cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
1984
Views
10
Helpful
24
Replies

VPN failover between ASA's

dwaynepeeters
Beginner
Beginner

I am doing a research looking for the best solution for a failover between two ASA and was hoping someone would like to point me in the right direction.

The situation is as follows, we have got:

- 2 Headquarters:

Each is equiped with an ASA 5505

- 10 Branchoffices

Each is equiped with an 887 integrated services router.

Each branchoffice needs to have a redundant VPN connection to both headquarters, and they all need to use the first one as the primary and the other one as the secundary. In case of a failure, all branchoffices need to use the second VPN connection going to the second headquarter.

In my research I am looking for the best possible solution, with the quickest failover, but have no idea where to start my research.

I am hoping someone has a good answer for this one.

Thank you very much in advance,

Kind regards

Dwayne

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

I don't understand why people keep using ASA devices for VPN termination.  the ASA is NOT designed for complex VPN scenarios.  it is designed for simple scenarios.  In term of VPN using comparision, ASA is someone with with a elementary education while Cisco IOS is like someone with a college degree.

For the scenario, you will be much better off using Cisco IOS routers everywhere, where you can implement GRE/IPSec or DMVPN.  Either case will sastify your requirements.

View solution in original post

24 REPLIES 24

dwaynepeeters
Beginner
Beginner

It is also worth mentioning that the VPN tunnels are both used for the routing of data traffic, and VoIP traffic.

There is a cisco callmanager at both the headquarters and in case of failure all the phone's need to failover to the other callmanager.

thanks

I don't understand why people keep using ASA devices for VPN termination.  the ASA is NOT designed for complex VPN scenarios.  it is designed for simple scenarios.  In term of VPN using comparision, ASA is someone with with a elementary education while Cisco IOS is like someone with a college degree.

For the scenario, you will be much better off using Cisco IOS routers everywhere, where you can implement GRE/IPSec or DMVPN.  Either case will sastify your requirements.

Rudy Sanjoko
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Make sure that both ASAs meet the failover system requirements and to configure a failover between the ASA, please refer to following document:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa72/configuration/guide/failover.html#wpxref45766

For VPN connection between the branch and the HQ, it is  best to configure the ASA to accept dynamic IPsec connections from the  branch router. See following link for configuration:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_configuration_example09186a00807ea936.shtml

Hope above docs can get you the big picture for your setup, and as David has said, DMVPN will fit you best in this scenario, the only problem is that ASA doesn't support it.

Hi, thank you both very much for your replies.

I have been looking briefly at DMVPN as you suggested and it looks to be exactly what I need.

The reason why I would like to use ASA's in my network, is because the company has them already in operation.

Rightnow the network uses keepalives at the router in the branchoffice. The routers is sending keepalives to the primary VPN tunnel on an interval of 10 seconds.

The problem with this is that in case of a failure, it takes 30 seconds up to a full minute until the router at the branchoffice has failed-over and starts using the secundary VPN tunnel.

Because we're using VoIP on our network and the Callmanagers are at the HQ's, this is unacceptable.

Do you think that using DMPVN in this scenario is going to reduce the failover time?

And are there other techniques I need to use in this scenario, like EIGRP/OSPF or something like that?

Kind regards and again thank you for your help.

Dwayne

That's a good question, I've never test the failover time with the DMVPN myself, and I don't have resources to simulate your network in my lab. But I assume it will be faster, if you are using EIGRP for example, the hello timer period by default is 5 secs, it's faster than using keepalives on the router with 10secs interval. (Don't count on this one, because I have no hard proof to show you)

Regarding the techniques, you will need to learn how to play around with NHRP and NHS, for the routing protocol, you can use either EIGRP or OSFP as you've mentioned.

There are no failover, if you think about it.

With Eigrp or OSPF, everything is already there.  the routes are already established.  In other words, the VPN tunnel never goes down because of redundant ISP and routings are already inplace.  Your traffics just use a different paths, that's all.

It makes sense, it depends on the priority on which path the traffic will use, but it doesn't mean the other network is not working, correct? thanks for pointing that out for me, I didn't think it that way, 5 from me for that!

Again, thanks for the reply.

I'm going reconstruct our network in GNS3 and am going to do some failover tests, with the keepalives set and with the DMVPN solution. I am going to use EIGRP as the routing protocol, because I think it is faster and speed is what I'm after. Also EIGRP seems to be better suited for our network.

I will let you know about the resultes when I'm finished testing, but first I need to dive a bit deeper in the world of DMVPN's.

there are many DMVPN templates out there that you can use.  You can have DMVPN up and running in less than 20 minutes.

David do you perhaps have such a template with two hub sites and two or three spokes?, (if you don't mind me asking)

I kinda am new to the whole concept.

Okay, I have spend some time trying to reconstruct our situation in GNS3 but then when DMVPN.

Our network looks like this:

Right now I have configured both the physical and logical tunnel interfaces:

HQ1:

     - Fa1/0: 1.1.1.1 /24

     - Tun1:   192.168.1.1 /24

BR1:

     - Fa1/0: 3.3.3.3 /24

     - Tun1:   192.168.1.3 /24

ISP:

     - F1/0: 3.3.3.4 /24

     - F1/1: 1.1.1.2 /24

But BR1 and HQ1 are not forming a neighbour relationship because they don't know how to get to oneanother.

I have advertised all the networks into EIGRP, but I do not have configured EIGRP on the ISP router, because that is not realistic.

I gues I need to configure BR1 with a default route, but with what Interface? The tunnel or the physical interface?

Hi Dwayne,

Static routes to your ISP using the physical interface( as this is the case in most cases-small business).

Note: before you do any DMVPN, be sure you have access between the members and the HQ.

Plz rate if this helps.

Regards,

MKDCCIE

How do you mean "access between the members and the HQ"?

i mean connectivity

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: