Rv042 dual-wan threshold based load balance?

I have an RV042 (it's old, silver/dark grey plastic front one) w/ firmware 1.3.13.02-tm.
The reason we bought this (long ago) was to balance two WAN connections, one with unlimited data and one capped monthly.  It did that once, but for a couple years both connections have been unmetered so it's just been balancing them 50/50.  As of today one WAN connection (the new much faster one) is back to being metered but I can't figure out how to configure the RV042 as it once was to prefer sending traffic over the slow, unmetered connection first, and only use the faster metered connection when necessary.
It's been a long time and honestly I only vaguely remember the ability to prioritize a connection based on % of bandwidth used so that all traffic would go over the unlimited connection 1st until it was flooded, and only then fall over to the metered connection.  This is totally different than the weighted round robin, or smart link backup.
I found this 3rdparty pforum post that supports that vauge memory and suggests this was eliminated netweem firmware 1.23 and 1.3:
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/rv042-load-balancing-options-from-the-manual-where-to-find.15512/#post-69948
So I humlbly ask...  Is it possible to replicate this functionality with the current firmware? if so how?  If not, how to do roll back to firmware 1.23?
It sounded like perhaps I could assigned WAN1 a bandwidth of 100000 (even though it's really 1500) and then assign WAN2 a bandwidth of 1 (even though it's really 20000) and the result might be the prioritization I'm looking to achieve...  but I feel like I'm stumbling in the dark at the point.
Just FYI, I'm not at all opposed to buying new hardware to acheive this if it's not terribly expensive (ie. <$200).  I'd rather not, but I've got to solve this quick.

Hi Jon,
I Also have one of these routers.
On the bottom mine says (v02) which means its hardware version is 2.
I just got this one brand new for home as I have been using them for a very long time now. However I have been using them for VPN and now I am needing the same functionality as you.
I am currently running Firmware Version: 1.3.12.19-tm
If you login to the web management (eg 192.168.1.1) and go to System Management > Dual-WAN
Down the bottom you will see "Protocol Binding".
This is all I know of to send specific ports or applications via a specific WAN.
I'll give you an example of how I am using it currently.. (BTW it seems to be working OK, But you are on a higher firmware)
eg: WAN1 is more reliable than WAN2 which is a cheap unlimited service.
So I bind port 5060 (sip), port 80 (http) and port 443 (https) to WAN1 so that my VOIP phone is on the good service and so is all web traffic.
so all the other stuff can use the unlimited connection.
Also, My current bandwidth settings are
WAN          UPSTREAM          DOWNSTREAM
1                384                       8000
2                384                       10000
And Under: System Management > Bandwidth Management you can also prioritize those ports.
This may help you in some way, So maybe you can help me..
Your post has made me not want to upgrade the firmware.. Can you please confirm that this functionality exists still?
Thanks

Similar Messages

  • Session based load balance + Prepared statements

    Experts,
    From the docs I understand that there are 3 load balancing techniques. One is client side and two are server side. Of the two, one is session count based load balancing, and as per docs, it is recommended for connection pool setting.
    My question is if I have prepared statements originally created using connection to node1, and say if listener re-directs the conneciton to another node node2, will the prepared statement work on node2 ?.
    Thanks
    Vissu

    Just to clarify, the question is:
    Are the prepared statements usable when we use session count based load balancing.

  • Health based load balancing.

    I know that RM can provide health based load balancing e.g. RM will stop giving the load if WEF server is not healthy. We have a F5 load balancer, Can't we get the health based load balancing using F5?
    Regards Restless Spirit

    i think you can do. You can specify the number of monitors that must report a pool member as being available before that member is defined as being in an up state.
    check this support article will give you different method of loadbalacing
    Load Balancing pool
    Please remember to mark your question as answered &Vote helpful,if this solves/helps your problem. ****************************************************************************************** Thanks -WS MCITP(SharePoint 2010, 2013) Blog: http://wscheema.com/blog

  • Cisco RV042 - Dual Wan Load Balancing - Secure Site (HTTPS) Trouble

    PID VID :
    RV042 V03
    Firmware Version :
    v4.0.0.07-tm (Aug 19 2010 19:19:50)
    Ever since I setup my RV042 with load balancing using the Dual Wan system I have had trouble staying connected to some secure sites. After doing some searching I found that the potential issue is the IP change mid session.
    "http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r25537589-Cisco-RV042-can-not-use-load-balancing-for-some-web-sites"
    Although my interface is significantly different I was able to find the same area in my RV042 admin area however, it doesn't seem to work.
    System Management
    > Dual Wan
    In Wan 1 & Wan 2 I have HTTPS and HTTPS Secondary all forwarded to use Wan 2 under Protocol Binding
    This however has not managed to do anything at all for my network and every computer conneceted experiences the same HTTPS irregularities at some websites.
    I'm sure I must be doing something wrong, but I don't know what it is.
    Both incoming connections are from the same service provider although the plans are different.
    Any help with this would greatly help me stop losing my mind trying to fight with my website control panel for 10 minutes to just login and get something done.
    Thanks

    Any ideas or advice from anyone?

  • RV042 Dual WAN NSD Failback

    Running a RV042 in Smart Link with NSD Mode
    WAN1: Cable Internet to ISP
    WAN2: DSL Internet to backup ISP
    WAN1 is set as the primary WAN.
    With both links up, when I pull the plug on WAN1, it failsover to WAN2 in the expected amount of time and resumes internet traffic.
    When I plug WAN1 back in though, the service doesn't automatically fail back to the Preferred WAN1 Connection, no matter how long I wait.
    Advice?
    Thanks!

    I've used it for two different ASNs all the time.  Yes, you will have problems with SSL logins or any logins that check the source IP, but that can be easily fixed with some entries under the protocol binding.
    There's no real protocol being used for the load balance.  Just a weighted round-robin based on the bandwidth information you enter for each of the WANs.
    Huntsville's Premiere Car and Bike e-magazine: www.huntsvillecarscene.com

  • Cookie based Load Balancing

    If 3 Real servers in a non-load balancing environmet are setting session cookies with diffrenet cookie names e.g.
    server1 response
    set-Cookie: SESSIDSAAAAAA=DMNNNELCECNCKDIIDCPOIMGG
    Server2 response
    set-Cookie: SESSIDSBBBBBB=DAAMMNELCECNCKPYTWPOIPOP
    Server3 response
    set-Cookie: SESSIDSCCCCCC=POHYTUOIPOPPLKJHTERIQOKJ
    then how can CSM be configured with cookie based stickiness.
    I tried cookie insert on CSM with NULL value Assigned to "COOKIE_INSERT_EXPIRATION_DATE".
    It resulted in two set cookie responses (one from server and one from CSM).
    I am wondering how csm will react ( cookie insert is used) if client request carries two cookie name-value pairs.
    clients are behind megaproxy so cookie based stickiness is needed.
    Thanks

    if you look into a http client request you will see that many times there are more than 1 cookies.
    The most important is to make sure the CSM insert a cookie with a different name.
    Create your own name.
    The client will receive both the csm cookie and the server cookie and will send both when opening a new connection.
    The CSM is able to locate its own cookie in the list and do the stickyness.
    Gilles.

  • Dual ISP connection unequal load balancing

    Hi All,
    I an issue regarding load balancing between to ISP.  I have done policy based routing as stated in other cisco discussions .
     I have 2 /30 as my test ISP and isp ip configured on other switch while i have my customer configs on my end. I can ping the two test ISP from my router but not with PC's in the lan until i remove "ip nat inside source route-map 20 interface GigabitEthernet0/0.20 overload" from the routers config.
    .. Please help 
    Load-Balancing-Router#show run
    Building configuration...
    Current configuration : 2716 bytes
    ! Last configuration change at 04:09:37 UTC Tue Apr 21 2015 by anprasad
    version 15.0
    service timestamps debug datetime msec
    service timestamps log datetime msec
    no service password-encryption
    hostname Load-Balancing-Router
    boot-start-marker
    boot-end-marker
    no aaa new-model
    no ipv6 cef
    ip source-route
    ip cef
    ip dhcp excluded-address 192.168.1.2
    ip dhcp excluded-address 192.168.1.0 192.168.1.100
    ip dhcp pool LAN
       network 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0
       default-router 192.168.1.1
    ip domain name fnu.ac.fj
    multilink bundle-name authenticated
    license udi pid CISCO1921/K9 sn FGL150925YE
    username anprasad privilege 15 secret 5 $1$Oy40$h13lWAN4upzI19L6/MXjf/
    username aaa privilege 15 secret 5 $1$W3JH$LMd0LUtdxJlXXJkB.NxjB0
    ip ssh version 1
    class-map match-all 512K-Outbound
     match access-group name DR-512K-OutBound
    class-map match-all 10240K-Outbound
     match access-group name DR-1024K-OutBound
    policy-map DR-Outbound
     class 10240K-Outbound
       police rate 10240000 bps burst 1920000 bytes
         conform-action transmit
         exceed-action drop
     class 512K-Outbound
       police rate 512000 bps burst 96000 bytes
         conform-action transmit
         exceed-action drop
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0
     no ip address
     duplex auto
     speed auto
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0.10
     description Student-Internet
     encapsulation dot1Q 10
     ip address 202.0.1.1 255.255.255.252
     ip nat outside
     ip virtual-reassembly
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0.20
     description Staff-Internet
     encapsulation dot1Q 20
     ip address 202.0.2.1 255.255.255.252
     ip nat outside
     ip virtual-reassembly
     shutdown
    interface GigabitEthernet0/1
     description LAN-Network
     ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
     ip nat inside
     ip virtual-reassembly
     duplex auto
     speed auto
    interface FastEthernet0/0/0
     no ip address
     shutdown
     duplex auto
     speed auto
    ip forward-protocol nd
    no ip http server
    no ip http secure-server
    ip nat inside source route-map 10 interface GigabitEthernet0/0.10 overload
    ip nat inside source route-map 20 interface GigabitEthernet0/0.20 overload
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 202.0.1.2
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 202.0.2.2
    ip access-list extended DR-10240K-OutBound
     permit ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any
    ip access-list extended DR-512K-OutBound
     permit ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any
    access-list 100 permit ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any
    route-map 10 permit 10
     match ip address 100
     match interface GigabitEthernet0/0.10
    route-map 20 permit 20
     match ip address 100
     match interface GigabitEthernet0/0.20
    snmp-server community fnuro RO
    control-plane
    line con 0
     logging synchronous
     login local
    line aux 0
    line vty 0 4
     login local
    scheduler allocate 20000 1000
    end

    Hi,
    I would like to ask if you are done with your configuration? Is it working?
    next month we will add an addition ISP and I will try to configure it?
    Hope you'll give me some ideas.
    thank you

  • IP source based Load balancing?

    Hi all;
    We encounter the following issue:
    A load balancer directs requests in a round robin mechanism to several servers. We want the load balancer direct requests based on the source IP addresses, so that the same host would be directed to the same server at each time it reaquests to be connected (reconnection). Is this possible when using CSM module knowing that NAT is implemented?
    Regards

    Yes this is possible doing
    vserver VAPP
    virtual 10.1.1.11 tcp 2514
    serverfarm SAPP
    sticky 90 group 8
    idle 5400
    persistent rebalance
    inservice
    sticky 8 netmask 255.255.255.255 address source timeout 90
    This should make the session sticky

  • WAN round-robin load balancing

    First things first, I just recently got that horrible distribution Gentoo off my machine and installed Arch for a test run and so far a flipping love it. Just like to thank everyone that made this wonderful piece of Linux.
    To the point: I have a box with 3 NIC and it current runs as my LAN gateway. http://pastie.org/608016 is the script I use to do so and as you may have guessed eth0 is my DSL modem eth1 is my LAN switch, eth2 is my cable modem. Currently my LAN runs off just my DSL, if I want to change this and run off the cable I have to change WAN in the script to eth2 and run it. I would like to change this and have it round-robin load balance over my DSL, cable.
    I tried
    ifconfig eth0 down
    ifconfig eth2 down
    modprobe bonding mode=0 miimon=100
    ifconfig bond0 10.0.0.5
    ifenslave bond0 eth0
    ifenslave bond0 eth2
    inspired by http://ubuntulinuxhelp.com/how-to-use-t … -computer/ and that didn't work at all.
    Then I had a look at http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Con … rk#bonding (two ip on two card) but that didn't really make sense to be as you're not specifying what interfaces to bond anywhere.
    Could anyone help me?

    Let us first set some symbolical names. Let $IF1 be the name of the first interface (if1 in the picture above) and $IF2 the name of the second interface. Then let $IP1 be the IP address associated with $IF1 and $IP2 the IP address associated with $IF2. Next, let $P1 be the IP address of the gateway at Provider 1, and $P2 the IP address of the gateway at provider 2. Finally, let $P1_NET be the IP network $P1 is in, and $P2_NET the IP network $P2 is in.
    One creates two additional routing tables, say T1 and T2. These are added in /etc/iproute2/rt_tables. Then you set up routing in these tables as follows:
    ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1 table T1
    ip route add default via $P1 table T1
    ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2 table T2
    ip route add default via $P2 table T2
    What does it mean by 'IP network' ($P*_NET)?

  • URL-Based Load Balancing

    I'm having a difficult time trying to configure load balancing on my CSM based on the URL entered. Here is my scenerio:
    Two web servers (WebA & WebB), load balanced on a CSM. WebA & WebB have 90% the same content, so most traffic can be load balanced between them without a problem. The problem (for me anyway) comes in where WebA has certain web sites that WebB doesn't, and vice versa. So I need to load balance to both for 90% of the traffic, and point traffic to a particular server the other 10% of the time based on the URL entered.
    Below is the test config I have so far (that doesn't work correctly), what I am trying for in this example is that any URL that contains /vhosts/ or /programs/ be directed to WebA, and any URL that contains /platform/ or /ssl/ be directed to WebB, and all other traffic be load balanced between the two evenly. (For testing purposes, the servers are being load balanced in "bridge-mode", in production they will be "routed-mode"....I did't want to go through the change controls to change the IP addresses for the test servers!).
    module ContentSwitchingModule 2
    vlan 605 client
    ip address 10.63.240.4 255.255.255.0
    gateway 10.63.240.1
    vlan 606 server
    ip address 10.63.240.4 255.255.255.0
    natpool URL-POLICY-TEST 10.63.240.204 10.63.240.204 netmask 255.255.255.254
    map SRV-A url
    match protocol http url /vhosts/*
    match protocol http url /programs/*
    map SRV-B url
    match protocol http url /platform/*
    match protocol http url /ssl/*
    serverfarm URL-POLICY-TEST
    nat server
    nat client URL-POLICY-TEST
    real 10.40.109.100
    inservice
    real 10.40.109.101
    inservice
    serverfarm URL-TESTA
    nat server
    nat client URL-POLICY-TEST
    real 10.40.109.100
    inservice
    serverfarm URL-TESTB
    nat server
    nat client URL-POLICY-TEST
    real 10.40.109.101
    inservice
    policy TESTWEB-A
    url-map SRV-A
    serverfarm URL-TESTA
    policy TESTWEB-B
    url-map SRV-B
    serverfarm URL-TESTB
    vserver URL-POLICY_TEST
    virtual 10.63.240.10 tcp 0
    vlan 605
    serverfarm URL-POLICY-TEST
    sticky 1
    persistent rebalance
    slb-policy TESTWEB-A
    slb-policy TESTWEB-B
    inservice

    Thanks for the reply Gilles....I've been out of the office for a while.
    Well, right now nothing is working....except that all traffic is going to the default server farm assinged to the vserver. Here are the URLs I am testing with:
    **************TEST A************
    http://10.63.240.10/manual/vhosts/fd-limits.xml
    http://10.63.240.10/manual/programs/apachectl.xml
    **************TEST B************
    http://10.63.240.10/manual/platform/ebcdic.xml
    http://10.63.240.10/manual/ssl/ssl_compat.xml
    ***************BOTH****************
    http://10.63.240.10/manual/howto/htaccess.xml
    http://10.63.240.10/manual/howto/cgi.xml
    When I try attaching to the first URL for example, here is the connection info (I trimmed it down so it will fit here):
    MOSL1S1A#sh mod csm 2 real
    real server farm Conns/hits
    10.40.109.100 URL-POLICY-TEST 1
    10.40.109.101 URL-POLICY-TEST 0
    10.40.109.100 URL-TESTA 0
    10.40.109.101 URL-TESTB 0
    MOSL1S1A#
    MOSL1S1A#sh mod csm 2 conn
    prot vlan source destination
    In TCP 605 10.47.10.10:3738 10.63.240.10:80
    Out TCP 605 10.40.109.101:80 10.63.240.204:8820
    I've tried changing the syntax on the URL statement in the map as such:
    /manual/*
    */manual/*
    /manual/
    *manual*
    /manual*

  • Two gateways, port-based load balancing

    Hello,
    I have a simple question on Mac OS X Leopard/SL Server regarding the use of 2 distinct internet connections on a single LAN.
    Gateway #1 : 10.0.1.1 (delivering IPs) - 18 mbps
    Gateway #2 : 10.0.1.254 - 4 mbps
    Any computer accessing the network is delivered an IP by the DHCP server (10.0.1.1), thus uses #1 as of main gateway.
    The main server (10.0.1.16) is running DNS services and a Squid proxy-cache.
    Now, is it possible to set all the computers that connect to the network up so that they use the main server as of main gateway and see their requests redirected to #1 or #2 according to the port in use ?
    For example:
    mail,http,https,jabber -> #1
    skype,rtsp,... -> #2
    Thank you very much for your help
    Tha
    Message was edited by: Kwintin

    is it possible to set all the computers that connect to the network up so that they use the main server as of main gateway and see their requests redirected to #1 or #2 according to the port in use ?
    No. routing is based on destination IP address, not port.
    Therefore each client will send all traffic for a specific address to a specific router address. It doesn't matter whether it's talking HTTP, SMTP, IMAP, POP, AIM, or any other protocol - any traffic for that IP will go to the same router.
    You have three ways of getting around this.
    One is to install a router that supports dual WAN connections. Point all internal clients to the LAN address of the router and let it do the work of routing the traffic as needed, based on its routing policies (routers may be able to route based on port).
    Option two is to setup a proxy server for specific services - for example you could setup a HTTP/HTTPS proxy server on a machine that has router #1 as its default gateway and configure the clients to talk to router #2. All traffic on the clients will go over router #2 except the proxied traffic which will go to the proxy and then out via router #1.
    This is relatively simple to setup, but is limited to traffic that can be easily proxied (e.g. that probably excludes email).
    The third option is static routing. Look at the servers each machine is contacting and setup static routes for the smaller set of addresses. For example, if you're only splitting off traffic to Skype's servers then set each client with a default route of router #1, and static routes to Skype's server to router #2. Now all traffic except that to Skype will use router #1.
    This is really only viable if you have a relatively small number of destination addresses you're trying to divert. That's why it works well for Skype (single server address), but wouldn't work well for something more generic such as 'web traffic' since you cannot predict which web servers (and therefore which IP addresses) need static routes.
    Of the three options, only option #1 will cover all protocols for all clients, but it's also the only option that costs $$s if your current router doesn't support multiple WAN interfaces.

  • Dual WLAN links with load balancing and failover

    Hello,
    I am in a scenario where I am in need of two WLAN links between two buildings. There is a distance of 100-150 meters and minimum bandwidth required for both links together is 300Mbit/s. The thing is that both links should use load balancing between them and if one of them goes down, the last one should act as fail over.
    I have been looking at Cisco Aironet 1550 Series though I have no idea what is needed to get load balancing and fail over to work, so I am searching here for suggestions on what equipment is needed.
    Something like this:
                  ---------------WLAN Link 150-300Mbit/s-----------
    Building                    Load balancing and fail over               Building
                  ---------------WLAN Link 150-300Mbit/s-----------
    Thanks in advance!

    Several points.
    When an AP is doing 300Mbps, that's NOT the real throughput you have. It's the data rate at which traffic is sent.
    All in all, if your AP/client are doing 300MBps association, you will see max 150Mbps with a file transfer.
    From there, I'm not even sure that 11n supports dual spatial streams over such long distances (you can't have multipath in open air) so afaik the 1550 only do 150Mbps association rate (=dual channel with one spatial stream). That means 75Mbps real speed.
    I couldn't test a 1550 yet so don't take my word for official statement but that's what I'm thinking.
    the wireless links will always be both up and they can be on different channels.
    That will then mean that it will be "as if" the remote switch was connected directly to the central switch (where WLC is connected) as the WLC tunnels traffic all the way. So you could do a spanning-tree config on this one I guess to block the port onthe remote switch.
    Regards,
    Nicolas

  • Linksys RV042 Dual Wan with Load Balancing Help?

    Good day,
    I'm a newbie to routers.  I have purchased a Linksys RV042 hoping I could connect my two modem and provide internet to my collegues in the camp.  My internet connection is running under EAP-TLS using a Motorola modem from Go Telecom here in Saudi Arabia.  Need help to configure the router to accept the two modem.
    Thanks for the reply.....

    Hello David,
    Glad you could spend some time with my problem.  Tried the solution you sent but still unsuccesful to connect to internet.  Is there something wrong with the WAN credentials I'm using?  Do I have to switch the mode from Gateway to Router?  Please take a look at my WAN1 values that I wrote in the RV042
    I am using a Motorola CPE outdoor Wimax modem from GO Telacom here in Saudi Arabia...

  • RV042 Dual WAN access rules

    New RV042 router with latest Firmware update installed.
    Two restaurants on the same LAN subnet, one POS terminal PC at each restaurant for on-line resrvation system.
    LAN connection allows each restaurant to view reservations for the other.
    Comcast  ISP with Static IPs and Comcast/SMC gateway in bridge mode (Comcast Gateway WAN IP = 50.###.###.134, LAN IP = 192.168.10.1).
    LAN port 1 on Comcast Gateway connected to WAN1 on RV042 (WAN1 IP = 50.###.###.133).
    LAN port 2 on Comcast Gateway connected to WAN2 on RV042 (WAN2 IP = 50.###.###.132).
    RV042 LAN IP = 10.1.10.1.
    Restaurant A POS PC IP - 10.1.10.201 (static).
    Restaurant B POS PC IP - 10.1.10.202 (static).
    OpenTable online reservation system needs 5 inbound port ranges forwarded to each terminal PC for the OpenTable interface.
    For Restaurant A OpenTable sends to 50.###.###.133.
    For Restaurant B OpenTable sends to 50.###.###.132.
    We setup RV042 Firewall "Access Rules" specifying the appropriate source interface (WAN1/WAN2) with source set to ANY and the appropriate destination (10.1.10.201/10.1.10.202) for the 5 port ranges (so 10 rules in all, 5 per restaurant)
    However this is not working for either restaurant.
    OpenTable cannot interface with the termianl PCs on the specified ports.
    If we add the port range forwarding under the "Forwarding" section of the RV042 setup (which limits us to seting it up for only one of the restaurants) the OpenTable interface works for the one restaurant.
    What are we missing????

    David,
    I pretty sure on this model router we can't specify the inbound port address to be forwarded from specified WAN port (it's catch all). It doesn't give us the ability to choose this in port forwarding or Upnp forward. Now if you can separate the ranges that needs to be forward to each server say SERVER 1 1000-1005 and ports 1006-1010 to SERVER 2.
    if you are needed to specify which wan port on your fowarding then you'll need to move up to a different router.
    SA520,SA520W or SA540
    Jasbryan

  • Load balancing on cisco rv042

    Hi friends,
    This is regarding I am facing issue with configuring the load balancing in cisco rv042 .I had configured the load balancing between dual wan of leased line and adsl coonection but loadbalancing is not working fine kindly help me on this

    If i close one link it takes 20 seconds of downtime and then ping goes without loses.
    In the end i decided to go with PBR, since the deadline for our project was surpassed.
    I set up acl that matched every other 32 adress block:
        10 permit ip 192.168.100.32 0.0.0.31 any 
        20 permit ip 192.168.100.96 0.0.0.31 any 
        30 permit ip 192.168.100.160 0.0.0.31 any 
        40 permit ip 192.168.100.224 0.0.0.31 any
        50 deny ip any any
    Set a route map that sends that traffic trough one of the interfaces (Gi0/1) and let routing do the rest:
    track 1 interface dialer 0 line-protocol
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0.0 Dialer0 track 1
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0.0 GigabitEthernet0/1 10
    Its not exactly what i wanted but its close enough:) 
    Thanks for your advices.

Maybe you are looking for