On 10/11/2012 7:27 a.m., Nick Bright wrote:
> On 11/7/2012 6:06 PM, Nick Bright wrote:
>> The primary difference that I see is on the Cisco configuration. I
>> reconfigured my test router to match the configuration in your example
>> (modifying 10.80.3.0/24 to match my testing subnet), but packets weren't
>> being redirected to the cache at all - no hits showing on the
>> access-list.
>>
>> When I moved the statements:
>>
>> ip wccp 80 redirect out
>> ip wccp 90 redirect in
>>
>> from the interface facing the clients to be cached, to the interface
>> facing the internet, it started redirecting clients to the cache and
>> everything now (appears!) to be working properly as a transparent tproxy
>> cache!
>>
>
> Interestingly, when I put this in to production, I had to put the "ip
> wccp..." statements above on the LAN interface, rather than the WAN
> interface; in my testing I had to put it on the WAN interface.
>
> Just following up for the sake of people finding this thread in a
> google search later....
>
Hmm. Are you sure the cables on the test and production Ciscos are not
plugged in the other way around? slightly different version if IOS?
router doing WCCP also dong NAT?
something very minor like that might affect TPROXY without a currently
known reason.
Amos
Received on Sat Nov 10 2012 - 03:06:47 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Nov 10 2012 - 12:00:05 MST