Gateway Timeout errors



  • I am a brand new member and this is my first post.

    I have an issue that has me completely stumped and I'm not sure where to look next. I'm getting some gateway timeout errors on websites that we hit normally. I do realize that most gateway timeout errors are the fault of the destination host but in this case I think my network is playing a part.

    First, we can't access http://acrobaticarts.ca/ from within our network. If I take my laptop home or go to a coffee shop I have no problem accessing it. I contacted Cisco and we put my computer ip address and the domain name in the WSAv bypass list and it still didn't work. We looked at the capture log and saw it bypassed. I was able to get to blocked websites so I know the WSA wasn't filtering my IP. Basically the only thing I've ruled out is that it is not the WSA or a specific machine.

    Second, we have two vendors that we use. Listen 360 and Vendini. We get e-mails from them both with links to various websites (mostly our own). When we click on those links within our network we get the gateway timeout error. If I click on the exact same link from the exact same e-mail outside of the network it works just fine. I do know the Vendini link routes through their tracking system to the final destination. I've clicked on links in other e-mails and they work just fine.

    Thirdly, we can't send e-mails to Earthlink addresses. Ok, we can send them but they aren't receiving them. I contacted Cisco and we traced everything and looked in the ESAv to make sure nothing was messed up. We verified that we are simply not getting a response back in the expected time from.

    I was in our fitness center the other day and couldn't get on the internet. I looked at our Meraki dashboard and noticed some DNS errors. I rebooted both of our virtual Domain Controllers and rebooted the AP several times and it finally started working again. We are using Googles DNS servers.

    We have two internet feeds and most of the time we aren't anywhere near our bandwidth limit. My equipment is brand new. We just went live with our network in June so the equipment is about 6 months old. I'm using Meraki switches and a Cisco ASA 5515. I have two ISPs and the issues exist with both of them.

    I'm not sure if my issues are even related but I'm thinking that they are. They all have to deal with a delay in response time. Any help would be appreciated. I've ran Wireshark but don't really know how to read it.



  • Welcome to MangoLassi!



  • If you just run a ping to some of these sites, what kind of response times do you get?



  • What AV at you using? Do you have a proxy?



  • Did anything on the network change just before this started?



  • Welcome to the community. Always great to see new faces!



  • @StrongBad

    A ping fails. I also used PingPlotter Free. Results are below.

    Target Name: acrobaticarts.ca
    IP: 209.200.244.56
    Date/Time: 12/11/2015 7:49:56 AM to 12/11/2015 7:50:38 AM

    Hop Sent Err PL% Min Max Avg Host Name / [IP]
    1 18 0 0.0 0 1 0 [10.10.20.1]
    2 18 0 0.0 3 10 4 66-39-205-193.ctcco.com [66.39.205.193]
    3 18 0 0.0 4 18 5 108-161-74-254.ctcco.com [108.161.74.254]
    4 18 0 0.0 3 6 4 66-39-192-69.kcnap.net [66.39.192.69]
    5 18 0 0.0 5 12 7 gi0-0-0-0.nr11.b006290-1.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com [38.104.87.49]
    6 18 0 0.0 5 14 7 te0-0-1-0.agr11.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.24.21.85]
    7 18 0 0.0 5 71 11 te0-0-0-5.ccr22.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.5.225]
    8 18 0 0.0 14 36 18 be2433.ccr22.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.3.213]
    9 18 0 0.0 15 23 19 be2032.ccr21.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6.54]
    10 18 0 0.0 15 29 19 abovenet.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.10.118]
    11 18 0 0.0 15 27 19 ae11.cr1.dfw2.us.zip.zayo.com [64.125.20.65]
    12 18 0 0.0 49 62 54 ae27.cs1.dfw2.us.eth.zayo.com [64.125.30.180]
    13 18 0 0.0 50 96 59 ae3.cs1.lax112.us.eth.zayo.com [64.125.29.53]
    14 18 1 5.6 49 57 52 ae27.cr1.lax112.us.zip.zayo.com [64.125.30.185]
    15 18 0 0.0 50 73 54 ae3.mpr1.lax103.us.zip.zayo.com [64.125.20.226]
    16 18 0 0.0 51 62 54 64.124.200.14.ipyx-076968-002-zyo.above.net [64.124.200.14]
    17 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    18 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    19 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    20 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    21 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    22 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    23 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    24 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    25 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    26 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    27 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    28 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    29 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    30 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    31 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    32 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    33 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    34 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
    35 17 17 100.0 0 0 0 [-]

    Destination not reached in 35 hops



  • @Dashrender

    We are using Trend Micro. We are not using a proxy.

    I just double checked and discovered that I haven't installed TM on my machine so that can't be the issue.



  • @StrongBad

    Thank you



  • @StrongBad

    Not that I'm aware of. We have made some "unrelated" changes to the firewall in the last couple of months but I don't they have corresponded with my issues.

    I'm having some issues with dates though. They didn't report the e-mail issues right away and we just started using acrobaticarts.ca.



  • If you have more than one IP address from your ISP, you could install a switch between your ISPs connection and your Cisco Firewall. Then assign the additional IP to a laptop that you plug directly into the switch. Make sure you can get on the internet. Then try the site. If you still can't get there, you have an ISP problem.

    I have had this before where the ISP had an internal routing table problem and I couldn't reach the subnet the remote site was in.



  • @Dashrender

    Good idea. I'll try and do this as soon as I can without causing an interruption. I might be able to do it over the weekend.



  • @toxophilite said:

    @Dashrender

    Good idea. I'll try and do this as soon as I can without causing an interruption. I might be able to do it over the weekend.

    Assuming you're not a 24/7 shop, you could just unplug the ISP connection and plug it directly into the laptop. Depending on what kind of connection from your ISP you have, you might have to reboot their gear to get it to see the new equipment.



  • @Dashrender

    We are a community center so we are typically open from 5:00 AM - 10:00 PM. I think I can do it tomorrow without to much interruption.



  • Cool. Many of us will be around 🙂



  • Isolate the issue into digestible bits

    Ping from your modem, then add an appliance and progress through your network stack until it fails

    Edit: welcome to ML!

    Edit2: Double welcome fellow Canajun.

    Edit3: Fitness center? Non-profit? Truly a small world, me too



  • @Dashrender said:

    24/7 sho

    I tried this and I had no problem getting to any of these sites. It appears the problem is within my network.



  • Is your default gateway the firewall?



  • Do an nslookup of that address, is it resolving correctly?



  • @Dashrender

    Default gateway is the firewall. It works for all websites but these few.



  • @scottalanmiller

    nslookup resolves correctly.



  • @toxophilite said:

    @Dashrender

    Default gateway is the firewall. It works for all websites but these few.

    I wanted to make sure there wasn't another router to possibly look at that might be doing some filtering.

    Sounds like your firewall is to blame here.

    Can you post a sanitized version of your configuration?



  • @Dashrender

    That's what I'm beginning to think. Unfortunately I don't know the ASA very well. I'll need to bring someone in.



  • Would be cheaper to replace the ASA with a UBNT than to have someone come in to look at the ASA.


  • Banned

    @scottalanmiller said:

    Would be cheaper to replace the ASA with a UBNT than to have someone come in to look at the ASA.

    It doesn't have near the features if you actually need what an ASA provides.


  • Banned

    @toxophilite said:

    @Dashrender

    That's what I'm beginning to think. Unfortunately I don't know the ASA very well. I'll need to bring someone in.

    You need to bring someone in just to type Enable and Show Running-config ?



  • @scottalanmiller

    I'm almost there with you. I used UBNT APs at my last job and loved them. I purchased a switch but it hadn't arrived when I left. Here at my new job we just built out our network and I let that vendor chose the hardware because of how complicated everything was. I definitely chose the wrong vendor.

    How does the UBNT firewall stack up to other firewalls for security? As a Jewish organization we are always a target. I can't compromise on security. While I'm pretty sure I won't replace these with Cisco equipment I need to make sure that whatever I replace it with is very secure.



  • @toxophilite said:

    @scottalanmiller

    I'm almost there with you. I used UBNT APs at my last job and loved them. I purchased a switch but it hadn't arrived when I left. Here at my new job we just built out our network and I let that vendor chose the hardware because of how complicated everything was. I definitely chose the wrong vendor.

    How does the UBNT firewall stack up to other firewalls for security? As a Jewish organization we are always a target. I can't compromise on security. While I'm pretty sure I won't replace these with Cisco equipment I need to make sure that whatever I replace it with is very secure.

    Define security, because that is not a thing. It is a firewall. It allows what you tell it to allow and it blocks what you tell it to block, like any other.



  • @toxophilite said:

    How does the UBNT firewall stack up to other firewalls for security? As a Jewish organization we are always a target. I can't compromise on security. While I'm pretty sure I won't replace these with Cisco equipment I need to make sure that whatever I replace it with is very secure.

    I'd reverse that question... what makes Cisco acceptable equipment? Lower quality, higher price, leaves you at the mercy of consultants and offers no security above the minimum standard while being the top target simply because of its frequency of deployment.

    Cisco doesn't offer you any security here, Ubiquiti offers you a better product with equal security. It's Cisco that you should be questioning "if it stacks up", not the Ubiquiti. It is Cisco that almost never offers a value justifying its use. Ubiquiti doesn't have that problem.



  • @JaredBusch said:

    Define security, because that is not a thing. It is a firewall. It allows what you tell it to allow and it blocks what you tell it to block, like any other.

    Jared is spot on, you have two equally secure pieces here. I'd argue that because you perceive the Cisco as more secure, and that is an illusion, that it is actually the less secure of the two simply because it invoked a dangerous emotional reaction that you don't want to have.


Log in to reply