Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Community Member

ACE X-file

I have a 2 context scenario. In the first one the ACE loadbalances client requests (any ip any protocol) to the internal firewalls and in the second one the ACE routes the traffic to the external firewalls to reach the servers in a distant network. IOS is A1_6_3. When I reload the ACE with A2_1_3 or A2_1_4 there is just one server that becomes unreachable for the clients just on ports 80 and 443...It can be reached on any other TCP port and the rest of servers are still available on these ports (80 and 443). The client receives a RST and wireshark states that is coming from the server's ip but I have checked it in the external firewalls and they don't even receive the client's SYN packet, the connection stablishes in the first context as with the former IOS so I presume is the second context the one that is generating the RST... any idea?

Community Member

Re: ACE X-file


First of all I must say I was wrong in that it wasn't true that the server was available on some ports and not on others (80 and 443), it couldn't be reached on any port.

I have found that this is a problem in the routing in the second context. I have a generic static route pointing at 10/8 through the gateway and one loadbalancing service defined with this server in this context (linked to a policy-map with a class-default and a forward action).

The issue is that with the A1_6_3 IOS version the generic static route 10/8 works fine for the traffic destined to this server, but with the A2_1_3 IOS version the ACE doesn't know where to forward the traffic (I guess it is a bug and the fact that this server has one service configured makes its ip known to the ACE in some way that generates a conflict in the routing decision).

I have overcome the issue by installing a static host route pointing to the server with the same next-hop the 10/8 route has.

Hope this helps someone when upgrading the ACE.


CreatePlease to create content