Re: RV042 and pix with load balancing
- From: vcjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Vincent C Jones)
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:48:52 -0400 (EDT)
In article <1129253961.690018.280170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<jcharth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>what if i have to pixes and one router behind the pixes using ospf or
>ibgp to route the packets through the right pix? i can probably
>establish two tunels with rv042 and have the packets go to one or the
>other base on availability right? well anyway i think ill give it a
>shot.
>
If you can put routers behind the firewalls, redundancy becomes much
easier. Just treat the IPsec tunnels as non-broadcast point-to-point
links and use a routing protocol to select the tunnel to use. Load
balancing is automatic if you use an IGP and GRE tunnels. BGP routing
saves overhead, but makes load balancing much more difficult. See
the white paper "Redundant Routes in IPSec VPNs" on my web site
for some examples (load balancing is not addressed, but you can
fill that in, because load balancing is typically useless if you
don't have robust redundancy).
Good luck and have fun!
--
Vincent C Jones, Consultant Expert advice and a helping hand
Networking Unlimited, Inc. for those who want to manage and
Tenafly, NJ Phone: 201 568-7810 control their networking destiny
http://www.networkingunlimited.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RV042 and pix with load balancing
- From: jcharth
- Re: RV042 and pix with load balancing
- References:
- RV042 and pix with load balancing
- From: jcharth
- Re: RV042 and pix with load balancing
- From: jcharth
- Re: RV042 and pix with load balancing
- From: Walter Roberson
- Re: RV042 and pix with load balancing
- From: jcharth
- RV042 and pix with load balancing
- Prev by Date: Port Spanning
- Next by Date: Console Cabling Problems
- Previous by thread: Re: RV042 and pix with load balancing
- Next by thread: Re: RV042 and pix with load balancing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|