Slow flow on MPLS VPN WAN

Similar Questions

• EA6900 Super slow flow

  I have an EA6900 put in place for the routing functions on a Virgin Media 120Mbps cable connection.  I see a very slow flow on the Linksys router, and after looking for obvious causes, I am stumpted.

  The EA6900 is connected to Virgin Media "Superhub" which is on the modem mode.  In this configuration, a single peripheral cable with a gigabit ethernet card can see download speeds autour 9Mbps.  However, when a Superhb in router mode switch and connect a device directly to it, jump to 100 Mbit/s download speeds.

  I tried several different network between the modem and the EA6900 cables, but the results are the same.  I was also in touch with Virgin Media, who said that there is no problem with the upstream connection.

  He suggests that the cause is something to do with the EA6900.  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

  Ben

  Disable media Prioritizaion or leave it turned on and ensure that you set the speed of bandwidth downstream to 120000 in advanced settings. Let us know if that helps.

• SonicWALL VPN WAN failover

  Hello guys. I need to do it quickly for a customer. They have the following topology. Not real Ip addresses but it's their configuration.

  http://i.imgur.com/lFSTBeV.jpg?1

  Basically, they have this race. So what I have to do?

  Well now if the MPLS link fails. They need to change it manually to the VPN. So I need to find a solution to the socket on the MPLS VPN after a failure.

  I read this Sonicwall KB.

  https://support.software.Dell.com/kb/sw8445

  I think is what I need. However I do not understand something. In this step you create a traffic from track to track static to the target of the probe. (Network > routing). I don't see where they create the VPN static route. They create the road MPLS but where is the 'static route Floating' they missed a step? Part weirdst in this article, is that the backup VPN is a policy based. I can't change the metric in this type of VPN. I missed something?

  My other idea was to OSPF configuration, but let me know which is the best solution?

  Thank you

  OK, placing the tunnel VPN site to site "tunnel interface" mode will allow you to create a route for the VPN traffic.

  This will give you 2 routes created manually, one for MPLS one for the VPN.

  You can then use probes to disable MPLS route when the probe fails causing the VPN route to support until the SPLM is back.

  Kevin

• Domain policy by default in all of reception through Site to SIte VPN WAN

  We have a field of forrest with subdomains under it.  We have three subdomains.  All are different places and each site connects to the other with a VPN over WAN.  We have a WSUS server that is on the field T.  We have customers on all three areas, field T, S domain and domain CR.   All three areas can consult and get updates from the WSUS server in the T field.

  The problem is if the computer has been configured to the area S originally, and now the same computer and the user are field t, S domain computer can't get the default domain policy that it redirects to the WSUS server to domain T.

  We have about 15 computers that have the same problem.

  How can I do for this troubleshooting.  Why would he not the domain policy by default when the user connects.  When you perform a gpresult is always the local policy.  Never the default domain policy.

  You will find appropriate in the specific WSUS forum support: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winserverwsus/threads

• SonicWall NSA 220 slow flow

  Hi all

  According to specification of 220 SonicWall NSA could handle a flow rate of 600 Mbps without security options and the only inspection of the firewall.

  We have recently acquired a 500 Mbps (up and down) line, so it was time to put this NSA220 to the test. And it has failed.

  The maximum through put has 175 top down and tried many things. I also tried by default with https://support.software.dell.com/kb/sw8119 of the instructions on how to get the throughput, but always to the max of 175 Mbps. Again, I disable all security options and their disabled in the configuration of the area.

  So I tried the following thing:

  1. Put my computer in connection to a laptop and start the transfer a SMB file. The result is a speed of 900 Mbit/sec.

  2. Put my computer on the local network of the SonicWall and the laptop on the Wan and tried again the transfer of the laptop (WAN) to the computer (LAN). Result: 175 Mbit/max.

  What am I missing or doing wrong?

  Please refer to the post
  http://en.community.Dell.com/TechCenter/security/network-mobile-email/f/4904/p/19610851/20825216#20825216

  I have provided an explanation on a similar question it.

• IOS XR MPLS VPN L3 + BGP error message

  I use the file "iosxrv-k9-demo - 5.1.2" image on GNS3 for free practice.

  When my IOS XR with MPLS L3 VPN router and assigning an interface of IOS XR to a VRF, it gives an error:

  RP/0/0 / CPU0:Feb 19 20:16:50.182: bgp [1048]: ROUTING-BGP-3-RPC_SET_ERROR %: [22]: read all RPC operation: Table. Error: ' Subsystem (3373) "detected the status of 'fatal', 'Code (37)': pkg/bin/PMO: (PID = 663826):-traceback = b395988 b229e9c 8226a4b 8224bdc afb2e7c b22d857 8267050.

  looking for a solution.

  Hi umesh, there is a table operation handler problem that has been fixed in xr 513. When the list is empty, it returns "error", but which is not necessary to return the error, an empty list can be ok, so the sw fix that went in is to check that and return errors more detailed codes inside the s in this case table operations and PMO communition XR (which is made via RPC or remote call procedure).

  few options who may be here to try:

  -1 ignore it and continue the configuration

  -2 set all definitions of vrf first under router bgp and everywhere where necessary before you assign it to an interface

  -3 clear config, reboot, apply the new configuration step by step with the first definitions of vrf and last to apply to the interface.

  -4 Download xr513 XRv.

  see you soon

  Xander

• Static routing in MPLS VPN CE - PE

  Hello Experts,

  Try to reach CE - B2 Lo CE - B1 with bw static routing using vpn mpls, CE - PE. Could you please help me

  Configs and attached screenshot.

  EC - B1-> PE1-> P1-> PE2-> EC - B2

  VRF B

  I see packages reaching PE1 CE - B1

  EC - B1 #ping 7.7.7.7

  Type to abort escape sequence.
  Send 5, echoes ICMP 100 bytes to 7.7.7.7 time-out is 2 seconds:
  .....
  Success rate is 0% (0/5)

  Hello

  Your loopback PEs mask must be 32.

  https://supportforums.Cisco.com/discussion/12924891/loopback-interface-3...

  Kind regards

  Nicolas

• Slow flow on TIV

  Recently, I have configured a VTI interface between two 2921 routers.  The link between the two routers is 100 MB, but the tunnel does not seem to be able to spend a lot more traffic.  I noticed a few differences between the MTU and bandwidth in the Tunnel interface compared to the physical interface.  Is it normal for a VTI?

  Tunnel1 is up, line protocol is up

  Material is Tunnel

  The Internet address is 192.168.193.127/31

  MTU 17862 bytes, BW 100 Kbps, DLY 50000 usec,

  reliability 255/255, txload 43/255, rxload 99/255

  Encapsulation TUNNEL, loopback not set

  KeepAlive not set

  Tunnel source 1 *. ***. ***. 1, destination 1 *. ***. ***. 2

  Transport/Protocol of IP/IPSEC tunnel

  TTL 255 tunnel

  Tunnel transport MTU 1422 bytes

  Tunnel of transmission bandwidth 8000 (Kbps)

  Tunnel to receive 8000 (Kbps) bandwidth

  Tunnel of protection through IPSec (profile "RD_VTI")

  Last entry 4w2d, exit 4w6d, blocking exit ever

  Last clearing of "show interface" counters 4w2d

  Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/dumps); Total output drops: 176

  Strategy of queues: fifo

  Output queue: 0/0 (size/max)

  30 second entry rate 123000 bps, 157 packets/s

  exit rate of 30 seconds 1994000 bps, 233 packets/s

  836701737 package, 47577560492 bytes, 0 no buffer entry

  Received 0 emissions (0 of IP multicasts)

  0 Runts, 0 giants, 0 shifters

  errors entry 0, 0 CRC, overgrown plot of 0, 0, 0 ignored, 0 abort

  1506226971 packets output, 1926214877370 bytes, 0 underruns

  0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 resets interface

  unknown protocol 0 drops

  0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out 30 second entry rate 123000 bps, 157 packets/sec

  Disclaimer

  The author of this announcement offers the information in this publication without compensation and with the understanding of the reader that there is no implicit or explicit adequacy or adaptation to any purpose.  Information provided is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as making the professional advice of any kind. Use information from this announcement is only at risk of the reader.

  RESPONSIBILITY

  Any author will be responsible for any damage that it (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profits) arising out of the use or inability to use the information in the view even if author has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

  Poster

  Without a thorough analysis, your adjust-mss seems too small; IP MTU minus 40 is the commune.

  Benefits activation of PMTUD on the tunnel interface (see my previous Cisco white paper reference).

  So, what does the mower to the shape of the 95% to?  Why are shape you?

• Add PIX VPN to the already established network of MPLS

  I have a client who operates the site three on a MPLS cloud. Now they want to add more security between these different places. A place internet offers to the United Nations. However, all sites can communicate securely with each other.

  Each location has its own 10... subnet.

  They believe as a PIX at every place on every 10. / subnet and VPN tunnels between each PIX, it's what it takes.

  Is there a third party place connections between these PIX on their MPLS VPN cloud?

  Thanks cowtan. Please mark as resolved post, which might be useful for others. response rate (s) If you found useful responses...

• Slow or failed attempts to install the ActiveDirectory module

  In a script in the connection of a user to a terminal server running server with two remote and a local domain controllers, we find that the Active Directory module in the script loading sporadically takes a lot of time or records a failure message but loads.  The error message is:

  WARNING: Initialization of default player error: "failed to contact server. Maybe it's because this server does not exist, it is currently unavailable, or it doesn't have the Services Web of Active Directory
  running. ".

  ADWS is running on all three of the DCs; all the same domain.  A domain controller is on the LAN and the other two one VPN WAN to another data center.  I suspect a reason any during the slow charge or never failure above, it will remote domain controllers to get the module and not the local domain controller.

  Is it possible to load a module out of disk or to force the installation of the Module to search for a specific ADWS?

  This issue is beyond the scope of this site (for consumers) and to be sure, you get the best (and fastest) reply, we have to ask either on Technet (for IT Pro) or MSDN (for developers)
  http://social.technet.Microsoft.com/forums/en-us/home s/fr-U.S./Accueil
  http://social.msdn.Microsoft.com/Forum
  
  
  If you give us a link to the new thread we can point to some resources it

• Domestic network file share is slow

  Hello

  I'm having a problem with a slow flow on my LAN, my main office and another office in a nearby room, which is used as a digital recorder. Both are fine Internet download about 2.0Mbps + effective flow. But the copy of the files between them (which should be a lot faster!), I'm moving 400 to 500 Kbps. Since one is used as a digital video recorder, it is a problem, try to copy large video files, or stream videos in HD quality on my network who stutters. It's frustrating getting the best quality watch Netflix, than from another computer in my own home.

  Both have compatible 802.11n wireless NIC; one is a card PCI Rosewill RNX-N300, and the other is a TP-LINK WN951N PCI - E card. I use the Atheros drivers on the machine of TP-LINK; on the other hand, it seems that Atheros does not support the Rosewill cards very well, so it is the driver of stock. Even on the TP-LINK machine; using the factory instead of Atheros driver, doesn't seem to help. My router is configured for WPA2 802.11n 'Mode of Performance '. I also tried Compatibility Mode and everything else I can think.

  I realize that the Atheros drivers are not supported here, but I don't think it's relevant, as the factory, or native Windows 7 generic NIC drivers appear to have the same problems. I tried to minimize interference with cards, which usually get 3-4 of 5 bars. WAN speed being much faster, I doubt that's the issue. Wired ethernet is out of the question for me, but pretty much the same speed powerline adapters, seems no better/worse. LAN ping times are 1-2 ms.

  Is there something I'm missing here? Both machines are running Windows 7 Pro x 64. I wonder if there is a key "reg" to the packet size or anything else that might help. I would chalk up to the nature of wireless cards, if it wasn't for much better WAN speeds. I believe that it is a problem of operating system settings; all other devices on the network, continue to get faster internet blazing ascent/descent speeds, even though the slow file copies/streaming are underway.

  Thanks for your suggestions.

  Hello

  This might help:

  http://www.SevenForums.com/network-sharing/218886-very-slow-network-file-sharing.html

  http://www.SevenForums.com/network-sharing/25843-slow-file-transfer-over-network.html

• ISR4331 - features VPN

  A customer replaces a Cisco 1941 with a router Cisco 4331. Sounded good on paper until I tried to get the client VPN configured. From what I can tell:

  • PPTP is not supported (L2TP is but requires a router to act as a remote client)
  • AnyConnect is not supported (no webvpn support)
  • ISAKMP/IPSEC is... but Cisco continued to provide the VPN client to connect to this

  Am I missing something, or this router simply cannot provide the customer VPN?

  Hi Jon,

  Yes you are right.

  ISR4331 does not support the Anyconnect. For L2TP, you need a remote device.

  And the IPSEC VPN client is already EOL/EOS of Cisco.

  Here is the list of the VPN is supported on the device:

  FlexVPN, Server remote easy VPN, Enhanced Easy VPN, Dynamic Multipoint VPN (DMVPN),
  Group encrypted Transport VPN (VPN GET), V3PN, MPLS VPN

  Refer to this link:

  http://www.Cisco.com/c/en/us/products/routers/4000-series-integrated-SER...

  Kind regards

  Aditya

  Please evaluate the useful messages and mark the correct answers.

• VPN IPSEC on Metro-Elba

  Hi all

  I have a small question. Is it possible to run L2L IPSEC VPN via a subway-E connection? It's not supposed to do something like that with Metro-E but this connection is with a partner so at both ends, firewall is in place. With port forwading, NATting, etc, etc, I came across problems of providing additional services because of it. I hope that IPSEC VPN L2L at both ends will solve this problem once and for all. The only question is of course in fact that a metro-E is just an ethernet connection and not really difference in setting up a VPN IPSEC of L2L via internet.

  Thank you for your help.

  Eric,

  Yes, connection L2L IPSEC VPN Tunnel Over Metro-E should work perfectly. You might meet in the treatment of air issues and the flow on the VPN server but it should be good.

  Kind regards

  Arul

  * Rate pls if it helps *.

• Access lists applied inbound VPN connections

  I try to configure access to homeland security lists, we have a multi site VPN services Terminal Server is the main traffic flowing on the VPN.

  102 of the ACL applies to cryptographic cards

  access-list 100 permit ip 10.1.5.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.6.0 255.255.255.0

  access-list 102 permit ip 10.1.5.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.6.0 255.255.255.0

  We need only allow traffic to domain connections and Terminal Server services only.

  I tried with no luck, remote clients lose the ability to auth against the domain controller.

  access-list 102 permit ip 10.1.5.20 host 10.1.6.0 255.255.255.0

  (DC also DNS and WINS)

  access-list 102 permit ip 10.1.5.21 host 10.1.6.0 255.255.255.0

  (DC secondary also DNS and WINS)

  access-list 102 permit ip 10.1.5.22 host 10.1.6.0 255.255.255.0

  (terminal server 1)

  access-list 102 permit ip 10.1.5.23 host 10.1.6.0 255.255.255.0

  (terminal server 2)

  access-list 102 permit ip 10.1.5.24 host 10.1.6.0 255.255.255.0

  (terminal server 3)

  If once they have connected to this topic, I've implemented these access lists it works very well, but once they log off and attempt to relog on, they are blocked. This leads me to believe there is more for field connections then meets the eye.

  Anyone have any suggestions for me? Everyone knows about this problem?

  Thanks in advance!

  Gregg

  Domain logon may require programming. It will probably be in the form of emissions e.g. directed 10.1.5.255. These emissions are going to spend your first list, but blocked by the second access list. To get around this, you can use assistance on the net 10.1.6.0 ip addresses. You can also add the following line to list 102:

  access-list 102 permit ip 10.1.5.255 host 10.1.6.0 255.255.255.0.

  Another thing to consider is to simplify your ACL 102. Small access lists provide better performance. In the given situation, the separate lines for 10.1.5.20 up to 10.1.5.23 IP addresses can be replaced by a oneliner: access-list 102 permit ip 10.1.5.20 255.255.255.252. Taking this one step further, you can even create a oneline for guests access list when you move the third server terminal server to the range of 16-19.

• Can not pass traffic from the VPN client to remote VPN site to site

  Hello

  I can't get the traffic flowing between my VPN clients and my remote site-to-site VPN, I did step by step in this link:

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/products/HW/vpndevc/ps2030/products_configuration_example09186a008046f307.shtml

  my firewall says that the package is abandoned by statefull inspection.

  But this should be the command "same-security-traffic..." "this problem must be resolved

  % ASA-6-302020: built ICMP incoming connections for faddr gaddr laddr (nworks) 10.48.100.2/0 10.48.100.2/0 10.45.231.163/1

  % ASA-6-302020: built outgoing ICMP connection for faddr gaddr laddr 10.45.231.163/1 10.45.231.163/1 10.48.100.2/0

  % ASA-6-302021: disassembly ICMP connection for faddr gaddr laddr (nworks) 10.48.100.2/0 10.48.100.2/0 10.45.231.163/1

  % ASA-6-302021: disassembly ICMP connection for faddr gaddr laddr 10.45.231.163/1 10.45.231.163/1 10.48.100.2/0

  Is it all what you might think that I'm missing?

  Best regards

  Erik

  Erik,

  Please check it out because no decaps means the ASA does not what it is the other side of the tunnel.

  If you send traffic and you will see the crypt increment... but nothing in return... 99% sure that the problem is at the other end.

  Federico.