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

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

CSS load balancing in both directions.

Hi all,

my questions are

-if it is possible divide (virtualize) one physical CSS to separate ones?

and than

-if it is possible use one virtual CSS for loadbalancing in one direction and other CSS use for loadbalancing in opposite direction?

BR

gg

6 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Re: CSS load balancing in both directions.

There is no concept of virtualization on the CSS.

This feature exist on the ACE 4710 Appliance.

I'm not sure if you need virtualization.

What do you mean by directions ?

Usually, clients go to vip and get loadbalanced to servers.

Sometimes, the same servers will open connections to the same vip...this is possible with the CSS.

Or the same servers will open connections to a database through a different vip ... this is also possible with the CSS.

If you provide a better description we can tell you if this is really possible,

Gilles.

New Member

Re: CSS load balancing in both directions.

In a cube:

Load balancing with Cisco tech. is possible with CSS 1150 and ACE 4710 or ACE module to Cat6500 switch.

As I understand ACE 4710 is a successor of CSS. Am I right?

Can we use features you´v mentioned in relation to CSS in ACE too?

An idea is to build Microsoft based workflow with BizTalk servers. We want to use one load balancing appliance for clients connecting to servers (frontends vips) and the other servers in inside network to connect to databases outside network.

Maybe better is to have idea what means for load balancer appliance inside and outside "world" as in Cisco PIX firewall. Or if it is not important?

And what means virtualization..really I have after virtualization process of ACE independent physical pieces of ACEs?

BR

gg

Cisco Employee

Re: CSS load balancing in both directions.

The ACE is indeed the successor of the CSS. You have the same CSS functions on ACE plus some new features.

There is no concept of inside and outside on a loadbalancer.

Usually, we talk about client side and server side.  But the servers can access vip.

So what you want to do is possible with both CSS and ACE.

Gilles.

New Member

Re: CSS load balancing in both directions.

Hi Gilles,

is over there any special command in a CLI to switch the sides of ACE to client and server or it is only objective view for "IT man" where clients and servers are?

Pls. could you recommend me some the best examples and literature related to ACE what I shouldn´t miss.

Something in your opinion what you prefer as the best.

Thanks a lot for your answers. It is extremely helpful for me.

BR

gg

New Member

Re: CSS load balancing in both directions.

Hi Gilles,

is it possible to use the same VIP:

for flow from the Internet user requests to one type of servers

and

new flow starting from these the same servers to Internet?

BR

gg

Bronze

Re: CSS load balancing in both directions.

It sounds like you need to implement a group rule using 'add service service_name'.

ie.

service web1

ip address 192.168.1.1

port 80

active

service web2

ip address 192.168.1.2

port 80

active

owner vip

content web_servers

vip address 192.168.1.100

port 80

protocol tcp

add service web1

add service web2

active

group web_servers

vip address 192.168.1.100

add service web1

add service web2

active

What this should do is NAT any request *initiated* from web1 or web2 to the IP address specified in the group rule. In this case it is 192.168.1.100, the same as the content rule. This is fine, or you can use a different IP. I'm using RFC1918 addresses in this example, as 192.168.1.100 would be natted to some public IP on the firewall in front of the CSS.

If you wanted to do internal load balancing, or load balance to a service *NOT* within your environment (ie. 3rd party data center), you would simply change 'add service' to 'add destination service' in the group rule.

James

2207
Views
0
Helpful
6
Replies