Is "ip multicast multipath" enabled? Take care of the usage guidlines and limitations before enabling it ...
hth Reinhold On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:10 AM, John Neiberger <jneiber...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is entirely multicast. We used the s-g-hash to lock each S,G to a > link, but we didn't think it through. We really should have started > out using the next-hop-based hash so that the same S,G can be served > by any link in the group. With s-g-hash, it always gets locked to the > same bundle. > > However, I just thought of another potential culprit. I'm going to > have to think it through, though. > > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Keegan Holley > <keegan.hol...@sungard.com> wrote: >> I've seen similar effects. I'm not sure there's a method to evenly >> distribute traffic for an indefinite period. I'm also not sure what you're >> routing, but the problems I've seen are usually caused by the fact that each >> flow/hash result differs in size and duration. Adding extra variables to >> the equation always helps, but it's almost impossible to keep an even >> spread. I suppose your current goal is to simply stop the outages though. >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 7:17 PM, John Neiberger <jneiber...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I hate to answer my own question, but I think I figured it out. We're >>> using s-g-hash basic, which is prone to polarization. I think that's >>> what we're seeing. Our traffic has become polarized and has developed >>> an affinity for a subset of links in our "bundles". I'm recommending >>> that we switch to s-g-hash next-hop-based to see if that resolves the >>> problem. >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM, John Neiberger <jneiber...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > We converted several connections last week from Etherchannels to >>> > routed links with ECMP. We verified that traffic was load-sharing over >>> > those links after making the change. Now, a week later, we are seeing >>> > instances where traffic is preferring one or two links out of each >>> > "bundle". In some cases all the traffic is flowing over a single link >>> > in a four-link setup. This is overloading those connections and we >>> > can't figure out why. We are using s-g-hash basic. Should we switch to >>> > s-g-hash next-hop-based? >>> > >>> > This is causing production issues right now, so I've opened up a TAC >>> > case, but I thought I'd ask here, as well, just in case someone had >>> > seen this before. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > John >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-...@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>> >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-...@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
