<?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 Equal cost load balancing via EIGRP on PIX 8 inside in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063221#M896557</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I have a 515E running 8.0(3).   The PIX is sitting in a colo and I have a bridged DSL circuit running from my office (which is in another building a few kilometers away) to the inside interface of the PIX.  This all works fine and dandy, but now I want to turn up a second bridged DSL circuit to double up the bandwidth between the office and the colo.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2 questions - &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1) If the PIX does equal cost load balancing, is it per-packet or per-destination (hopefully the former!)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2) Assuming it will, are there any caveats to doing things this way with regards to NATing from 2 inside interfaces to one global, even if I turn of ip verify reverse-path on the two inside interfaces (vlans)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here are the config snippets for what I'm trying to do (except the second office circuit doesn't quite exist yet):&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface Ethernet0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; nameif outside&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; security-level 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.248 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface Ethernet2.636&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; vlan 636     &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; nameif office636&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; security-level 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address 172.20.15.1 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; shutdown&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!             &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface Ethernet2.637&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; vlan 637     &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; nameif office637&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; security-level 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address 172.20.16.1 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!             &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ip verify reverse-path interface outside&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (outside) 1 interface&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (outside) 1 192.0.2.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (office636) 0 access-list office636_nat0_outbound&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (office636) 1 192.168.100.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (office637) 0 access-list office637_nat0_outbound&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (office637) 1 192.168.100.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;router eigrp 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; network 172.16.0.0 255.240.0.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; passive-interface outside&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; redistribute static&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;D    192.168.100.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;           [90/33280] via 172.20.16.2, 8:16:07, office637&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:43:09 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jlixfeld</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-11T13:43:09Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Equal cost load balancing via EIGRP on PIX 8 inside</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063221#M896557</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have a 515E running 8.0(3).   The PIX is sitting in a colo and I have a bridged DSL circuit running from my office (which is in another building a few kilometers away) to the inside interface of the PIX.  This all works fine and dandy, but now I want to turn up a second bridged DSL circuit to double up the bandwidth between the office and the colo.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2 questions - &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1) If the PIX does equal cost load balancing, is it per-packet or per-destination (hopefully the former!)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2) Assuming it will, are there any caveats to doing things this way with regards to NATing from 2 inside interfaces to one global, even if I turn of ip verify reverse-path on the two inside interfaces (vlans)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here are the config snippets for what I'm trying to do (except the second office circuit doesn't quite exist yet):&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface Ethernet0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; nameif outside&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; security-level 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.248 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface Ethernet2.636&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; vlan 636     &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; nameif office636&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; security-level 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address 172.20.15.1 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; shutdown&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!             &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface Ethernet2.637&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; vlan 637     &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; nameif office637&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; security-level 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address 172.20.16.1 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!             &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ip verify reverse-path interface outside&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (outside) 1 interface&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (outside) 1 192.0.2.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (office636) 0 access-list office636_nat0_outbound&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (office636) 1 192.168.100.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (office637) 0 access-list office637_nat0_outbound&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (office637) 1 192.168.100.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;router eigrp 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; network 172.16.0.0 255.240.0.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; passive-interface outside&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; redistribute static&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;D    192.168.100.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;           [90/33280] via 172.20.16.2, 8:16:07, office637&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:43:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063221#M896557</guid>
      <dc:creator>jlixfeld</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T13:43:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equal cost load balancing via EIGRP on PIX 8 inside</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063222#M896558</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. pix does load balacing based on per FLOW basis.so,none of the options you mentioned is correct.. &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2.Do not see any issues with config. is load balancing is done and PAT is done with ip verify reverse-path.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;HTH&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sushil&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:41:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063222#M896558</guid>
      <dc:creator>suschoud</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-09-11T13:41:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equal cost load balancing via EIGRP on PIX 8 inside</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063223#M896559</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the clarification, Sushil;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What is a Flow?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:12:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063223#M896559</guid>
      <dc:creator>jlixfeld</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-09-11T20:12:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equal cost load balancing via EIGRP on PIX 8 inside</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063224#M896560</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt; we can configure 3 equal cost routes on an interface and it&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;will load-balance amongst them. However, the traffic is not necessarily divided evenly&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;between the routes; traffic is distributed among the specified gateways based on an&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;algorithm that hashes the source and destination IP addresses. The ASA just distributes&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;the traffic among the different gateways, not necessarily evenly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The same information can be found here:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/multisec/asa_sw/v_70/config/" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/multisec/asa_sw/v_70/config/&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ip.htm#wp1047894&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The ECMP algorithm uses a hash of the source/destination IP address to&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;determine which route to use.  As opposed to round robin load balancing, the&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;same source/destination pair will always use the same next hop.  All packets&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;within the same flow and all new connections created between that&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;source/destination pair will utilize the same path. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please rate if helps. &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sushil&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:26:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063224#M896560</guid>
      <dc:creator>suschoud</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-09-11T20:26:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equal cost load balancing via EIGRP on PIX 8 inside</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063225#M896561</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It certainly helps, but it's not the answer I was looking for &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":winking_face:"&gt;😉&lt;/span&gt;  I was hoping for per-packet.  Per-packet would allow me to use the aggregate bandwidth of my two connections if I were trying to do something that could make use of such a large amount of bandwidth, say transferring a large file, where as the flow based "load balancing" will not use the aggregate bandwidth for that same task &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":disappointed_face:"&gt;😞&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:04:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063225#M896561</guid>
      <dc:creator>jlixfeld</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-09-12T04:04:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equal cost load balancing via EIGRP on PIX 8 inside</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063226#M896562</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is correct.Unfortunately,on f/w,load balancing would not necessarily mean 50:50 division....Load balacing done by router is much better and nearest to 50:50 ratio.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sushil&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:52:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/equal-cost-load-balancing-via-eigrp-on-pix-8-inside/m-p/1063226#M896562</guid>
      <dc:creator>suschoud</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-09-12T12:52:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

