Comments on: Cisco IOS Load Balancing for Blue Coat SGOS

By: Greg Ferro

Greg Ferro — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:26:14 +0000

Hi Bob,

Because a PAC file does not detect the failure of the unit for minutes or even hours according your operating system or browser. Also, if you have proxy servers at different sites but have now way to deliver different proxy.pac files with AD Group Policy.

Cisco is EOL’ing the feature because they hate customers and they can force them to buy overpriced ACE load balancers. For simple IP or TCP load balancing, the feature should be included in the IOX SX, or NXOS for that matter.

greg

By: Bob Muheller

Bob Muheller — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 05:34:25 +0000

Why do we even need this? If this is explicit deployment, then simply using a proper PAC file is all you need. If we follow the KISS principle this is just adding more complexity to the set up for not much benefit. With PAC file based solution you will be more efficient too in terms of caching…No wonder Cisco is EOLing this “feature”!

By: Denzil

Denzil — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:31:10 +0000

Hi,
I would like to download the accelerated_base_pac from the VIP address (which is defined on ACE),
what settings should I use on BlueCoat devices (rewrite or other sollution)? Can you write some example about the settings?

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:54:53 +0000

I agree that IOS SLB is a functional load balance for very simple situations. However, if you have customers who have even slightly complex needs, you will quickly run up against limitations and odd quirks with IOS SLB.

By: Greg Ferro

Greg Ferro — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:26:55 +0000

FR-IOSSLB is only needed if you are a Service Provider and using IOS-SLB to load balance the following applications. It is an advanced license upgrade (similar to Advanced SSL for VPN’s and so on).

ï Cisco Service Exchange Framework for Mobile (Mobile SEF) components:
ñ Cisco Content Services Gateway (CSG)
ñ Cisco Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN)
ñ Cisco Packet Data Serving Node (PDSN)
ñ Cisco Home Agents
ï Other components for mobile access

I suspect that these advanced features will be moving to the ACE but the standard protocol is unlikely to go away.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:53:06 +0000

Hello,
please pay attention that you need a license (FR-IOSSLB) for using the feature. There is also an end-of-life announcement for this feature (search for FR-IOSSLB on Cisco’s network site). Cisco apparently wants to move people to the ACE module.

By: Greg Ferro

Greg Ferro — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:56:47 +0000

Hey, thanks for the comment. WCCP is for transparent redirection and is not commonly used in large companies for various reasons. Mostly becuase it relies on a default route in the network to send traffic down to the point where the WCCP device can intercept traffic. If you aren’t /can’t use transparent redirection then you need to use explicit mode. If you want explicit mode with active/active for two or more units, then using IOS SLB is (mostly) perfect. No need to waste money on load balancers.

Does that help ?

By: Ruairi

Ruairi — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:30:40 +0000

Hey,

I was just passing through your site (*cough* rubber duckie troubleshooting method..) and I noticed this. Now if I remember right, Bluecoat can speak WCCP, which might be a better approach to configuring a cache farm. Config guide is here: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2/configfun/configuration/guide/fcf018_ps1835_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html .

Of course, I’m sure you’re aware of this, and you needed to use IOS SLB for this
/Ruairi