RE: [fw-wiz] IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet)

TSimons_at_Delphi-Tech.com
Date: 09/19/03

  • Next message: TSimons_at_Delphi-Tech.com: "RE: [fw-wiz] IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet)" 
    To: ben@iagu.net
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:18:51 -0400

    Thanks Ben, the RJ's are clean, I chewing on them to make sure :-)
    anyway...both circuits work fine individually.

    I talked to someone on another mailing list and they said they had the same
    problem, but switching from PER-PACKET load sharing to PER-DESTINATION
    cleaned things up.

    At this point I have a ticket open with the firewall vendor (SEF) and have
    provided them countless traffic dumps, they probably hate me :-), I hope to
    resolve this by this weekend. The info you provided about sequencing is a
    great help, and makes perfect sense. When I combine the TCP traffic dumps
    with the ESP traffic dumps the ratio of ~1 to ~1 definitly does not hold
    true when both T1s are active.

    Another theory that someone had was the CRC was failing because the packets
    are taking different routes, but I get no errors in the firewall. ...I
    really want to discount this theory because the T1s terminate in the same
    router here and at the NOC, so the count hop and speed is exactly the same,
    and the last hop tag on the packet will be the F0/0 interface of the router
    anyway.

    ....the quest continues....

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ben Nagy [mailto:ben@iagu.net]
    Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:41 PM
    To: TSimons@Delphi-Tech.com; firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet)

    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

  • Next message: TSimons_at_Delphi-Tech.com: "RE: [fw-wiz] IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet)"

    Relevant Pages

    • RE: [fw-wiz] IPSEC over load-shared T1s (per packet)
      ... If it's really as you described (packets send one for one via alternate ... mandatory sequence number in the ESP header. ... The receiveing IPSec doesn't ... See if you can convince your router to preserve "IP flows" and use the two ...
      (Firewall-Wizards)
    • Re: Weird net connection problem
      ... across the Internet) to throttle or not the traffic). ... Depends how many packets in your connection are lost. ... you connect to some ISP via a router (not a home ADSL one, I should add, ... be advertising to the rest of the Internet, the address of your network, ...
      (uk.comp.sys.mac)
    • RE: Cisco IOS vulnerability
      ... You are vulnerable unless you have deny statement which blocks all ... packets other than say ICMP or IPSEC coming to the router interface ... Even though the packets targeted *at* the routers interface is only ...
      (Incidents)
    • Re: Router stops routing after changing MAC Address
      ... I have a Linux router and I need the ability to swap hardware without ... How to change MAC addresses is documented well enough - and it works - ... ip link set eth0 down ... the right side and back with echo request and reply packets. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: General question about TCP and buffering in switch/router/modem
      ... ROUTER has a fixed 10mbps/half duplex interface for its wan port. ... Say the window size is 64k (roughly 50 packets). ... starts sending data after the TCP call has been established, ... ACK is received and the receiver's TCP buffer is not full. ...
      (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)