Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet)
From: "R. DuFresne" <dufresne () sysinfo com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:32:11 -0400 (EDT)
I might be reading Ben wrong, but, I get the impression he is talking about session concerency? A 'sticky' bit in the load balancer end, such that a session started and sent via one t1 remains directed through that path for the remainder of the session? Thanks, Ron DuFresne On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Ben Nagy wrote:
ObBOFH: One of the T1 RJ connectors must be dirty, which is causing packet corruption. Give both the telco jacks a good clean (licking them works well) and see if that fixes the problem. [1] Seriously, I do have a theory ;) Does this routing guarantee to preserve sequencing? If it's really as you described (packets send one for one via alternate links) then you have some potential problems brewing, I think. TCP will "work things out" when packets arrive out of sequence, but with IPSec it's left up to the implementation. One security concern with most crypto things is replay protection. IPSec addresses this by using a mandatory sequence number in the ESP header. The receiveing IPSec doesn't _have_ to take any notice, but most do. If your receiving IPSec has enabled replay protection then if one link is going faster half the packets are going to get dropped (sequence number < current). This would make your tunneled protocol (say TCP) do the retransission thing, so it would work itself out eventually, but the speed would indeed suffer horribly. See if you can convince your router to preserve "IP flows" and use the two links in a more sensible manner. That might help. Best of luck, ben PS: Let us know when you work it out? This is an interesting one. [1] The RJ's are live, for non-network-engineer types. Not enough to kill you, but it hurts. :)-----Original Message----- From: firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com [mailto:firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com] On Behalf Of TSimons () Delphi-Tech com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 3:38 AM To: firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com Hello All Recently we doubled our internet bandwith to two T1s from the same provider that terminate on in the same router on the NOC side. We setup IP LOAD-SHARING PER-PACKET on each of the serial links on both sides (NOC and Us) in order to get an aggregate 3.0mbit. PER-PACKET routing alternates usage of the T1s, one for one... Since then, VPN performance has taken a dive. Sniffing out traffic, ESP packets are sent 3-4 times before they can be properly decrypted. Someone along the way said that using PER-PACKET routing changes the CRC value of the packets. Is this correct, has anyone else seen this issue? I can't see how the CRC is changed, the hop count isn't changing, the lines are identical, and they terminate in the same router, so the last hop is the F0/0 interface of the router before getting to the firewall. Thanks, ~Todd __________________________________ Todd M. Simons Senior MIS Engineer Dell Tier 1 PA Technician Delphi Technology, Inc. New Brunswick, NJ_______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ admin & senior security consultant: sysinfo.com http://sysinfo.com "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart testing, only testing, and damn good at it too! _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) TSimons (Sep 18)
- RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) Ben Nagy (Sep 19)
- RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) R. DuFresne (Sep 19)
- RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) Ben Nagy (Sep 19)
- Re: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) Mikael Olsson (Sep 19)
- RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) Jan Bervar (Sep 22)
- Message not available
- RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) Pano Xinos (Sep 23)
- RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) R. DuFresne (Sep 19)
- RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) Ben Nagy (Sep 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) TSimons (Sep 19)
- RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) TSimons (Sep 19)
- RE: IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet) TSimons (Sep 22)