<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: CSS Redundancy Design in Application Networking</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147321#M23751</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Gilles for your quick reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;May I have two more queries:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. Does Box-2-Box Redundancy support ASR &amp;amp; an SSL Module, and ASR &amp;amp; HTTP Compression on same Service?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. Both Box-2-Box Redundancy and VIP/Interface are not stateful. But we are using an extra cable for Box-2-Box redundancy, so what extra advantage we get in Box-2-Box redundancy over VIP/Interface Redundancy. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Shahzad.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:02:02 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Ahmed Shahzad</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-01-07T16:02:02Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>CSS Redundancy Design</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147317#M23747</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am currently writing LLD for a Data Center project and planning for the CSS redundancy design. The BoQ of CSS is given below:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Content Switches/Load Balancers: CSS11503	2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco 11503 Content Services Switch SCM-2GE HD AC	2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;WebNS 8.1X Enhanced Feature Set for CSS 11500 Platforms	2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;WebNS Secure Management License: Enables Strong Encryption	2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;CSS11500 SSL Module w/ Compression	2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;WebNS License Claim Certificate: for V8.XX  or higher	2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;CSS11500 System Control Module 2GE HD, Order 0-2 CSS5-GBIC	2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;CSS11500 Gigabit Ethernet IOM: 2 Port, Order 0-2 SFP	2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;GE SFP, LC connector SX transceiver	12&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Customer does not have given any specific requirement, but looking at BoQ is seems that two CSS are populated with SSL Module s/ Compression, so they might need SSL and Compression to be configured in future.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The best scenario is to configure these two CSS in Load Balance with Stateful failover. Since we have three Redundancy options in CSS:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1.	VIP and Virtual Interface Redundancy - Can be configured in Load Balanced but no stateful failover. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2.	ASR Redundancy - Can be configured in load balanced with stateful failover. It sounds ok, but the main disadvantage is that ASR &amp;amp; an SSL Module, and ASR &amp;amp; HTTP Compression cannot be configured on same Service. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3.	Box-to-Box Redundancy - Cannot configured in load balanced, but I have no idea either it support stateful or stateless failover.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;There are only two options left; one is VIP and Virtual Interface Redundancy and second is Box-to-Box Redundancy. What do you recommend in such scenario? Please note that I have two extra Gig ports available in CSS.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:58:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147317#M23747</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ahmed Shahzad</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-01-07T10:58:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS Redundancy Design</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147318#M23748</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;ASR only work with vip/interface redundancy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Vip/Interface redundancy is the preferred choice if you are looking for fast failover/recovery.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Box-2-box is slower to detect the failure and failover.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But this solution is easier to implement so some people prefer to go this way.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gilles.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:51:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147318#M23748</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gilles Dufour</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-01-07T11:51:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS Redundancy Design</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147319#M23749</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dear Gillies,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you for your reply. May I know the answer of following queries:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. Box-2-Box failover is stateful or stateless.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. Does there any limitation on SSL or Compression configuration configuration in case of Box-2-Box failover.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3. ASR Redundancy support ASR &amp;amp; an SSL Module, and ASR &amp;amp; HTTP Compression on same Service.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:35:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147319#M23749</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ahmed Shahzad</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-01-07T12:35:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS Redundancy Design</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147320#M23750</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;ASR is the stateful side of vip/interface redundancy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can't use ASR alone.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You first need vip/interface redundancy and then you can add ASR if you need stateful redundancy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Box-to-Box is therefore not stateful.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;There is no stateful failover for SSL traffic - this is true for every type of loadbalancers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is just not possible as of today.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Not just a Cisco limitation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, if you have this module, the traffic going through the module can't be replicated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The rest of the traffic still can be replicated to the standby.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gilles.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:42:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147320#M23750</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gilles Dufour</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-01-07T15:42:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS Redundancy Design</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147321#M23751</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Gilles for your quick reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;May I have two more queries:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. Does Box-2-Box Redundancy support ASR &amp;amp; an SSL Module, and ASR &amp;amp; HTTP Compression on same Service?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. Both Box-2-Box Redundancy and VIP/Interface are not stateful. But we are using an extra cable for Box-2-Box redundancy, so what extra advantage we get in Box-2-Box redundancy over VIP/Interface Redundancy. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Shahzad.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:02:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147321#M23751</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ahmed Shahzad</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-01-07T16:02:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS Redundancy Design</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147322#M23752</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;1/ Bob-to-Box redundancy does not support ASR.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2/ The only advantage of box-to-box redundancy is that the config is easier to implement. You don't need to configure 'redundant-index' for every content rule, group, serverfarm, ...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gilles.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:34:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147322#M23752</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gilles Dufour</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-01-07T16:34:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS Redundancy Design</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147323#M23753</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am sorry there was some typo mistake in question 1. Does Box-2-Box Redundancy support SSL Module, and HTTP Compression? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It is very difficult to belive the answer of question 2, that the only difference is the configuration easiness..... &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Looking at the BoQ, I am concluding to use VIP/Interface Redundancy. Please comments in case you dis-agree...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:07:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147323#M23753</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ahmed Shahzad</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-01-07T18:07:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS Redundancy Design</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147324#M23754</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Guys,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was reading your post and understood that in my case where I have ACE being used as an SSL offloader in a HA setup, the ssl sessions will not be statefully replicated, is it right? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:19:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-redundancy-design/m-p/1147324#M23754</guid>
      <dc:creator>k.abillama</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-04-16T05:19:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

