[HELP] WCCP Bridged? Question regarding wccp, i know the standard practice is to say take a 3750x and route traffic to this switch and then out to the internet and just enable redirect-in on the outbound and inbound ports ...
And then have a seperate vlan with ip to talk straight to the cache off of the 3750-x
My question is would wccp still work in a bridged configuration?
Say we have
Router - Core Network and we want to make it Router -3750 - Core Network, can we just do a bridge on 2 ports of the 3750 and enable wccp on those 2 bridged ports via redirect-in? Or does it have to be a fixed, routed point for the 3750 to do the intercept and redirection?
Let me ask you this. Is there anything forbidding you to use the Router to do WCCP?
The reason I asked is that you are limited to only certain WCCP functionality by using lower-end Cisco switches to do WCCP. One critical missing functionality is inability to do "ip wccp redirect out" which is bad since using "ip wccp redirect in" (the only command lower-end Cisco switch support) is not recommended.
If for some reason, you can't use the Router to do WCCP; you can implement something like 2821 with NM-16ESW module instead of using lower-end switch model.
the 3750-x was bought specifically for this for what we're doing the redirect-in isn't really going to be an issue from what we can tell...
as for the router the model is really old and already running at 70% CPU so activating WCCP is a no no as the cache vendor and our own research has shown it would cripple the router...
I wouldn't call the 3750-x exactly lowend :S But anyway.
All we need this switch to do is handoff to wccp beyond that the rest doesn't matter...
The only issue we are having is to figure out if we need to augment the routed network to have the 3750 as a fixed routed point between our internal network and the router, or if wccpv2 will work using redirect-in on the 2 ports in bridge mode?
Having not used wccp before i'm not sure i know its interface based, but i can't really find mention of if it has to be routed through the switch or if it can be bridged through the switch.
For lower-end switch that only support Layer-2 WCCP forwarding, the switch configuration is similar to Layer-3 configuration. The difference should only be using redirect in command on the LAN-facing interface instead of using redirect out command on the WAN-facing interface.
reply to phantam
ok so its best to just have it routed, as that way we can have all 3 paths hung off of interfaces on the 3750-x
Gateway Router via FastEthernet0/1
Internal Network via FastEthernet0/2
Cache accesses via FastEthernet0/3
With redirect-in active on the 0/1 and 0/2
Cache will have its def gateway as the ip of the FastEthernet0/3 interface to get it's internet access...
Internal Network points its route to FastEthernet0/2's ip for access...
Actually right now we have IBGP running between our gateway and the internal network and BGP running out from the main router. So we'll either just drop the IBGP for a static route, or we'll activate IBGP on the 3750 ...
That about right?
* You may want to have the FastEthernet0/2 and 0/3 interfaces to be part of Layer-3 SVI interfaces to let multiple hosts be part of the same WCCP subnet
* You may not need redirect in on the FastEthernet0/1 unless there is some incoming traffic initiated from outside.
* Introducing the 3750 should not mess up your iBGP network design. The 3750 by sitting in the middle does not need to be part of the iBGP-speaking router (although it is preferred). With either case, make sure all Layer-3 network devices within the AS BGP domain have the same understanding in regards of routing
Other than that, you should be good to go
reply to phantam
I have to doublecheck my design notes but the client we have doesn't use 3750(any) for WCCP due to some architectural
limitation... unless the X-series managed to surpass this. I'll have to check again in the office.