Load Balancing of WAE

Unanswered Question
May 12th, 2010

Hi all,

We have a setup in remote site with 2 WAE 474 . We added the second WAE because we saw TFO overload connections and the users in the site increased. After adding the second WAE, we do not see any active connection in the second box and the first box still gives an TFO overload alarm. Is there any configuration that needs to be done.

Thanks in Advance

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Zach Seils Wed, 05/12/2010 - 09:59

What interception method are you using (inline, WCCP, etc.)?  If you are using WCCP, what type of routers/switches do you have WCCP enabled on?


dhanasekaran.r Wed, 05/12/2010 - 11:16

Hi Zach,

We are using WCCP interception method. The setup is as follows. 2811 router ( Ver 12.4.17)>>>>4503 switch>> WAE 1 and WAE2.We are using version 4.1.5c has code in WAE's. The WCCP is turned on the 2811 router.

Zach Seils Wed, 05/12/2010 - 11:24

Can you share the configuration of the 2811?  I'm interested on which interfaces you have service groups 61 and 62 configured on?


dhanasekaran.r Wed, 05/12/2010 - 11:31


interface FastEthernet0/0.1

encapsulation dot1Q 1

ip wccp 61 redirect in



interface FastEthernet0/0.899

description WAN Acceleration

encapsulation dot1Q 899

ip wccp redirect exclude in


interface Serial0/0/0:0

bandwidth 1536

ip accounting output-packets

ip wccp 62 redirect in


interface Serial0/1/0

description BACKUPLINK

bandwidth 1536

ip wccp 62 redirect in

delay 2010

Zach Seils Wed, 05/12/2010 - 11:36

Thanks.  The issue is most likely caused by the hash algorithm used to distrubute load across the WAEs.  The hash is fairly basic, and depending on the distribution of client IP addresses at the site, it can cause all traffic to be redirected to a single WAE.  You can try including the destination (i.e. server) IP address in the hash with the following command arguments on the WAEs:

wccp tcp-promiscuous router-list-num 1 hash-source-ip hash-destination-ip




This Discussion