Router can perform static route load balance

Dear All
I am not sure a question. I need your idea and help. The question is if the router can perform static route load balance. I tested it. The result showed No. If you have any experience on it, could share it with me. I also post my result here. Thank you

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
Normally they can, but you generally need different next hops.  How did you "test".

Similar Messages

  • If equal cost routes exist, OSPF uses CEF load balancing?

    Hi All,
    Can anyone explain about:
    . If equal cost routes exist, OSPF uses CEF load balancing?

    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
    Rick is correct, but if his response, with mine, causes any confusion. . .
    To OP's original question:
    If equal cost routes exist, OSPF uses CEF load balancing?
    The answer is technically no, for the reason Rick describes.
    But if we rephrase, such as:
    Does CEF load balance across multiple equal cost routes generated by OSPF?
    The answer would be yes.
    I suspect the latter question is what the OP really had in mind, but again, Rick is correct to distinguish that OSPF doesn't use CEF.

  • I am looking for an AP that can perform the routing as well which model should i go for

                       HI, while setting up the wireless network for best networking institute in bangalore, networkers Zone (http://networkerszone.com/), i found that we require a router for static routing and an AP so i was wondering if i can get one device for both purpose as i do not require to run routing protocols.

    Hi,
    the Cisco 891W or 881W  come with a build in AP module inside that would be like having a router connected with an Ethernet cable to an stand alone access point but instead of having the 2 devices the AP module is embedded inside the router.
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10194/index.html
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9556/index.html

  • Can't get sticky load balancing to work

    I'm really puzzled why sticky LB is not working for a simple case I'm trying. I have two simple JSP's, both registered (see web.xml and ias-web.xml below). I'm using lite session and set distributable to false. Just in case someone can tell by just looking at my session id if it's supposed to be sticky or not, it looks like following -
    GXLiteSessionID-4818869464307751325
    My two JSP's are also attached below, and they're pretty simple. A new session is supposed to be created in login page and clicking on the logout page invalidates the session.
    What I see is that each request (whether login or logout) is randomly sent to any server. For example, if I go to login once, further request to login or logout (whether through refresh or by clicking on the link) is not necessarily sent to the same server.
    Any idea what's missing in my setup? I've tried different types of load balancing (round robin, etc.) so I know that's not it.
    Thanks a lot in advance.
    Jitu
    -----web.xml-------
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <!DOCTYPE web-app PUBLIC '-//Sun Microsystems, Inc.//DTD Web Application 2.2//EN' 'http://java.sun.com/j2ee/dtds/web-app_2_2.dtd'>
    <web-app>
    <display-name>WebDesk</display-name>
    <distributable>false</distributable>
    <servlet>
    <servlet-name>TestLogin.jsp</servlet-name>
    <jsp-file>TestLogin.jsp</jsp-file>
    </servlet>
    <servlet-mapping>
    <servlet-name>TestLogin.jsp</servlet-name>
    <url-pattern>TestLogin.jsp</url-pattern>
    </servlet-mapping>
    <servlet>
    <servlet-name>TestLogout.jsp</servlet-name>
    <jsp-file>TestLogout.jsp</jsp-file>
    </servlet>
    <servlet-mapping>
    <servlet-name>TestLogout.jsp</servlet-name>
    <url-pattern>TestLogout.jsp</url-pattern>
    </servlet-mapping>
    <login-config>
    <auth-method>BASIC</auth-method>
    <realm-name></realm-name>
    <form-login-config>
    <form-login-page></form-login-page>
    <form-error-page></form-error-page>
    </form-login-config>
    </login-config>
    </web-app>
    -----ias-web.xml------
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <!DOCTYPE ias-web-app PUBLIC '-//Sun Microsystems, Inc.//DTD iAS Web Application 1.0//EN' 'http://developer.iplanet.com/appserver/dtds/IASWebApp_1_0.dtd'>
    <ias-web-app>
    <servlet>
    <servlet-name>TestLogin.jsp</servlet-name>
    <guid>{A6D6B277-288D-1C22-C3CA-0800209A2F7C}</guid>
    <servlet-info>
    <sticky>true</sticky>
    <sticky-lb>true</sticky-lb>
    </servlet-info>
    </servlet>
    <servlet>
    <servlet-name>TestLogout.jsp</servlet-name>
    <guid>{B88B7D19-28B9-1C22-EE63-0800209A2F7C}</guid>
    <servlet-info>
    <sticky>true</sticky>
    <sticky-lb>true</sticky-lb>
    </servlet-info>
    </servlet>
    <session-info>
    <impl>lite</impl>
    <timeout-type>last-access</timeout-type>
    <timeout>60</timeout>
    <secure>false</secure>
    <domain></domain>
    <path>/</path>
    <scope></scope>
    </session-info>
    </ias-web-app>
    -----TestLogin.jsp-------
    <%
         java.util.Date date = new java.util.Date();
         HttpSession sess = request.getSession(true);
         System.out.println(date + ":TestLogin.jsp: sessionid = " + sess.getId() + ", new = " + sess.isNew());
    %>
    <HTML>
    <HEAD>
    <TITLE>TestLogin</TITLE>
    </HEAD>
    <BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0>
    <p>
    You are now logged in.<br>
    <br>
    TestLogin.jsp: sessionid = <%=sess.getId()%>, new = <%=sess.isNew()%><br>
    <br>
    Click here to logout.
    </BODY>
    </HTML>
    ----TestLogout.jsp-------
    <%
         java.util.Date date = new java.util.Date();
         HttpSession sess = request.getSession(true);
         System.out.println(date + ":TestLogout.jsp: sessionid = " + sess.getId() + ", new = " + sess.isNew());
    %>
    <HTML>
    <HEAD>
    <TITLE>TestLogout</TITLE>
    </HEAD>
    <BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0>
    <p>
    TestLogout.jsp: sessionid = <%=sess.getId()%>, new = <%=sess.isNew()%><br>
    <br>
    <%
    sess.invalidate();
    %>
    You are now logged out.<br>
    <br>
    Click here to login.
    </BODY>
    </HTML>

    Hi,
    I think it's best to wait for sometime and check the behaviour of sticky load balancing for sometime, the reason being one or more of the following...
    - Although sticky feature ensures that the component is run at a single server, when combined with load balancing and under heavy user loads, the load balancing takes place.
    - If we rule out the previous case, then, the load balancing mechanism, especially, per component based or per server based, sends request by round robin technique initally(around 128 times or so) and then calculates the effeciency of the response time and then follows the per server based or per component based.
    - Meanwhile please ensure that, you have enabled the Sticky LB option under Application using iASAT and please wait for sometime sending requests(probably 130 times) after which it's good to check the mechanism of the sticky bit technique. If it doesn't behaves as it has to then, please let me know and I can help you further on this.
    Regards
    RG

  • How can I debug Aggressive Load Balancing on the WLC ?

    Hello Cisco-Experts,
    I'm looking for the command on the Cisco WLC to debug Aggressive Load-Balancing.
    There is a nice document, ID 107457 describing this feature, but it lacks the command.
    Please investigate and help me and maybe improve YOur documentations.
    Thanks in advance
    Winfried

    Hello NetPros,
    I have disabled now "Agressive Load Balancing" now on the WLC. To my surprise, still Load-balancing packets are received from our HREAP-APs via a WAN-Link on the central WLC.
    Here is an example:
    Tue Jan 13 15:35:59 2009: 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e LBS data stored for Mobile 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e from AP 00:23:5d:0e:e9:e0(0) new saved RS
    SI (A -128, B -53), SNR 41, inUse 1, [rcvd RSSI (A -128, B -54), SNR 40]
    Tue Jan 13 15:35:59 2009: 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e LBS data rcvd for Mobile 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e from AP 00:23:5d:0e:e9:e0(0) with RSSI (A -
    128, B -55), SNR 42
    Tue Jan 13 15:35:59 2009: 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e LBS data stored for Mobile 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e from AP 00:23:5d:0e:e9:e0(0) new saved RS
    SI (A -128, B -54), SNR 41, inUse 1, [rcvd RSSI (A -128, B -55), SNR 42]
    It is remarkable that the MAC-addresses of many of the WLAN-clients do not belong to our company and packets are send via a WAN-link.
    Why do I see these packets while load-balancing is disabled ?
    How is this working ?
    Thank You for any explanation.
    Winfried

  • CSS11501 load-balancing IPv6 services

    Hi,
    I'm new to content networking and load-balancing.
    I am setting up a new nameserver network site and have the following equipment:
    - Cisco 2811
    - Cicso CSS11501
    - Cisco Catalyst 2960
    This site will have 2 nameservers which I want to load-balance behind the CSS11501. The network will be setup like this:
    Internet
    |
    Cisco 2811
    |
    CSS11501
    |
    Cisco 2960
    |
    Nameservers 1 & 2
    The CSS11501 will be in routed mode and will have a publicly addressed VIP (eg, 203.x.x.x) for the DNS service and the name servers will be privately addressed (eg, 10.x.x.10 & 10.x.x.11). I'm hoping this will work fine and serve the requested IPv4 DNS requests.
    I would like the nameservers to also operate on IPv6 and serve out IPv6 DNS requests but am not sure the CSS11501 can perform IPv6 service load-balancing.
    My question is, does the CSS11501 support IPv6, load-balancing IPv6 service requests?
    Thanks in advance.
    Richard.

    Gilles,
    Thanks for the reply.
    On another site I was looking at rolling out a Catalyst 6500 CSM module to do the exact same thing as the site I have the CSS11501's at, but it too does not support IPv6 from all I could find. Does the ACE provide all the functionality of the CSM plus IPv6?
    Thanks.
    Richard.

  • 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.

  • How can I configure static routes in a CUCM?

    Hi.
    I have seen that there is no-way to set static routes in a Call Manager but I have read that you can add static routes in the Linux that runs CUCM.
    If I do that, will I l lose the Cisco support for that server?
    I don't know why a Level 3 server (like a CUCM, Presence , Unity,...) doesn't permit routing configuration.
    Regards.
    Rafa

    Thanks for your answer, Jaime.
    That implies that we have to insert an intermediate router.
    I think that routing features should be implemented in Unified Comunications servers.
    Regards

  • 2911/k9 lose static routing table entry

    Hi,
    my cisco router 2911/k9 with release 15.2(4)m6a lose default and static routing table entry every day, and after a reload the entry came back to my routing table.
    this is an extract of my config:
    interface Serial0/0/0:0
     no ip address
     encapsulation frame-relay IETF
     frame-relay lmi-type cisco
    interface Serial0/0/0:0.1 point-to-point
     ip address  xxxxx.1
     ip access-group 100 in
     ip load-sharing per-packet
     ip inspect cccc in
     no cdp enable
     frame-relay interface-dlci 100   
    interface Serial0/1/0:0
     no ip address
     encapsulation frame-relay IETF
     frame-relay lmi-type cisco
    interface Serial0/1/0:0.1 point-to-point
     ip address yyyyy.1
     ip access-group 100 in
     ip load-sharing per-packet
     ip inspect cccc in
     no cdp enable
     frame-relay interface-dlci 100
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 xxxxx.2
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 yyyyyy.2
    and more ip route static specific
    Please, Who can help  me? Can be a bug ?

    Hi,
    It could be a bug but at this point, I am not that bold to assume that. We need more information.
    May it be that your Frame Relay connection flaps? Is it possible that your subinterfaces go down? Please check the logs to see if the interfaces or subinterfaces change their status (up/down).
    Can you verify the logs if there are any notes of recursive routing?
    When you say the router loses the static routes, do they both completely disappear from the routing table? Do they at least stay configured in your running-config?
    As a last-resort measure, turn on logging of debugging messages by logging buffered 1000000 debugging and then start the debug ip routing command. This command will cause a debugging message to be recorded every time there is a change to the routing table. At least we will see what event caused the default routes to disappear. You will probably need to run this debug running overnight till the default routes disappear.
    Best regards,
    Peter

  • Multiple instances of EIGRP or static routes

    I'm building a network which needs to have All but one of it's private networks pass through a DMVPN, all the routes are advertised through EIGRP, that part works great!
    I have a private VLAN that only has access onto the internet, the address is Nat'ed over to a public IP address. Each router, there's six of them, are neighbors to two other routers. The furthest router to the internet has to go through three routers to get to the internet. My current idea is to use static routes on all the routers to the Internet gateway router. Then let recursive routing sort out each hop. What I would rather do is have EIGRP do all that. I really don't want to mess with the EIGRP that's running for the DMVPN tunnels, I'd like to have another instance of EIGRP run on the routers that will route the users to the Internet.
    Does anyone have any thoughts concerning this design.
    Thanks.
    Mitch

    Mitch
    I am not clear about what you are attempting to achieve and not very clear about the topology. So my answer may or may not be on target. If it is not perhaps you can help us understand a little better what is involved.
    I believe that what you are saying is that you have an existing network with multiple locations connected over DMVPN and that you run EIGRP as the routing protocol for that network. I believe you are also saying that there is one network segment which needs access to the Internet but should not be able to access the other parts of your network.
    You say that the address of this other segment is NATed but are not clear whether the translation is ont the router where the segment is located or is on the Internet gateway router.
    Probably the traditional solution for this would be to provide a default route for this segment pointing toward the Internet gateway router, to have a route on the Internet gateway router (and other routers along the path toward where the network is located), and a series of access lists on each router along the way which allows passage to the Internet and denies access to local resources.
    I would propose a somewhat different solution. I believe that it would work if you configure a GRE tunnel between the router where the segment is located and the Internet Gateway router. On the router where the segment is located you could do Policy Based Routing to send traffic from the private segment to the Internet over the GRE tunnel (which effectively isolates it from your other resources). You might want Policy Based Routing on the Internet gateway router to be sure that traffic from the private segment was forwarded only to the Internet (though you might not need that). The Internet gateway router could have a route (probably a static route) which sends traffic to the private segment over the GRE tunnel.
    Let us know what you think of this. And if it is off the mark perhaps you could clarify a bit.
    HTH
    Rick

  • Configuring MPLS VPN using static routing

    Hi,
    I am managed to set up a BGP/MPLS VPN in a laboratory using CS3620 routers running IOS 12.2(3) with ISIS. I am thinking of using static routes among the PE and P routers instead of a IGP. Does anyone know if Cisco routers supports static configuration of LSP? I have tried but could not get it work.

    You can very well run MPLS with static routing in the core, as in Cisco we have to meet 2 criterias to have a MPLS forwarding Table.
    1) Creating the LIB
    This thing lies in having LDP neighborship netween two peers and you have Label bindings.
    This is irrespective of what is the best next hop to reach the advertising peers LDP_ID.
    2) Creating the LFIB
    Now after considering all the Label bindings, the LDP_ID which can be reached out an interface
    as a next hop, those Label bindings get installed in the LFIB.
    So considering the above two points, we have to be careful in static routes
    only for interfaces like Ethernet (Multiaccess Segments).
    As in CEF when you give a static route pointing to an Ethernet Interface, CEF creates a
    GLean Adjacency (Meaning there could be multiple hosts as the next hop on this segement, and it will glean for the right next-hop)
    Now you may observe that when you give a static route only pointing to an Ethernet interface,
    you LDP adjacency may come up and you may exchange the bindings with each other. But the Label Forarding Table is not created. This is bcos of this being a Multiaccess interface. And you have
    Glean For it. If its a Normal WAN interface like Serial or POS, then there is no problem of
    GLean and you would have a Valid Cached Adjacency.
    So to avoid probelems with Ethernet interfaces you can simply specify the next-hop-ip address.
    For Eg: ip route 10.10.31.250 255.255.255.255 10.10.31.226 (Without the Interface)
    ip route 10.10.31.250 255.255.255.255 fa0/0 10.10.31.226 (Or with the Interface)
    Only Difference in both is in the first one it has to do a recursive lookup for the outgoing interface. Otherwise both work well. And you can have static routes in your network
    running MPLS.
    And doing this CEF would would work as it should and you would have a Valid Cached Adjacency.
    So this is applicable for Cisco devices which use CEF, including 6500 with SUP720.
    HTH-Cheers,
    Swaroop

  • Adding static route on OSX server 10.4.3

    Hi,
    In the past one was able to add the following command to the Network file to set-up a permanent route.
    route add -net <network> <router>
    The Network folder in StartUp Items no longer exists where is the best place to add this now.
    regards,
    Paddy

    Not necessarily, Polar. There are many cases where you need to control routing at a host level, not just at the router level.
    For example, assume your system was dual-homed (has two active ethernet connections) using 192.168.1.x on en0 and 10.1.1.x on en1, with 192.168.1.1 (en0) as your default route.
    Now assume that the router at 10.1.1.1 on the en1 network acts as a gateway to the 10.2.2.x subnet. You need to tell your machine to route 10.2.2.x through 10.1.1.1. Default routing won't do this - the system will send all non-local traffic to 192.168.1.1. Unless 192.168.1.1 also has a path to 10.2.2.x, that traffic isn't going to go anywhere, and putting a link between the public router and the 10.2.2.x network might be a security risk.
    Therefore the solution is to tell your machine to route 10.2.2.x through the 10.1.1.1 router via a static route on the host.

  • Shared SO's and Load Balancing

    On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:24:33 -0000, Richard Stobart wrote:
    Dale,
    If SHARED is true in a Service Object then the Service Object is not
    re-entrant (because many clients are sharing its variables and therefore is
    not multitasked (Funny logical naming if you ask me)). I got a lot of replies correcting me on what SHARED means! I do know
    what SHARED means, I just phrased it backwards in my post. Excuse me
    while I smack myself upside the head. :)
    All replicates of a
    load balanced partition are not re-entrant and thus equivalent to SHARED =
    true. The advantage of load balancing is that the replicates can be
    distributed over machines and thus the load is balanced. What I fail to understand is this: If you have a non-SHARED SO all by
    itself in a partition which is not load-balanced, it will be
    re-rentrant and multiple users can call it at the same time. But as
    soon as you load-balance it, all of a sudden it behaves as if it were
    SHARED. Why? I don't understand the technical limitations that impose
    this, nor do I understand the advantage. For example, let's say that I
    have 50 concurrent users of the SO I described above. It's in a
    non-load-balanced partition, so all 50 users can access it at the same
    time without any problem. Now let's say my server is a little
    stressed, so I decide I want to load-balance my SO and have two
    replicates, one on the original server and one on a second server. But
    now that I've load-balanced it, the partitions act as if they're SHARED
    and my 50 concurrent users are going to be lining up in queues and
    suffering from horrible response times. How is this advantageous?
    ================================================
    Dale V. Georg
    Systems Analyst
    Indus Consultancy Services
    [email protected]
    ================================================

    Dale,
    The argument for load balancing services falls into two basic categories:
    1. The service is blocking. That is, it is either not thread safe, not
    signal tolerant, or not re-entrant. Most database libraries are the most
    common example of this. Any partition that contains a non-multi-threaded
    DB library will block the entire partition. Thus, you MUST load balance.
    2. You want to spread the load across multiple servers. This is a tricky
    one - you really have to do load testing to see if you're getting the
    benefits you think you are.
    Load balancing vs. multi-threading is a pretty hot topic among all of the
    clients I visit. On a machine with native or certified POSIX threads and
    multiple CPUs, you will certainly gain significant performance by not
    load-balancing a non-blocking partition. Compare this with shared and/or
    transactional services within a partition, non-native or non-POSIX thread
    partitions, and machines with one CPU, and you have yourself quite a pot of
    fish soup. Add another machine with differing properties, and the effects
    can be exponential.
    Then, there is also the notion that load balanced services are
    intrinsically single threaded, which is not true. They can, and often do,
    act as single threaded services because of the router. But it doesn't
    imply that either the router, nor the partitions it routes, are necessarily
    single threaded.
    Don
    At 07:38 PM 1/21/98, Dale V. Georg wrote:
    On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:24:33 -0000, Richard Stobart wrote:
    Dale,
    If SHARED is true in a Service Object then the Service Object is not
    re-entrant (because many clients are sharing its variables and therefore is
    not multitasked (Funny logical naming if you ask me)). I got a lot of replies correcting me on what SHARED means! I do know
    what SHARED means, I just phrased it backwards in my post. Excuse me
    while I smack myself upside the head. :)
    All replicates of a
    load balanced partition are not re-entrant and thus equivalent to SHARED =
    true. The advantage of load balancing is that the replicates can be
    distributed over machines and thus the load is balanced. What I fail to understand is this: If you have a non-SHARED SO all by
    itself in a partition which is not load-balanced, it will be
    re-rentrant and multiple users can call it at the same time. But as
    soon as you load-balance it, all of a sudden it behaves as if it were
    SHARED. Why? I don't understand the technical limitations that impose
    this, nor do I understand the advantage. For example, let's say that I
    have 50 concurrent users of the SO I described above. It's in a
    non-load-balanced partition, so all 50 users can access it at the same
    time without any problem. Now let's say my server is a little
    stressed, so I decide I want to load-balance my SO and have two
    replicates, one on the original server and one on a second server. But
    now that I've load-balanced it, the partitions act as if they're SHARED
    and my 50 concurrent users are going to be lining up in queues and
    suffering from horrible response times. How is this advantageous?
    ================================================
    Dale V. Georg
    Systems Analyst
    Indus Consultancy Services
    [email protected]
    ================================================
    ============================================
    Don Nelson
    Regional Consulting Manager - Rocky Mountain Region
    Forte Software, Inc.
    Denver, CO
    Phone: 303-265-7709
    Corporate voice mail: 510-986-3810
    aka: [email protected]
    ============================================
    "We tigers prefer to inflict excitement on others." - Hobbes

  • Question on how does load balancing work on Firewall Services Module (FWSM)

    Hi everyone,
    I have a question about the algorithm of load balancing on Firewall Services Module (FWSM).
    I understand that the FWSM supports up to three equal cost routes on the same interface for load balancing.
    Please see a lower simple figure.
    outside inside
    --- L3 SW --+
    |
    MHSRP +--- FWSM ----
    |
    --- L3 SW --+
    I am going to configure the following default routes on FWSM point to each MHSRP VIP (192.168.13.29 and 192.168.13.30) for load balancing.
    route outside_1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.13.29 1
    route outside_1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.13.30 1　　　　　　
    However I don't know how load balancing work on FWSM.
    On FWSM, load balancing work based on
    Per-Destination ?
    Per-Source ?
    Per-Packet ?
    or
    Other criteria ?
    Your information would be greatly appreciated.
    Best Regards,

    Configuring "tunnel default gateway' on the concentrator allowed traffic to flow as desired through the FWSM.
    FWSM is not capable of performing policy based routing, the additional static routes for the VPN load balancing caused half of the packets to be lost. As a result, it appears that the VPN concentrators will not be able to load balance.

  • Hadrware load balancing for WLS 5.1

    Rather than using the proxy plug-in to determine which server to dispatch a request to in case of failover, I would like to use hardware load balancer. So on normal conditions, the load-balancer would look at the primary server in the cookie and route the request accordingly. If it gets no response, it would reexamine the cookie and forward the request to the secondary server holding the state.
              Has anybody done this? Which hardware load balancer were you using? Is there a definitive spec for the weblogic cookie so that we can try configuring the load balancer? (in the BEA docs I can only find info about the position of the primary server in the cookie).
              Thanks, Matt
              

    http://e-docs.bea.com/wls/docs60/cluster/servlet.html#1008984
              -- Anand
              "Mark Vaughn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:[email protected]...
              >
              > Even with WLS 6.1, how will the hardware load balancer know who the
              secondary server
              > is when it needs to failover a session? For example, in a 3 member
              cluster, when
              > server one dies, how does the HLB know whether server 2 or server 3 were
              defined
              > as the secondary for that session. Unless something has changes in WLS6.1,
              there
              > is only one primary and only one secondary.
              >
              > Matt, I use Foundry ServerIrons to load balance my iPlanet webservers, but
              I strongly
              > suggest the Weblogic plugin if you will be using a 3rd party webserver in
              front
              > of WebLogic. That plugin has all kinds of debug settings and extra
              features that
              > allow it to communicate with the background WLS cluster. That allows it to
              make
              > decisions and deliver performance no HLB will give you. Don't get me
              wrong, HLB's
              > have there place and deliver some really good features, but that is not a
              place
              > I would consider using one.
              >
              >
              > Kumar Allamraju <[email protected]> wrote:
              > ><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
              > ><html>
              > >Hi:
              > ><p>WLS 5.1 clustering is not designed to work with Hardware load
              balancers.
              > ><br>I would suggest you to try with WLS 6.1
              > ><p>--
              > ><br>Kumar
              > ><p>Matt Hudson wrote:
              > ><blockquote TYPE=CITE>Rather than using the proxy plug-in to determine
              > >which server to dispatch a request to in case of failover, I would like
              > >to use hardware load balancer. So on normal conditions, the load-balancer
              > >would look at the primary server in the cookie and route the request
              > >accordingly.
              > >If it gets no response, it would reexamine the cookie and forward the
              > >request
              > >to the secondary server holding the state.
              > ><p>Has anybody done this? Which hardware load balancer were you
              > >using?
              > >Is there a definitive spec for the weblogic cookie so that we can try
              > >configuring
              > >the load balancer? (in the BEA docs I can only find info about the
              position
              > >of the primary server in the cookie).
              > ><p>Thanks, Matt</blockquote>
              > ></html>
              > >
              >
              

Maybe you are looking for