1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

RV016 Multi-WAN VPN for Remote Office

Discussion in 'Cisco Small Business Routers and VPN Solutions' started by geoffm33, Aug 7, 2006.

  1. geoffm33

    geoffm33 LI Guru Member

    We are trying to setup a remote office with 2 DSL lines to connect back into the head office. We would setup the RV016 to VPN into a PIX 515e.

    Does anyone have experience with this? What should I expect for reliability of this router? Is this the right product for me? Sorry for such a vague post but I am looking for general comments in regards to reliability, compatibility with PIX and ease of use.

    One comment I have seen is the RVXXX's inability to handle anything but a Class C subnet on the LAN. Is this still the case, the post was old so this could have been corrected (or not true to begin with!).

    Thanks in advance
     
  2. sterner

    sterner LI Guru Member

    I can't answer the VPN question, as I don't have any experience with that Cisco router, although I don't see why it wouldn't work. To answer your subnet question, the RV016 only gives me a dropdown selection for the subnet, and it only has class C selections in the list.
     
  3. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    Take a look at the simulators for the RV0xx series routers; it may help you decide: http://www.linksysdata.com/ui/

    Don't believe that because CISCO bought Linksys, the technology has improved. CISCO just bought Linksys in order to slow Linksys' advance in providing small business products that were starting to compete with their (CISCO) products. Many believe CISCO has slowed Linksys development as a result. There are now two sides that appear "not" to talk to each other when it comes to development, but they all operate under the CISCO name.

    Doc
     
  4. geoffm33

    geoffm33 LI Guru Member

    Does anyone have any VPN experience with this router?

    There will be about 10 users at the remote site all connecting back to the main office through terminal services. There isn't much going over the link besides that. We may not be getting the 2nd DSL line and might just go for the RV082 so we have room to grow.
     
  5. Toxic

    Toxic Administrator Staff Member

    YeOldeStonecat is the man in the know about the RV082 router. He installs these on a regular basis. I'm sure he jump in here when he has time.
     
  6. geoffm33

    geoffm33 LI Guru Member

    Thats good to know. Thanks!
     
  7. alsicorp

    alsicorp Guest

    I yanked all my pix's (sold them on ebay) and replaced with the RV082. I have 3 remote sites that TS in as well as VOIP through the vpn-- No troubles at all
     
  8. geoffm33

    geoffm33 LI Guru Member

    Great, thanks. I have just ordered the RV016 so we'll see how the testing goes.

    Alsicorp, have you set up your in a multi-wan fashion with VPN? If so, I'd be interested to hear how the load balancing works with the multi vpn's?

    Thanks!
     
  9. mmeysarosh

    mmeysarosh Network Guru Member

    Hi,

    I have not been on the forum all that much but I will try to answer these questions as best as possible.

    There are two ways load balancing via multiple internet connections can be accomplished, per-packet or per-destination.

    Per-Packet = evaluates the best connection to send a packet based on WRR. This allows optimal load balancing but causes issues with video and voice packets as they can be recieved out of order at the recieving device. This can cause quite a bit of issues with some devices.

    Per-destination = Selects the optimal path for an IP flow (ip address to ip address). In this method it sends conversation flows through the best connection at the time based on WRR. It does not provide aggragate throughput, but does allow some load balancing to occur.

    I am mentioning this as I beleive the Linksys is using a per-destination method to ensure application compatability. I would have to test it to confirm, but based on the arhcitecture I do not think it would do otherwise.

    IPSec Tunnel load balancing with these devices in not natively possible. In order to accomplish this, you would need a route encapsulation such as GRE (Gateway Route Encapsulation). With IPSec by itself, you can not have two active tunnels with the same IPSec rule.

    There is a possibility of using NAT to allow these tunnels to exist in parallel, but I do not think you will achieve the goals required.

    I am running currently with five Cisco routers and have been able to accomplish exemplary load balancing with the use of GRE over IPSec and Cisco Express Fowarding (IP CEF). With IP CEF, I can select tunnels that need either load balance via per packet or per desination as the design requires. This does require the seperation of voice/video and data networks in order to work properly.

    In have had RV016's in my enviorment working with the Cisco routers and they do accomplish the job of a VPN router quite well. Load balancing on the otherhand was never a strong suite of them.
     

Share This Page