxyServlet)

          Hello!
          I'm newbie in Weblogic. I would like to have clustering and load balancing in
          development environment. I've created 2 clusters, with one managed server each.
          I've created a web application for deploying the http proxy servlet and put it
          under another managed server without clustering. Below is my configuration:
          managed server without cluster (as proxy) - Port 8002
          admin server - Port 8001
          cluster_1 - multicast address 237.0.0.11, multicast port 8004, cluster address
          - t3://localhost:8006, t3://localhost:8007
          cluster_2 - multicast address 237.0.0.10, multicast port 8014, cluster address
          - t3://localhost:8006, t3://localhost:8007
          managed_cluster1 - under cluster_1, port 8006
          managed_cluster2 - under cluster_2, port 8007
          in the web.xml of the proxy, i put the following parameters:
          <param-name>WebLogicCluster</param-name>
          <param-value>localhost:8006|localhost:8007</param-value>
          However, when i send the requests to http://localhost:8002/sms, the requests always
          go to the same server, for eg: managed_cluster2?
          If i configure using single cluster, the load balancing will be in proper. What's
          the cause fo the problem? and any solution?
          Thanx in advance.
          Regards,
          joey


You have 2 options here Jordi, either you can use BGP loadbalancing, this requires multipath as BGP by default would only install one route from the BGP table to the RIB hence FIB.
But this may result in excessive IRL (inter rack link) usage in the cluster when traffic coming in on rack0 wants to take the bGP path out on rack1
You could also use ABF (access-list based forwarding) to forcelly push traffic received on rack0 out on the link on rack0 and use an ipsla tracker to fallback to rack1 in case the uplink is gone.
Alternatively to extend this by IGP signaling to redirect traffic preferably to rack1 to start with to minimize the IRL usage.
And then you also have the ability to use RPL in the uplink path to make one link more preferred on teh internet then the other in case you want to control a bit which link is preferably used on rack0 or rack1
regards
xander

OSPF load balancing across multiple port channels

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for