Could someone confirm the following points for me as we have had conflicting information on some of these issues :
Is it possible to use 2x 3005 units for load balancing between them (without any other units involved)? There has been some suggestion that you need a bigger unit (3015+) to actually 'manage' these devices in this sort of configuration.
Is it true that the load-balancing is achieved by having the client connect to a virtual IP address and then being connected to the relevant unit (is this done by tunnels or processor load or something else ?) ? If this is the case, where is this virtual IP address held ? If either of the units failed, would this virtual IP address always be available to redirect clients to the remaining working box (up to it's capacity) ?
Is the only method of 'redundancy' or 'failover' etc. to have a dedicated unit idle, shadowing an existing unit ?
Is it true that site-site clients (using an 837 ADSL router) cannot use the virtual IP address and have to be directed specifically to one of the units and consequently would not be able to connect until that unit was replaced in the event of it failing ?
Essentially, we having a VPN requirement for slightly more tunnels than a single 3005 could support, so are proposing using 2 3005 in a load balanced configuration. Rather than a 3030. However, we may not be prepared to duplicate the equipment for full failover capability (if this is what is required). We recognise there might be a possibility the should one unit fail, using the load balancing virtual IP address, when clients re-connect, they will be connected to the only remaining unit (is this possible ?). We are not sure how this would apply to site-site connections though (up to 30 sites).
Any help on this would be much appreciated.
Thanks.
