IIRC when I last looked at this, it worked as you require, but that might have been v2 NAT rather than v3 which is current. Have you restarted the router, superstition dictates that you should. Failing this, how many app servers are there? You *could* use multiple NAT pools, which would admittedly be a horrible kludge, depends on how desperately you want this. Is there not a better way of using sticky on the load-balancers? Are you in a position to change the app to use cookies for example? or maybe persistent connections so the LBs aren't responsible for sticky? rgds Marc
Emilia Lambros wrote: > > I'm looking more for a way to play with how the nat pool I have behaves with > IP address use. The NAT config and translations are all working, however I > can't find a situation online that shows me how I can force translations to > not overload quite so much, or how I can make more IP addresses be used so > my load balancing works with sticky sessions set. > > For as long as only 1 IP is being used, all connections to the application > servers go to one application server. Even with 2 IPs being used, I would > have more of a chance of connections going to the 2nd application server to > create some load balancing but as I said, I'm sitting on 8500 connections > and 1 IP being used. I know in theory I can go up to 65K+ connections on > that 1 IP, but I would prefer more like a couple of hundred per IP. > > The majority of articles I've read show how to configure, say rotary pools > or tcp load distribution but not examples of how you can use it another way > that I could perhaps, adapt. As I said though, I can't play with the config > because its a live environment so its a little harder to play and test with, > without a guarantee that it will work :) > > -----Original Message----- > From: The Long and Winding Road > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2003 11:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Load balancing & NAT [7:60663] > > if you have a CCO customer account, there are a lot of articles in the TAC > database > > this one is a good start, I believe. > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/tech/tk648/tk361/technologies_tech_note0 > 9186a0080093fca.shtml > watch the wrap. > > HTH > > -- > TANSTAAFL > "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" > > ""Emilia Lambros"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hi all, > > > > I have an application being load balanced at one site (sticky sessions set > > such that each connection from 1 IP will continue its transactions to the > > same server it started on) and at another site, the users accessing the > load > > balanced application. > > > > The users come in from different office locations across private WAN > links, > > nat inside is on each of their interfaces and on each interface out of the > > router those WAN links connect to, is nat outside. > > > > I have changed their initial configuration based on NAT overload to an > > interface IP address to be a pool of addresses overloaded. I was hoping > > that the connections would spill over to the second IP in the pool at some > > stage sooner than the 8500 NAT connections I have currently, but no go. I > > may as well have NAT'd to 1 IP again :) > > > > Is there a way to overload NAT, but have it using more than 1 IP in the > > pool? e.g. a pool of 30 IPs, its currently using 1.. I'd love the router > to > > even round robin the use of IPs out of the pool but I can't play with the > > config to try it (live environment) and can't find any documentation > online > > explaining exactly what I need NAT to do/not do :( > > > > Thanks, > > > > Em :) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60693&t=60663 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
