Two isp load balancing on cisco ACE(load balancer)

I don't know much about load balancer(ACE).
Is this is possible to load balance two isp's on load balancer (ACE). If so, how i can do so , any configuration example, or cisco document.

Wrong forum, post in "Datacenter". You can move your posting with the Actions panel on the right.

Similar Messages

How can ftp service on non-standard port be load balanced using Cisco ACE.

How can ftp service on non-standard port be load balanced using Cisco ACE.For example ftp service required on tcp 2000 port

Hi Samarjit,
you can do this by specifying the port number in the class map that you create . Please find the below mentioend config guide where you can specify the tcp/udp port , range or ports or even the wild card to match the port.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/services_modules/ace/v3.00_A1/configuration/administration/guide/mapolcy.html#wp1318826
Regards
Abijith

TACACS and Cisco ACE Load Balancers authentication ?

Is there a need to have user accounts locally on the Cisco ACE Load Balancers as well as the User accounts on TACACS where it is being authenticated ?
Many thanks
Florrie

Yes.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/app_ntwk_services/data_center_app_services/ace_appliances/vA3_1_0/configuration/security/guide/aaa.html#wpmkr1517596

Cisco ace Load balancer not maintaining session persistence

Hi All,
We have observed from the IIS logs on the internal webservers that loadbalancer is not maintaining session persistence for two specific request for the internal servers.
https://123.xyz.com/Webresource.axd
https://123.xyz.com/ScriptResource.axd
Error
Webresource.axd : 500
Scriptresource.axd: 404
Session persistence is maintained for all other requests hitting loadbalancer.
Issue is observerd on hits for these two specified components. WebResource.axd and ScriptResource.axd are Http Handlers used by ASP.NET and Ajax to add client-side scripting to the outgoing web page.
For e.g /WebResource.axd d=t2GXfySdqWmJ-lZSI0KVbw2&t=634868473645172160 is valid for server 1 and return 200 response but the same request is seen on few other servers where the response is 404 even though load balancer cookie is same. This means that if the request for the both the axd contains a valid decrypter and it connects to the right server then the response seen is 200.
The url passed by the user contains d and t parameters when are unique for each user session.
Solution tried:
Accessed website via another VIP without http redirect rule but could not see difference.
Tried to match machine key across all servers : Failed . Could see the ‘d’ value different for each server.
Load balancer VIP :
x.x.x.x
redirect: http > https
SSL Offload : ON
Poool:
WEB1
WEB2
WEB3
WEB4
WEB5
All servers listening on port 80
sticky config:
sticky ihttp-cookie cookie1 vip-1.1.1.1-80-stickyfarm
cookie insert browser-expire
replicate sticky
serverfarm vip-1.1.1.1_80
sticky http-cookie cookie1 vip-farm:1.1.1.1:443
cookie insert browser-expire
replicate sticky
serverfarm farm:1.1.1.1:443
Has anyone else come across similar issue?
Can you plese check if there is any config on cisco ace that will ensure that session persistence is maintained for these 2 requests.
Thank you for all the help.
regards,
Sangram

Hello Sangram,
We would need simultanous packet traces before and after the ACE to get to the root cause of this issue so I would recommend that you open a cisco tac case for more in depth troubleshooing of this issue.
Joel Lamousnery
CCIE R&S - 36768
Engineer, Customer Support
Technical Services

Two isp load balancing on ACE(load balancer)

hi
I don't know much about load balancer(ACE).
Is this is possible to load balance two isp's on load balancer (ACE). If so, how i can do so , any configuration example, or cisco document.

Wrong forum, post in "Datacenter". You can move your posting with the Actions panel on the right.

TCP SYNSEEN with load balancing Cisco ACE 4710

I have a Cisco ACE 4710 load balancing the traffic to two proxy servers, the configuration is the same since December 2012, but yesterday it stated to show SYNSEEN in the show conn command, and the hosts cannot browse. I think that means that the three-way-handshake is not complete.
If I bypass the ACE the hosts can browse without problems.
I have tested with another ACE appliance and the same configuration but the behaviour is the same.
I need help as soon as possible,
thanks,
I've attached the Show conn, show conn detail and show run.

Hi Cesar,
Thank you for your answer,
The issue was solved,
We were running an A3 software version, it seems to have a Bug so it doesn't show the NAT commands in the "show run", so when we made the configuration backup we didn't noticed it.
The ACE reloaded because an electrical failure so it losted the NAT config.
We just upgraded to an A4 version and also added a NAT/PAT to enable the communication between the Clients and the Proxy.
Regards,

Cisco ACE - Firewall load balancing

I am using two sets of ACE load balancers for load balancing traffic across two firewalls (firewall load balancing).
The solution works fine. I have a virtual address of 0.0.0.0 in either direction to match traffci going from the internal users to the internet and vice versa.
The problem is that when I try to manage the load-balanced firewalls (either using SSH (or) HTTPS) from outside, then that connection also gets load balanced and when I try to connect to FW1 then sometimes this connection ends up on FW2 and vice versa and the connection gets dropped. I have a workaround in place where i am using a virtual address per firewall to connect to the real IP address of the firewall.
Is there any other way of managing firewalls (which are defined as real-servers) in a FWLB setup.
Attached is the configuration of the external ACE which has the two firewalls defined as the real-servers.
access-list ALL line 8 extended permit ip any any
probe icmp ICMP-Probe
interval 15
passdetect interval 60
rserver host FW1-ASA
ip address 10.11.71.10
inservice
rserver host FW2
ip address 10.11.71.11
inservice
serverfarm host Firewalls
transparent
predictor leastconns
rserver FW1-ASA
    inservice
rserver FW2
    inservice
serverfarm host Firewalls-NO-LB
rserver FW1-ASA
    inservice
serverfarm host Firewalls-NO-LB1
rserver FW2
    inservice
sticky ip-netmask 255.255.255.255 address source new-sticky
timeout activeconns
serverfarm Firewalls
This is my workaround for connection to the IP address of the firewalls (for management)
class-map match-any FW-Real
2 match virtual-address 10.11.71.254 any
class-map match-any FW-Real2
2 match virtual-address 10.11.71.253 any
class-map type management match-any Remote-Access
201 match protocol telnet any
202 match protocol http any
203 match protocol https any
204 match protocol ssh any
205 match protocol snmp any
206 match protocol icmp any
class-map match-any fwlb
2 match virtual-address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 any
policy-map type management first-match Remote-Management-Policy
class Remote-Access
    permit
policy-map type loadbalance first-match FWLB-No-LB
class class-default
    serverfarm Firewalls-NO-LB
policy-map type loadbalance first-match FWLB-No-LB1
class class-default
    serverfarm Firewalls-NO-LB1
policy-map type loadbalance first-match FWLB-l7slb
class class-default
    serverfarm Firewalls
policy-map multi-match Firewall-No-LB
class FW-Real
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy FWLB-No-LB
policy-map multi-match Firewall-No-LB1
class FW-Real2
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy FWLB-No-LB1
policy-map multi-match int70
class fwlb
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy FWLB-l7slb
interface vlan 70
description "Client side"
ip address 10.11.70.2 255.255.255.0
no icmp-guard
access-group input ALL
access-group output ALL
service-policy input Remote-Management-Policy
service-policy input Firewall-No-LB --> connect to the real IP address of the firewall for management
service-policy input Firewall-No-LB1 --> connect to the real IP address of the firewall for management
service-policy input int70
no shutdown
interface vlan 71
description "Firewall side"
ip address 10.11.71.2 255.255.255.0
mac-sticky enable
no icmp-guard
access-group input ALL
access-group output ALL
service-policy input Remote-Management-Policy
no shutdown

Hello,
as i know, there is no others ways.
You can only reduce your configuration by puting all your class undert the same policy-map:
policy-map multi-match int70
class FW-Real
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy FWLB-No-LB
class FW-Real2
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy FWLB-No-LB1
class fwlb
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy FWLB-l7slb
interface vlan 70
description "Client side"
ip address 10.11.70.2 255.255.255.0
no icmp-guard
access-group input ALL
access-group output ALL
service-policy input Remote-Management-Policy
service-policy input int70
no shutdown

Ask the Expert: Configuration and Troubleshooting the Cisco Application Control Engine (ACE) load balancer

With Ajay Kumar and Telmo Pereira
Welcome to the Cisco Support Community Ask the Expert conversation. This is an opportunity to learn and ask questions about configuration and troubleshooting the Cisco Application Control Engine (ACE) load balancer with Cisco expert Ajay Kumar and Telmo Pereira. The Cisco ACE Application Control Engine Module for Cisco Catalyst 6500 Series Switches and Cisco 7600 Series Routers is a next-generation load-balancing and application-delivery solution. A member of the Cisco family of Data Center 3.0 solutions, the module: Helps ensure business continuity by increasing application availability Improves business productivity by accelerating application and server performance Reduces data center power, space, and cooling needs through a virtualized architecture Helps lower operational costs associated with application provisioning and scaling
Ajay Kumar is a customer support engineer in the Cisco Technical Assistance Center in Brussels, covering content delivery network technologies including Cisco Application Control Engine, Cisco Wide Area Application Services, Cisco Content Switching Module, Cisco Content Services Switches, and others. He has been with Cisco for more than four years, working with major customers to help resolve their issues related to content products. He holds DCASI and VCP certifications.
Telmo Pereira is a customer support engineer in the Cisco Technical Assistance Center in Brussels, where he covers all Cisco content delivery network technologies including Cisco Application Control Engine (ACE), Cisco Wide Area Application Services (WAAS), and Digital Media Suite. He has worked with multiple customers around the globe, helping them solve interesting and often highly complex issues. Pereira has worked in the networking field for more than 7 years. He holds a computer science degree as well as multiple certifications including CCNP, DCASI, DCUCI, and VCP
Remember to use the rating system to let Ajay know if you have received an adequate response.
Ajay and Telmo might not be able to answer each question due to the volume expected during this event. Remember that you can continue the conversation on the Data Center sub-community discussion forum Application Networking shortly after the event.
This event lasts through July 26, 2013. Visit this forum often to view responses to your questions and the questions of other community members.

Hello Krzysztof,
Another set of good/interesting questions posted. Thanks!
I will try to clarify your doubts.
In the output below both resources (proxy-connections and ssl-connections rate) are configured with a min percentage of resources (column Min), while 'Max' is set to equal to the min.
ACE/Context# show resource usage
                                                     Allocation
        Resource         Current       Peak        Min        Max       Denied
-- outputs omitted for brevity --
proxy-connections             0      16358      16358      16358      17872
ssl-connections rate          0        626        626        626      23204
Most columns are self explanatory, 'Current' is current usage, 'Peak' is the maximum value reached, and the most important counter to monitor 'Denied' represents the amount of packets denied/dropped due to exceeding the configured limits.
On the resources themselves, Proxy-connections is simply the amount of proxied connections, in other words all connections handled at layer 7 (SSL connections are proxied, as are any connections with layer 7 load balance policies, or inspection).
So in this particular case for the proxy-connections we see that Peak is equal to the Max allocated, and as we have denies we can conclude that you have surpassed the limits for this resource. We see there were 17872 connections dropped due to that.
ssl-connections rate should be read in the same manner, however all values for this resource are in bytes/s, except for Denied counter, that is simply the amount of packets that were dropped due to exceeding this resource.
For your particular tests you have allocated a min percentage and set max equal to min, this way you make sure that this context will not use any other additional resources.
If you had set the max to unlimited during resource allocation, ACE would be allowed to use additional resources on top of those guaranteed, if those resources were available.
This might sound a great idea, but resource planning on ACE should be done carefully to avoid any sort of oversubscription, specially if you have business critical contexts.
We have a good reference for ACE resource planning that contains also description of all resources (this will help to understand the output better):
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/services_modules/ace/v3.00_A2/configuration/virtualization/guide/config.html#wp1008224
1) When a resource is utilized to its maximum limit, the ACE denies additional requests made by any context for that resource. In other words, the action is to Drop. ACE should in theory silently drop (No RST is sent back to the client). So unless we changed something on the code, this is what you should see.
To give more context, seeing resets with SSL connections is not necessarily synonym of drops. As it is usual to see them during normal transactions.
For instance Microsoft servers are usually ungracefully terminating SSL connections with RESET. Also when there is renegotiation during an SSL transaction you may see RESETS, but this will pass unnoticed for end users.
2) ACE will simply drop/ignore new connections when we reach the maximum amount of proxied connections for that context. Exisiting connections will continue there.
As ACE doesn't respond back, client would simply retransmit, and if he is lucky maybe in the next attempt he will be able to establish the connection.
To overcome the denies, you will definitely have to increase the resource allocation. This of course, assuming you are not reaching any physical limit of the box.
As mentioned setting max as unlimited might work for you, assuming there are a lot of unused resources on the box.
3) If a new connection comes in with a sticky value, that matches the sticky entry of a real server, which is already in MAXCONNS state, then both the ACE module/appliance should reject the connection and that sticky entry would be removed.
The client would at that point reestablish a new connection and ACE would associate a new sticky entry with the flow for a new RSERVER after the loadbalancing decision.
I hope this makes things clearer! Uff...
Regards,
Telmo

Send Email issue using "Mail Server Load balancer" (Cisco ACE 20)

I have asked this question in SAP MII forum too but it appears issue could be in NetWeaver Mail API. Please let me know if someone have experienced this kind of issue or any suggestions.
The send email action was working file in MII with smtp mail server on port 25. Recently basis did a change in mail server ip address and they installed a new Load Balancer . The Load balancer is between SMTP and MII. After this change MII does not send email (unknown source error). now MII send email action has ip address or qualified path of Load balancer in MII send email configuration instead of direct ip address of SMTP server. Below is the error message in Net Weaver logs.
MII still sends email if direct ip address of email server provided instead of Email Load balancer but not through Load balancer .
Any suggestions ?
Could not authenticate mail account (Unknown Source)
[EXCEPTION]
javax.mail.AuthenticationFailedException
at javax.mail.Service.connect(Service.java:319)
at javax.mail.Service.connect(Service.java:169)
at javax.mail.Service.connect(Service.java:118)
at com.sap.xmii.storage.connections.MailConnection.sendMail(MailConnection.java:202)
at com.sap.xmii.bls.executables.actions.mail.MailActions.send(MailActions.java:223)
at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor1412.invoke(Unknown Source)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:592)
at com.sap.xmii.bls.engine.ReflectiveAction.doExecute(ReflectiveAction.java:747)
at com.sap.xmii.bls.engine.BaseNode.executeNode(BaseNode.java:198)
at com.sap.xmii.bls.engine.BaseAction.execute(BaseAction.java:76)
at com.sap.xmii.bls.engine.runners.ProductionRunner.runAction(ProductionRunner.java:147)
at com.sap.xmii.bls.executables.sequences.Sequence.execute(Sequence.java:50)
at com.sap.xmii.bls.engine.runners.ProductionRunner.runSequence(ProductionRunner.java:126)
at com.sap.xmii.bls.executables.controls.Switch.doExecute(Switch.java:131)
at com.sap.xmii.bls.engine.BaseNode.executeNode(BaseNode.java:198)
at com.sap.xmii.bls.engine.BaseControl.execute(BaseControl.java:127)

Hi Ahmed,
I don't have experience with Blackberry, but, as the document mentions, the first thing to do would be making sure that the connection timeout is set to something high enough
You can find more details on how to modify this value at the link below:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/services_modules/ace/vA2_3_0/configuration/security/guide/tcpipnrm.html#wp1074289
I hope this helps
Daniel

ACE load-balancing-Cookie problem

In our other load-balancing environments the load-balancer-cookie contains the encrypted (real) servername or ip-address.
We think it's the same on the cisco, for that reason it's in theory not possible, that there are two 'green'-cookies with different values in the same request.
There are only two possibilities how this could happen:
a) The healthmonitor (http_probe) fails, the loadbalancer 'thinks' that the realserver is down and redistributes the traffic.
But in that case we would expect, that the old cookie will be overwritten by the new one and not simply added to the http-header.
b) The predictor in the serverfarm chooses a new realserver within the same request.
If that is really the cause of that problem this would be bug in the cisco ace.
What we found out, is that the loadbalancer performs a 'Set-Cookie'-Operation an every request even if the client submits the cookie correctly.
For example:
GET /ips-opdata/scripts/jquery.js HTTP/1.1
Host: www.xxxxx.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Ubuntu/10.04 (lucid) Firefox/3.6.15
Accept: */*
Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Keep-Alive: 115
Connection: keep-alive
Referer: http://www.xxxxx.com/
Cookie: green=R339366665; JSESSIONID=28D91FC6FD62A3921354BB36826294C4
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Set-Cookie: green=R339366665; path=/; expires=Tue, 29-Mar-2011 06:33:00 GMT
Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1
X-Powered-By: Servlet 2.4; JBoss-4.2.2.GA (build: SVNTag=JBoss_4_2_2_GA date=200710221139)/Tomcat-5.5
ETag: W/"72181-1298537508000"
Last-Modified: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:51:48 GMT
Content-Type: text/javascript
Content-Length: 72181
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:15:19 GMT
As you can see the cookies: green=R339366665 is transmitted from the client, but the loadbalancer does a Set-Cookie Operation of the same cookie once again. This is an unexpected behaviour.
We hope that this helps you to figure out the reason of the problem.

The cookie is sent by the ACE on each response to refresh the timeout value on the client. The value of the cookie doesn't change. This is the expected behaviour and shouldn't break anything in the application / browser.
For browser-based applications, don't forget to add the "browser-expire" parameter to your cookie-based stickyness config.

ACE load balance based on Source IP Address

Hi Cisco Support,
I have question related to Cisco ACE behavior in term to taking a decision based on source address
I currently have two servers sits behind ACE part of one server farm, these servers are load balanced via one VIP on ACE module and every things looks fine.
Now service owners want to replace these old servers with new hardware hence before the migration we need to make sure these new servers are working as required standard hence need to create a testing scenario for new servers along with old server. The problem is that number of third party partners are accessing existing servers by hitting VIP on ace and we can't engage all our partner to participate in this test therefore decided to engage only one partner to carry our test with us.
For that reason can we some how configure the ACE so when packet arrive on ACE from one test partner mentioned above, ACE send only that partner's traffic based on it's source address (define via class/policy map on ACE if possible) towards new servers in the existing server farm and not to the old server in the same server farm.
Thanks for your support

Hi,
Just to put some config sample that might help you to get this done.
First create the new rservers and include them under a new serverfarm (New-APP)/
serverfarm host Webfarm
rserver SVR1
    inservice
rserver SVR2
    inservice
serverfarm host New-APP
rserver New-1
    inservice
rserver New-2
    inservice
- Same VIP already working.
class-map match-all VIP-HTTP
2 match virtual-address 10.10.10.10 tcp eq www
- Create a new class that will include your partner's IP(s).
class-map type http loadbalance match-any 3rd-Party
2 match source-address 200.200.200.1 255.255.255.255
3 match source-address 200.200.200.10 255.255.255.255
Modify your current first-match policy to put the new class on top so that all the traffic matched by the statement above (IP) will be redirected to the new farm with the new APP, any other traffic that does not match the "rule" will be sent to the old serverfam with the old app.
policy-map type loadbalance first-match L7-SLB
class 3rd-Party
    serverfarm New-APP
class class-default
    serverfarm Webfarm
Since you already have LB working then this is it, nothing needs to be added under the multi-match policy nor interface.
HTH
Pablo

Regarding ACE load balancing

Hi,
I have one server application with two physical servers clustered with one virtual IP address . I have total six ip addresses for one server : details are given below
Cluster IP’s :
Node 1 :
NIC 1 : 10.10.x.x : physical IP address
NIC 2 : 172.16.x.x : heartbeat address used in between server
Node 2 :
NIC 1 : 10.10.x.x : physical ip address
NIC 2 : 172.16.x.x : heartbeat address used in between server
Cluster IP : 10.10.x.x : clustered IP address used to access server
SQL IP : 10.10.x.x : clustered IP address used to access SQL application .
now i want to achieve server load-balancing using ACE module. Please suggest to me fulfil this requirement. how to do this ?
whether i need to remove the virtual IP and directly bind two physical ip to ace virtual ip add.
How do i check ace server load-balancing configuration with live server .... do we have any tool to check the packet behaviour to confirm that load-balancing is happening properly in between two physical servers :
Please guide me and share the knowledge .....................

Hi Vinod,
You are correct. In order to achieve load-balancing with an ACE blade, you need to configure the addresses of the two severs separately. If you look at the documentation page on cisco.com for ACE (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6906/tsd_products_support_model_home.html) you will find sample configuration for the most commont topologies.
As for how to verify if the load-balancing is working correctly, you can use the command "show serverfarm ", which will list you all the servers in a serverfarm, along with the current and total connection numbers for each of them.

ACE Load Balancing Problem

Hi,
I have ACE 4701 with c4710ace-mz.A3_2_2.bin image. In the current setup ACE is located in the center of network where all the WAN, Intenret and LAN is connected and ACE has default towards Internet and All other segment has default route towards ACE appliance. ACe is only redirecting the port 80 traffic to my Proxy server and bypass my lan subnet on port 80.
Internet
i
i
i
i
i
ACE--------------------------------WAN
i
i
i
i
LAN
I want to use ACE for the load balancing of two servers. Today I did the load balancing configuration but as soon as I applied the policy map on the interface vlan 200 and 300, my complete network reachability went down. When I remove the policy my network came back to normal.
192.168.200.66 FAX Server-1
192.1168.200.67 FAX Server-2
192.168.200.65   Virtual IP address
Attached is the configuration that I did on ACE for the load balancing and below is the current configuration of the ACE appliance.
access-list acl-in remark ACCESS LIST FOR ACE-INSIDE
access-list acl-in line 1 extended permit ip any any
access-list acl-out remark ACCESS LIST FOR ACE-OUTSIDE
access-list acl-out line 1 extended permit ip any any
access-list acl-proxy remark ACCESS LIST FOR PROXY SEGMENT
access-list acl-proxy line 1 extended permit ip any any
access-list acl-wan remark ACCESS LIST FOR WAN SEGMENT
access-list acl-wan line 1 extended permit ip any any
probe tcp PROBE_5050
port 5050
interval 15
passdetect interval 60
open 1
probe tcp PROBE_5101
port 5101
interval 15
passdetect interval 60
open 1
probe tcp PROBE_TCP
port 80
interval 15
passdetect interval 60
open 1
parameter-map type http PARAMAP_CASE
case-insensitive
no persistence-rebalance
rserver host RS_BCPR01
ip address 192.168.0.103
inservice
rserver host RS_BCPR02
ip address 192.168.0.104
inservice
rserver host RT_fax1
description Right Fax Server-1
ip address 192.168.200.66
rserver host RT_fax2
description Right Fax Server-2
ip address 192.168.200.67
serverfarm host SF_BCPR
transparent
probe PROBE_5050
probe PROBE_5101
probe PROBE_TCP
rserver RS_BCPR01
inservice
rserver RS_BCPR02
inservice
serverfarm host SF_RT_fax
rserver RT_fax1
rserver RT_fax2
sticky ip-netmask 255.255.255.255 address source STICKY-SOURCE
replicate sticky
serverfarm SF_BCPR
sticky ip-netmask 255.255.255.255 address source FAX-STICKY
replicate sticky
serverfarm SF_RT_fax
class-map type management match-any CM_ALL
2 match protocol snmp any
3 match protocol http any
4 match protocol https any
5 match protocol icmp any
6 match protocol telnet any
class-map match-any CM_BYPASS_FOR_LAN
3 match virtual-address 100.1.1.0 255.255.255.0 tcp eq www
8 match virtual-address 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 tcp eq www
9 match virtual-address 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 tcp eq www
10 match virtual-address 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 tcp eq www
class-map match-any CM_BYPASS_SUBNET
9 match virtual-address 100.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 tcp eq www
13 match virtual-address 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 tcp eq www
14 match virtual-address 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 tcp eq www
15 match virtual-address 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 tcp eq www
class-map match-any CM_IM
2 match virtual-address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 tcp eq 5050
3 match virtual-address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 tcp eq 1080
4 match virtual-address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 tcp eq 5101
class-map match-all CM_SF_BCPR
255 match virtual-address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 tcp eq www
class-map match-any RT_FAX
2 match virtual-address 192.168.200.65 0.0.0.0 any
policy-map type management first-match PM_ALL
class CM_ALL
permit
policy-map type loadbalance http first-match PM_L7_BYPASS_FOR_LAN_HTTP
class class-default
forward
policy-map type loadbalance http first-match PM_L7_BYPASS_HTTP
class class-default
forward
policy-map type loadbalance first-match PM_LB_RT_FAX
class class-default
sticky-serverfarm FAX-STICKY
policy-map type loadbalance http first-match PM_LB_SF_BCPROXY
class class-default
sticky-serverfarm STICKY-SOURCE
policy-map multi-match PM_BYPASS_FOR_LAN_HTTP
class CM_BYPASS_FOR_LAN
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy PM_L7_BYPASS_FOR_LAN_HTTP
policy-map multi-match PM_BYPASS_HTTP
class CM_BYPASS_SUBNET
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy PM_L7_BYPASS_HTTP
policy-map multi-match PM_MAIN_BCPROXY
class CM_SF_BCPR
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy PM_LB_SF_BCPROXY
loadbalance vip icmp-reply active
appl-parameter http advanced-options PARAMAP_CASE
class CM_IM
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy PM_LB_SF_BCPROXY
policy-map multi-match PM_RT_FAX
class RT_FAX
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy PM_LB_RT_FAX
service-policy input PM_ALL
interface vlan 100
description FW-INSIDE CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.5 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.11 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.6 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
no icmp-guard
access-group input acl-out
no shutdown
interface vlan 200
description WAN-VLAN CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.33 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.43 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.34 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
access-group input acl-wan
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_HTTP
service-policy input PM_MAIN_BCPROXY
no shutdown
interface vlan 300
description ACE-INSIDE CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.65 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.73 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.66 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
access-group input acl-in
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_FOR_LAN_HTTP
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_HTTP
service-policy input PM_MAIN_BCPROXY
no shutdown
interface vlan 301
description BC-VLAN CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.97 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.107 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.98 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
access-group input acl-proxy
no shutdown
ft track interface TRACKING_FOR_FT_VLAN
track-interface vlan 300
peer track-interface vlan 300
priority 255
peer priority 255
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1
Please help me out what i am missing. Is there any limitation on policy map or my bypass subnet list is creating problem.

I did these changes this time nothing disconnected but I am not able to do the Remote desktop on the virtual IP address. Real IP has Remote desktop enabled even VIP is not ping able for me.
rserver host RT_fax1
description Right Fax Server-1
ip address 192.168.200.66
inservice
rserver host RT_fax2
description Right Fax Server-2
ip address 192.168.200.67
inservice
serverfarm host SF_RT_fax
rserver RT_fax1
    inservice
rserver RT_fax2
    inservice
policy-map type loadbalance rdp first-match PM_LB_RT_FAX
class class-default
    serverfarm SF_RT_fax
policy-map multi-match PM_RT_FAX
class RT_FAX
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy PM_LB_RT_FAX
    loadbalance vip icmp-reply active
interface vlan 200
description WAN-VLAN CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.33 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.43 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.34 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
access-group input acl-wan
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_HTTP
service-policy input PM_MAIN_BCPROXY
service-policy input PM_RT_FAX
no shutdown
interface vlan 300
description ACE-INSIDE CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.65 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.73 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.66 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
access-group input acl-in
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_FOR_LAN_HTTP
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_HTTP
service-policy input PM_MAIN_BCPROXY
service-policy input PM_RT_FAX
no shutdown
But nothing is working for me. Please help me out. This time i didnt configure the sticky. But in real I will go with sticky and complete IP protocol will be use a VIP. Please help me out.

ACE load balancing and testing using soapUI

Hey, I am trying to crowd source a solution for this problem.
A client is testing using soapUI to an application that is being load balanced via ACE. There are two webservers behind the VIP servicing the client request. When client tests, requests are timing out per the soapUI log. A packet capture was taken and it clearly shows that ACE is not forwarding the HTTP data back to the client. When client tests by bypassing the ACE load balancer, it works fine. But, there are other clients from other applications that are making successful connection to the load balanced application via the VIP.
Question, is there any thing unique with making HTTP/XML based requests using soapUI? LB configuration is shown below:
class-map match-all EAI_PWS_9083
2 match virtual-address 10.5.68.29 tcp eq 9083
serverfarm host EAI_PWS_9083
description WebSphere Porduction
failaction purge
probe tcp9083
rserver ESSWSPAPP01 9083
    inservice
rserver ESSWSPAPP02 9083
    inservice
policy-map type loadbalance first-match L7_POLICY_EAI_PWS_9083
class class-default
    serverfarm EAI_PWS_9083
policy-map multi-match L4SLBPOLICY
class EAI_PWS_9083
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy L7_POLICY_EAI_PWS_9083
    loadbalance vip icmp-reply active
    appl-parameter http advanced-options CASE_PARAM
parameter-map type http CASE_PARAM
case-insensitive

Hi,
Your configuration looks fine. I am not familiar with soapUI but if it is like a normal TCP connection followed by HTTP requests, i don't see why this shouldn't work.
Do you know if there is a difference while using soapUI and normal request using browser?
Regards,
Kanwal

Load balancing imbalance in ACE

We are facing slowness an http application which is due to connection imbalance. This setup has one set of Load balancer and a proxy in DMZ where the connections gets terminated from the users and a load balancer inside LAN which load balances between the end point servers. All user connections terminate on the DMZ load balancer / proxy and proxy connects back to the internal load balancer VIP. (By collating a number of connections to very few - default proxy behavior) . Internal load balancer VIP does load balancing based on the number of connections in a least loaded manner and this load balancer doesn’t see how many sessions are beneath each connections and it distributes each connection to server underneath. Thus if one connection has around 100 sessions, another may have only a few and each of this gets forwarded to the end server causing the imbalance.
Is there a way that this imbalance can be tackled in this setup.
Users --> Proxy ---> Load balancer (Cisco ACE) --> Server 1
Server 2
Server 3
Least Connections predictor
HTTP Cookie insert sticky

Hi,
Persistance rebalance should solve the issue for you.
The persistent-rebalance function is required if you have proxy users and the proxy shares one TCP connection between multiple users.
With this behavior, inside a single connection you will see different cookies. Therefore, for each cookie, ACE needs to first detect the new cookie and then loadbalance to the appropriate server.
this is from the admin Guide :
The following example specifies the parameter-map type http command to enable HTTP persistence after it has been disabled:
host1/Admin(config)# parameter-map type http http_parameter_map
Host1/Admin(config-parammap-http)# persistence-rebalance
Please refer the following link for more info :
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/services_modules/ace/vA4_2_0/configuration/slb/guide/classlb.html#wp1062907
hope that helps,
Ajay Kumar

Two isp load balancing on cisco ACE(load balancer)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for