Go Premium for a chance to win a PS4. Enter to Win

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 867
  • Last Modified:

ASA dual ISP routing issue

We have a 5510 configured with dual ISP's, one primary and one backup.  We are using tracked routes for failover which is working fine. We also have a 5505 that we use for our public network access both public wireless and 802.1x on our wired switches. We are using our backup ISP to supply internet access to the 5505. We use one of our backup ISP's static IP's for our 5510 backup interface and one for the outside interface on the 5505. Both of these public IP's use the same default gateway. The problem is that when we try to establish a VPN connection to the 5510 from our public network (Backup ISP,) we are not successful. Its seems that the packets are reaching the 5510 but aren't being returned. When I disable the backup interface on the 5510, everything works fine. Any insight into this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
0
rm250motox
Asked:
rm250motox
  • 4
  • 4
  • 2
1 Solution
 
AkinsdNetwork AdministratorCommented:
Consider implementing HSRP, VRRP or GLBP redundancy

HSRP is Cisco proprietary protocol
VRRP is standard accross the board
GLBP lets you load balance but is only available on newer IOS (and routers)

GLBP is the best option if you have newer Cisco routers and your IOS supports it

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t15/feature/guide/ft_glbp.html
0
 
rm250motoxAuthor Commented:
I would love to implement proper fail over and redundancy, unfortunately, we do not yet have a router in front of our ASA.
0
 
AkinsdNetwork AdministratorCommented:
Most L3 switches support it too.
0
What does it mean to be "Always On"?

Is your cloud always on? With an Always On cloud you won't have to worry about downtime for maintenance or software application code updates, ensuring that your bottom line isn't affected.

 
rm250motoxAuthor Commented:
Are you saying the only solution to my problem is to not use the ASA for ISP failover?
0
 
AkinsdNetwork AdministratorCommented:
You can setup a NAT pool and configure static NAT

GLBP just give you the ability to use both connections simultaneously (speed and bandwidth gain)
0
 
rm250motoxAuthor Commented:
What would the static NAT look like?
0
 
rauenpcCommented:
The problem is most likely routing, but not obvious when you haven't been through this before. When you vpn from a guest device, it probably nats to an ip on the backup ISP subnet. When the VPN is initiated, the destination is the primary public ip, and the source is within the backup interface's range. This means that the Asa has no choice but to respond to the packet by using the backup interface because it has the subnet locally defined. As a result, the destination ip doesn't match the ip used for the response. Everything works with the backup interface shut down because it's not able to do the mismatch.
As long as the 5505 is not connected behind the 5510, I would do one of two things. Set the VPN profile to use the backup interface instead of the primary, or change the profile to have a backup server which is your backup interface. There will be a delay when doing the backup server method, but in the end it should work. Make sure you have VPN enabled on the 5510 backup interface.
0
 
AkinsdNetwork AdministratorCommented:
Static NAT is a form of port forwarding.

Check out the following links (forum and video)

https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/346274

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqBqwGfOmsY
0
 
rm250motoxAuthor Commented:
I should've tried that in the first place. I imagine this only works because the device trying to establish a VPN is behind the same default gateway as the backup interface?
0
 
rauenpcCommented:
Yep.

I suppose another possible reason for the issue isn't routing but rpf-check (reverse path forwarding check). Essentially a packet is dropped if it's received on an interface that shouldn't ever receive the packet. In your case the primary interface drops a packet that's sourced from the backup interface's subnet because it suggests a loop or an attack. I would have to run packet tracer to see the real reason... Routing or rpf.
0

Featured Post

Concerto Cloud for Software Providers & ISVs

Can Concerto Cloud Services help you focus on evolving your application offerings, while delivering the best cloud experience to your customers? From DevOps to revenue models and customer support, the answer is yes!

Learn how Concerto can help you.

  • 4
  • 4
  • 2
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now