VPN as Failover for WAN?

We have two sites connected by a gigaman line.  Routing between the two sites is done with a couple of HP routers.  We also have two separate Internet connections, one at each site, through different providers.  The border firewall at one site is a Cisco 5505 and at the other site it is a Cisco 5510.  If the gigaman line goes down, we would like to fail over to a site-to-site VPN.  Any clue how to set this up?  We can set up the site-to-site VPN.  The main question is how to make it serve as a failover.  Another question is whether the VPN will cause confusion when the gigaman is operational.  Thanks.   -Glenn.

The solution is a very simple one since your setup is not very complicated:
1- setup site-to-site VPN between your 5505 and 5510 with the encryption domain as 192.168.10.x/x on ASA5505 and 192.168.1.x/x on ASA5510.  Simple right?
2- On the HP router 4204(#2), add a floating static route something like "ip route 192.168.1.x/x 192.168.100.34 220" and on the HP router (4004(#1), do the same thing like "ip route 192.168.10.x/x 192.168.1.4 220". 
Now, if the Gigaman WAN link goes down on either side, 192.168.10.x will not be able to get to 192.168.1.x via the gigaman link, it will "automatically" use the VPN tunnel without you having to do anything.  One the Gigaman WAN link is restored, it will revert bacl to the Gigaman WAN path.
In summary, the solution is to use floating route on the HP in addition to setup site-to-site VPN between the ASA5505 and ASA5510.  No need to do dynamic routing in your situation to further complicate the situation.

Similar Messages

  • I do not see where to enter IP addresses in the Open VPN setup. Also, how can I set it up so that I can choose different servers in the same way as I can currently choose them with my VPN app but for PPTP?

    I think I have it working on my iPhone 5. But, I do not see how I can control the exit point that I would like for the VPN. Are all the exit points shown in the VPN setting now going to work with Open VPN, or do they remain PPTP? If I am reading correctly, they look like they remain PPTP. If I cannot control the exit point for open VPN, which exit point is the default in the profile you provided me?I note that Open VPN Connect does not work with any of the new 64 bit devices like the iPhone 5S, the iPad Air, and the new iPad MIni. Is there any chance that you guys will come up with an update for your app so that open VPN can be made to work on all iOS devices? That would be nice, particularly if the Open VPN Connect app does not give me a choice of exit points.Thanks,
    I do not see where to enter IP addresses in the Open VPN setup. Also, how can I set it up so that I can choose different servers in the same way as I can currently choose them with my VPN app but for PPTP?
    Just a quick note to tell you that Open VPN has updated their app so that it is compatible with 64 bit ARM devices like the iPhone 5S, the iPad Air, and the iPad Mini Retina.That does not resolve the problem of how to easily choose among the various possibilities for the exit server. We need to find an easy way to choose.

    Thank you for trying the new Firefox. I'm sorry that you’re unhappy with the new design.
    I understand your frustration and surprise at the removal of these features but I can't undo these changes. I'm just a support volunteer and I do not work for Mozilla. But you can send any feedback about these changes to http://input.mozilla.org/feedback. Firefox developers collect data submitted through there then present it at the weekly Firefox meeting
    I recommend you try to adjust to 29 and see if you can't make it work for you before you downgrade to a less secure and soon outdated version of Firefox.
    Here are a few suggestions for restoring the old design. I hope you’ll find one that works for you:
    *Use the [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/ Classic Theme Restorer] to bring back the old design. Learn more here: [[How to make the new Firefox look like the old Firefox]]
    *Use the [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/the-addon-bar/ Add-on Bar Restored] to bring back the add-on bar. Learn more here: [[What happened to the Add-on Bar?]]

  • Network Load Balancing and failover for AFP Sharing

    Dear all,
    Somebody kindly teach me to use round robin DNS to perform the network load balancing, it's success but not the failover.
    I have 4 xserve and want to do the load balancing and failover at the same time.
    I have read the IP failover document and setup it successfully, but anyone know is it possible to do the IP failover for more than 2 server?
    For example, 4 server serving the AFP service at the same time, maybe I have 1 more extra server to do the IP failover for thoese 4 servers.
    As I know, IP failover require Firewire as the heartbeat detection. But one xserve only have 2 firewire ports. May I setting up the IP failover only by a ethernet port and an IP address? does it possible to detect and failover to any server after server down has been detected?
    I believe load balancer maybe the best solution but its cost is too high.
    Thanks any advance!
    Karllee

    well, u have 2 options here
    software load balancing
    request comes it foo.com -> ws7u2 hosting foo.com is configured to run as reverse proxy . this server sends any incoming requests to one of the four back end web server 7 handling your incoming request
    hardware load balancing (this you need to invest)
    request comes to hardware load balancer who responds for foo.com -> sends requests to four ws7 server hosting your application
    you could try out how software load balancing works out for you before you invest in hardware load balancing
    here is more instruction on configuring ws7 + reverse proxy (software load configuration)
    - install ws7 on foo.com
    - create a new configuration (choose port 80, disable java

  • Setup failover for a distributed cache

    Hello,
    For our production setup we will have 4 app servers one clone per each app server. so there will be 4 clones to a cluster. And we will have 2 jvms for our distributed cache - one being a failover, both of those will be in cluster.
    How would i configure the failover for the distributed cache?
    Thanks

    user644269 wrote:
    Right - so each of the near cache schemes defined would need to have the back map high-units set to where it could take on 100% of data.Specifically the near-scheme/back-scheme/distributed-scheme/backing-map-scheme/local-scheme/high-units value (take a look at the [Cache Configuration Elements|http://coherence.oracle.com/display/COH34UG/Cache+Configuration+Elements] ).
    There are two options:
    1) No Expiry -- In this case you would have to size the storage enabled JVMs to that an individual JVM could store all of the data.
    or
    2) Expiry -- In this case you would set the high-units a value that you determine. If you want it to store all the data then it needs to be set higher than the total number of objects that you will store in the cache at any given time or you can set it lower with the understanding that once that high-units is reached Coherence will evict some data from the cluster (i.e. remove it from the "cluster memory").
    user644269 wrote:
    Other than that - there is not configuration needed to ensure that these JVM's act as a failover in the event one goes down.Correct, data fault tolerance is on by default (set to one level of redundancy).
    :Rob:
    Coherence Team

  • Re: Failover for SO's with context

    Right, delivery of events is not guaranteed by Forte, even though
    it is reasonable to rely on it in the case of two Forte servers on a LAN.
    I would not go towards a solution for securing events delivery by
    an acknowledgement mechanism (ack event or shared object notifier),
    because of increased complexity and performance overhead.
    On the other hand, a second simple security level can be provided by
    enabling
    your mirror/backup SO to be refreshed at will, by letting it get a
    snapshot
    of the current transient data to be mirrored, so you can :
    - Start your partitions in any order (The mirror partition will first
    task a
    snapshot of the transient data, then will register for mirror events)
    - Start and stop the mirror partition at will, without disrupting the
    application
    Then, if you do not trust events delivery, you can reinitialize your
    mirror
    periodically (say every 12 hours) to minimize the risks of losing
    transient
    data events.
    Again, this solution is suited to low volumes of transient data.
    I guess what Chad means by journaling is writing to a log file any
    event (in a large sense) happening on data from its initial value. Then
    if
    you need to restore state, you re-play the events from the initial value.
    This is a common solution in the banking area where you need to backup
    values but also events on the values. I do not know how this can be
    applied
    to a generic mechanism with Forte, but it may be a good way to explore,
    although probably more complex to implement with Forte than the
    Backup SO/ Events pattern.
    Hope this helps,
    Vincent Figari
    On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:39:03 -0600 Chad Stansbury
    <[email protected]> writes:
    Actually, since events (let alone distributed events) are not
    'guaranteed delivery' in Forte, I would hesitate to use events
    as a mechanism of mirroring your data - unless, of course, you
    really don't require an industrial strength failover strategy.
    This would also apply to asynchronous messaging (unless you
    are careful to register for exception events (which again, aren't
    guaranteed delivery) and have a mechanism to handle said
    asynchronous exception events. I also know that Forte will retry
    certain tasks when the service object it is sent to fails com-
    pletely (like a NIL object exception), but don't know enough
    about the internal workings of Forte to know under which conditions
    this will occur.
    I think that the most common method of a truly industrial-
    strength, guaranteed-delivery mechanisms is via journaling...
    which I know very little about, but is something that you should
    be able to look up and study if that's what you require.
    Again, if you don't care about the (admittedly small) chance
    of an asynchronous call failing, then the suggestions that
    Vincent has already made are good ones.
    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Cc: [email protected]
    Sent: 2/13/98 9:13:17 AM
    Subject: Re: Failover for SO's with context
    Steven,
    The pattern choice between external resource vs SO is dependent on the
    type
    of transient data you want to backup. Probably the external resource
    is
    better
    suited to high volumes of data. We have implemented the 'Backup SO'
    pattern because our transient data volumes are rather low (which I
    guess
    must
    be the most common case for global, transient data).
    Whatever the choice you do :
    - Be sure to enforce encapsulation for updating the transient data, in
    order to
    guarantee that any modification to your transient data is duplicated
    on
    the backup
    SO or the external resource
    - About performances, the CPU cost is fairly low for your 'regular'
    application if you
    take care to :
    * use asynchronous tasks to update the external resource
    or
    * use events to notify the backup SO
    Now it is true that you will have a network overhead when using
    events,
    as your
    backup SO shall be isolated in a remote partition on a remote
    server.
    That is one good argument to select the Backup SO pattern for low
    volumes of
    transient data.
    If you choose the 'Backup SO' pattern, you will also have to be
    careful
    not sending
    any distributed reference to your Backup SO but only clones.
    Anyway, the backup SO pattern works fairly well for low volumes of
    data,
    but requires lots of testings and a good understanding of events and
    communication
    across partitions.
    Hope this helps,
    Vincent Figari
    On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:24:57 +0100 Steven Arijs <[email protected]>
    writes:
    We're going to implement a failover scenario for our application.
    Unfortunately, we also have to replicate the state of our failed
    service
    objects.
    I've browsed the Forte site and found a TechNote concerning this
    (TechNote 11074).
    In this TechNote they talk about a service object that is responsible
    for updating all backup service objects when needed.
    It seems to me that when I implement that way, I will be creating a
    lot
    of overhead, i.e. I will be doing a lot of stuff several times.
    What will be the effects on my performance ?
    The way with the least performance loss would be to use an external
    resource that is updated. But what if this external resource also
    fails
    Is there any one who has already implemented a failover scenario for a
    service objects with state ?
    Any help would be appreciated.
    Steven Arijs
    ([email protected])
    You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
    Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
    Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
    You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
    Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
    Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

    Right, delivery of events is not guaranteed by Forte, even though
    it is reasonable to rely on it in the case of two Forte servers on a LAN.
    I would not go towards a solution for securing events delivery by
    an acknowledgement mechanism (ack event or shared object notifier),
    because of increased complexity and performance overhead.
    On the other hand, a second simple security level can be provided by
    enabling
    your mirror/backup SO to be refreshed at will, by letting it get a
    snapshot
    of the current transient data to be mirrored, so you can :
    - Start your partitions in any order (The mirror partition will first
    task a
    snapshot of the transient data, then will register for mirror events)
    - Start and stop the mirror partition at will, without disrupting the
    application
    Then, if you do not trust events delivery, you can reinitialize your
    mirror
    periodically (say every 12 hours) to minimize the risks of losing
    transient
    data events.
    Again, this solution is suited to low volumes of transient data.
    I guess what Chad means by journaling is writing to a log file any
    event (in a large sense) happening on data from its initial value. Then
    if
    you need to restore state, you re-play the events from the initial value.
    This is a common solution in the banking area where you need to backup
    values but also events on the values. I do not know how this can be
    applied
    to a generic mechanism with Forte, but it may be a good way to explore,
    although probably more complex to implement with Forte than the
    Backup SO/ Events pattern.
    Hope this helps,
    Vincent Figari
    On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:39:03 -0600 Chad Stansbury
    <[email protected]> writes:
    Actually, since events (let alone distributed events) are not
    'guaranteed delivery' in Forte, I would hesitate to use events
    as a mechanism of mirroring your data - unless, of course, you
    really don't require an industrial strength failover strategy.
    This would also apply to asynchronous messaging (unless you
    are careful to register for exception events (which again, aren't
    guaranteed delivery) and have a mechanism to handle said
    asynchronous exception events. I also know that Forte will retry
    certain tasks when the service object it is sent to fails com-
    pletely (like a NIL object exception), but don't know enough
    about the internal workings of Forte to know under which conditions
    this will occur.
    I think that the most common method of a truly industrial-
    strength, guaranteed-delivery mechanisms is via journaling...
    which I know very little about, but is something that you should
    be able to look up and study if that's what you require.
    Again, if you don't care about the (admittedly small) chance
    of an asynchronous call failing, then the suggestions that
    Vincent has already made are good ones.
    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Cc: [email protected]
    Sent: 2/13/98 9:13:17 AM
    Subject: Re: Failover for SO's with context
    Steven,
    The pattern choice between external resource vs SO is dependent on the
    type
    of transient data you want to backup. Probably the external resource
    is
    better
    suited to high volumes of data. We have implemented the 'Backup SO'
    pattern because our transient data volumes are rather low (which I
    guess
    must
    be the most common case for global, transient data).
    Whatever the choice you do :
    - Be sure to enforce encapsulation for updating the transient data, in
    order to
    guarantee that any modification to your transient data is duplicated
    on
    the backup
    SO or the external resource
    - About performances, the CPU cost is fairly low for your 'regular'
    application if you
    take care to :
    * use asynchronous tasks to update the external resource
    or
    * use events to notify the backup SO
    Now it is true that you will have a network overhead when using
    events,
    as your
    backup SO shall be isolated in a remote partition on a remote
    server.
    That is one good argument to select the Backup SO pattern for low
    volumes of
    transient data.
    If you choose the 'Backup SO' pattern, you will also have to be
    careful
    not sending
    any distributed reference to your Backup SO but only clones.
    Anyway, the backup SO pattern works fairly well for low volumes of
    data,
    but requires lots of testings and a good understanding of events and
    communication
    across partitions.
    Hope this helps,
    Vincent Figari
    On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:24:57 +0100 Steven Arijs <[email protected]>
    writes:
    We're going to implement a failover scenario for our application.
    Unfortunately, we also have to replicate the state of our failed
    service
    objects.
    I've browsed the Forte site and found a TechNote concerning this
    (TechNote 11074).
    In this TechNote they talk about a service object that is responsible
    for updating all backup service objects when needed.
    It seems to me that when I implement that way, I will be creating a
    lot
    of overhead, i.e. I will be doing a lot of stuff several times.
    What will be the effects on my performance ?
    The way with the least performance loss would be to use an external
    resource that is updated. But what if this external resource also
    fails
    Is there any one who has already implemented a failover scenario for a
    service objects with state ?
    Any help would be appreciated.
    Steven Arijs
    ([email protected])
    You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
    Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
    Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
    You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
    Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
    Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

  • Configure directiry server failover for delegated admin schema 2

    Hello,
    I am using Delegated Admin for Schema 2 on solaris 9 sparc platform.
    I want to configure directory servers failover for delegated admin.
    Unfortunately I havent found any clue for the same.
    Can anyone help me?
    Regards,
    Shujaat Nazir
    Senior System Engineer
    Cyber Internet Services, Pakistan
    http://www.cyber.net.pk

    Different product.
    Schema 1 used the old iPlanet Delegated Admin.
    Schema 2 uses Delegated Admin, based on Identity Server.
    As far as I know, failover is not in this product.

  • Checkpoint VPN-1 SecureClient for OS X 10.5 (leopard) - won't install

    I'm trying to install the 03/2008 release of CheckPoint VPN-1 SecureClient for 10.5 (I have 10.5.5). The install fires up, works just fine, and says it was successful, and asks for a reboot. The reboot works, but the application is not installed: nothing in the Applications (it is supposed to be under Applications/Check Point).
    There were many problems with the early-access versions of this product (it caused my system to completely hang on boot-up), but I have a couple of co-workers that are successfully using the 03/2008 released version.
    Anyone else have this problem?

    I FIXED THIS successfully on three staff members' Mac Book Pro computers after many many headaches.
    Before you do anything, run the 10.5.6 update, and any security updates that there are.
    1. Uninstall Secure Client (If you have it on your machine) using the uninstaller. If it cannot be uninstalled using the uninstaller, delete the "Check Point VPN-1 SecureClient" directory in the Applications folder. Also delete the "SecureClient" shortcut in the Applications folder. VERY IMPORTANT: Also delete the "opt" folder in the root of your OS Drive. EMPTY THE TRASH.
    2. Restart in Safe Boot by holding the "shift" key until you see the spinning pinweel below the Apple on the gray boot screen.
    3. Follow the instructions posted by Electric Cat:
    "+1. Open the terminal+
    +2. Navigate to the directory containing the SecureClient installation package with the cd and ls commands+
    +3. Type cd followed with the full name of the unzipped package and hit Return. For the orignal package, the command will be cd SecureClientB6340000311.pkg.+
    +The Mac will enter the package just as to the directory (this IS a directory, actually)+
    +4. Type cd Contents/Resources+
    +5. Type sudo ./postinstall, keeping all periods and slashes. The Mac will ask you for the root password. Enter it+
    +6. The installation will succeed in the console mode."+
    4. Restart in Safe boot.
    5. Delete the "Check Point VPN-1 SecureClient" directory in the Applications folder. Also delete the "SecureClient" shortcut in the Applications folder. VERY IMPORTANT: Also delete the "opt" folder in the root of your OS Drive. EMPTY THE TRASH.
    6. Navigate to "Library/Receipts" and delete any Secure Client Packages that are there and empty the trash. THIS IS CRITICAL.
    7. Restart in Safe Boot.
    8. Run the "SecureClientB6340000311.pkg" file.
    9. Reboot in regular mode - MAKE SURE YOU'RE UNPLUGGED FROM ANY NETWORK.
    10. Do not connect to AirPort. If AirPort is set to automatically connect, turn it off and reboot.
    11. Upon reboot, Secure Client should appear in the top menu bar. If it doesn't appear, check to see if it installed into the Applications folder. If it didn't install repeat entire process. (One thing I've found about Secure Client, is that there is no rhyme or reason to its bugs).
    12. Connect to airport.
    13. Configure Secure Client.
    Praise Allah.

  • Must the client always be up before the master for WAN replication to work?

    From our testing, we have noticed that the client must always be up before the master in order for WAN replication to work. Is this the case? If so, is there some kind of flag in Tangosol to allow the master to reconnect to client?

    Try the following changes to the JS file
    Lines 103 and 104 change the values
    this.showDelay = 100; // was 250
    this.hideDelay = 200; // was 600
    Comment out line 286
    Spry.Widget.MenuBar.prototype.bubbledTextEvent = function()
    //    return Spry.is.safari && (event.target == event.relatedTarget.parentNode || (event.eventPhase == 3 && event.target.parentNode == event.relatedTarget));
    Comment out line 366 and add new lines 366 and 367
    var self = this;
    this.addEventListener(listitem, 'click', function(e){self.Click(listitem, e);}, false);
    this.addEventListener(listitem, 'click', function(e){self.mouseOver(listitem, e);}, false);
    //   this.addEventListener(listitem, 'mouseover', function(e){self.mouseOver(listitem, e);}, false);
    this.addEventListener(listitem, 'mouseout', function(e){if (self.enableKeyboardNavigation) self.clearSelection(); self.mouseOut(listitem, e);}, false);
    I have not tested the above changes ontouch screens; they do seem to work Ok on desktops.
    NOTE: Line numbers could be different because of the difference in our versions.

  • How to plan Failover for the following Scenarios in Flex-connect mode.

    The following queries are in respect to AP High availability (not SSO fail over or Controller HA), meaning if one controller fails, the AP will be failing over to the secondary controller which is in a different Geo location. the AP will be in Flex-connect mode with local switching and local auth. in this scenario, following are my queries
    1: If i have an SSID that has an interface group linked to it, can i fail it over on other controller where there may be a single WLAN linked to it.?
    2:Do we need the subnet masks to be same at both ends?
    3: if i have an SSID with open authentication, can i configure the remote network SSID with no authentication?
    4: can any one link me up with a document that explains configuration case study of the flex-connect mode fail over scenarios.
    All the help given would be really appreciated.
    Thanks.

    hi Scott,
    Sorry for replyimg late. and thanks for your reply and suggestion.
    it did help me a lot, but now i am in a tiff.
    the thing is my client has following existing scenario:
    he has 6 disparate locations with a standalone 5508 WLC at each location.
    he is now planning to configure AP failover for every location.
    we are using the Flex-connect design as he has not procured a HA-SSO license.
    also the WLC are not in same location.
    the Flex-connect design is with Local Switching and local Auth.
    there are 2 SSID which are causing me issues.
    1: SSID A is linked to an interface group which has multiple vlans.
    2: SSID B shares its WLAN interface with another SSID (the wlan is split between 2 different SSID)
    we need local switching for these and also they need to have local auth.
    so if i remove the interface group for SSID A and use a bigger subnet, what will be the best possible mask to use considering that the ARP and DHCP broadcast shouldn't choke up the network (existing subnets are /21 and /22). or any workaround to minimise the network activity.
    and for SSID b what is the configuration i would need to do on the secondary controller or is it just that the SSID needs to be present on the controller and the mask need not be same.
    sorry for troubling you and thanks in advance
    Niiketan Sutar.

  • Weblogic7/examples/clustering/ejb Automatic failover for idempotent methods ?

    This one should be easy since it is from the examples folder of bea 7 about
              clustering.
              Ref : \bea7\weblogic007\samples\server\src\examples\cluster\ejb
              I am referring to the cluster example provided with the weblogic server 7.0
              on windows 2000.
              I deployed Admin server and 2 managed server as described in document.
              Everything works fine as shown by the example. I get load balancing and
              failover both. Too Good.
              Client.java is using the while loop to manage the failover. So on exception
              it will go thru the loop again.
              I understand from the documentation that the stateless session EJB will
              provide the automatic failover for Idempotent stateless bean
              Case Failover Idempotent : ( Automatic )
              If methods are written in such a way that repeated calls to the same method
              do not cause duplicate updates, the method is said to be "idempotent." For
              idempotent methods, WebLogic Server provides the
              stateless-bean-methods-are-idempotent deployment property. If you set this
              property to "true" in weblogic-ejb-jar.xml, WebLogic Server assumes that the
              method is idempotent and will provide failover services for the EJB method,
              even if a failure occurs during a method call.
              Now I made 2 changes to the code.
              1 . I added as follows to the weblogic-ejb-jar.xml of teller stateless EJB
              <stateless-clustering>
              <stateless-bean-is-clusterable>true</stateless-bean-is-clusterable>
              <stateless-bean-load-algorithm>random</stateless-bean-load-algorithm>
              <stateless-bean-methods-are-idempotent>true</stateless-bean-methods-are-idem
              potent>
              </stateless-clustering>
              So I should get the automatic failover .............
              2. Also I added the break statement in the catch on line around 230 in
              Client .java
              catch (RemoteException re) {
              System.out.println(" Error: " + re);
              // Replace teller, in case that's the problem
              teller = null;
              invoke = false;
              break;
              So that the client program does not loop again and again.
              Now I compile and restart all my three servers and redeploy application (
              just to be sure )
              I start my client and I get a automatic load balancing between the server
              which makes me happy.
              But Failover ....?
              I kill one of the managed application server in cluster at any particular
              test fail point.
              I expect the exception to be taken care automatically by error/failover
              handler in the home/remote stub
              But the client program fails and terminates.
              1. What is wrong with the code ?
              2. Does the automatic failover with the indempotent methods also has to be
              taken care by coding the similar while loop for stateless ejb ?
              Your help will be appreciated ASAP.
              Let me know if you need any thing more from my system. But I am sure this
              will be very easy as it is from the sample code.........
              Thanks
              

    Sorry I meant to send this to the ejb newsgroup.
              dan
              dan benanav wrote:
              > Do any vendors provide for clustering with automatic failover of entity
              > beans? I know that WLS does not. How about Gemstone? If not is there
              > a reason why it is not possible?
              >
              > It seems to me that EJB servers should be capable of automatic failover
              > of entity beans.
              >
              > dan
              

  • EA6500 manually select speed and duplex for WAN port

    Is there any way (hidden settings?) to manually select speed or duplex for WAN port on EA6500? I'm using EA6500 with Genexis HRG1044 (FTTH) and the latter has known issues with upload speed when local device is connected on gigabit. It seems that both EA6500 and Genexis HRG1044 only support autonegotiation and that always results in gigabit which results in poor upload speeds over the internet. Placing 100 Mbps switch between EA6500 and Genexis HRG1044 does the trick but I was wondering if it can be done without it. BTW, my internet speed is only 100/100 Mbps anyways.
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    @discoHR If you don't mind me asking, for what purpose do you want to adjust the speed on the WAN port of the EA6500? Is it to increase the upload speed? I'm just spitballing, but I don't think there's any "hidden setting" to adjust it on the EA6500. 

  • Veritas Cluster failover for oracle

    Hi,
    I'm performing veritas cluster failover for 2 oracle servers which is not working in one way. I've 2 solaris boxes where veritas cluster is configured for failover. In Box1 I'm running 10g and Box2 9.2 when I failover from Box1 to Box2 is working but the other way is not working I'm using 10g listerner for both the services.
    Any help would be appreicated.
    Thanks,

    Hi,
    I'm performing veritas cluster failover for 2 oracle servers which is not working in one way. I've 2 solaris boxes where veritas cluster is configured for failover. In Box1 I'm running 10g and Box2 9.2 when I failover from Box1 to Box2 is working but the other way is not working I'm using 10g listerner for both the services.
    Any help would be appreicated.
    Thanks,

  • Does the RV042 have IP Aliases for WAN interface?

    Hi All
    We have a Small Business RV042 router, and have many Internet servers in our Internal and DMZ networks behind the router.
    In our old GTA firewall, we were able to add IP aliases to our external (WAN) interface.   That is, our WAN interface can have many IP addresses besides the main IP address, e.g., 209.118.52.226, 209.118.52.227, 209.118.52.228, 209.118.52.229, etc. 
    209.118.52.226 is the main IP for the WAN interface.
    209.118.52.227 is for our web server 1, e.g., www.example.com
    209.118.52.228 is for our web server 2, e.g.  support.example.com
    209.118.52.229 is for our sftp server, e.g. sftp.example.com
    And then we create 'tunnels' to forward incoming traffic for 209.118.52.227 to our www.example.com residing in our DMZ or Internal network, etc.
    Now, is this possible with the RV042 router?    The only thing we found in RV042 is Forwarding (port range forward) but that does allow us to have IP aliases for the WAN interface.   It seems that we can only route service defined traffic or port defined traffic meant for only 1 WAN IP to our internal servers behind the router.
    Actually, we had bought the RVS4000 earlier and then upgraded to the RV042 hoping that it will have what we want.
    If the RV042 does not have IP alias for WAN interface, what is the lowest Cisco router model that has it?
    Thank you very much in anticipation.
    cmgui

    Thank you tekliu
    Yes, 1-to-NAT can do most of what we want.   But it is not able to direct only certain port traffic from the external WAN IP to the internal LAN IP?   
    For example, if we create a 1-to-1 NAT 192.168.41.50 =>
    209.118.52.227, it basically opens all the traffic allowed in the Firewall to go from
    209.118.52.227  to  192.168.168.41.50.  
    If we only want to allow say https, ie. tcp port 443, traffic to go from
    209.118.52.227  to  192.168.41.50, it is not possible.  Or is it? 

  • How to find MAC address for WAN port for Airport Express 2nd Gen.

    The New Airport Express has a LAN and a WAN ethernet ports. How can I find the MAC address for the WAN ethernet port as my Service Provider needs it for provisioning....I can fid MAC address for Ethernet and for two wireless 2.4 & 5GHz but not for WAN ethernet port using Airport Utility 6.1

    Many thanks for the swift response. However, there is no WAN MAC address on the box or on the device anywhere. I even used magnifying glass to find one .
    The airport utility shows only three mac addresses. One for 2.4GHz, one for 5GHz and one fo the ethernet (LAN port) whereas there is another ethernet port in the device mentioned as WAN port and I am still not able to find the MAC address for the WAN ehternet port for Airport Express (2nd Generation).
    Will appreciate a response to make th device work wiht my service provider as providing them the WAN mac address is a must. Had there been an option for cloning mac address, the issue would have not been there.
    Many thanks again - in advance.

  • Java failover for DB2 ZOS

    The customers who participate in the SAP/IBM Customer Technical Exchange had entered a development request last year requesting Java Engine failover for DB2/ZOS, similar to the functionality that's been in place several years for the ABAP engine.  (Development request # 0020079747 0000172038 2006)
    With the next Technical Exchange meeting coming up in September, I thought this forum might be a good way to have other customers respond to this thread to help prioritize the issue with SAP and IBM. 
    Deere is very interested in getting a solution soon for this issue, or at least getting an estimate of when it may be available when we meet again in September.
    Regards,
    Carol Wirth
    SAP Basis Team
    John Deere

    Sony Europe is also very anxious to have this issue resolved. It is not acceptable to have no means of controlled DB2 failover for JAVA threads - canceling the DB2 instance is not a good option.
    Gill Hanlon
    Technical Consultant
    Sony Europe

Maybe you are looking for