Hi Andy, Thanks for your reply. 1) Can u send me a sample configuration of what u are saying with a brief explanation of your scenario? 2) You are giving the explanation for equal cost paths. However in my case there are two unequal cost paths. So my question still how can u do that in using unequal cost paths ? 3) Please explain when u say the following: "What you will need to do is create 2 different RSVP Signaled LSPs towards the router which you want to "add more traffic", then you need to export these 2 LSPs in OSPF (not turn OSPF off!) so that the routing protocol can see and use these 2 new paths. In the end, you will have 2 equals paths going in 1 direction, and a single path in the other. If you need to move more traffic, then simply add a 3rd, 4th, etc LSP." 4) The above discussion is for when we are doing work within MPLS. Now in my case my intended traffic (Voice) does not use MPLS(however MPLS is enabled but for some other traffic like sigtran and O/M). OSPF is there as IGP and i need to load balance my intended traffic using the unequal cost path. I have an idea taht i create 2 x static GRE tunnels from one end to the other. My question can GRE tunnel override OSPF as that would be purely static routing and whatever goes with the tunnels would be just IP-payload. regards, HA.
Andy Lamontagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Hamid, To expand on Chris's explanation, ECMP is Equal Cost Multi-Path, which allows for the use of 2 (or more) equal cost path at the same time; Load balancing the traffic between the different paths. As Chris also mentioned, this load balancing is done per flow and not per packet, so you don't get any reordering of packets. What you will need to do is create 2 different RSVP Signaled LSPs towards the router which you want to "add more traffic", then you need to export these 2 LSPs in OSPF (not turn OSPF off!) so that the routing protocol can see and use these 2 new paths. In the end, you will have 2 equals paths going in 1 direction, and a single path in the other. If you need to move more traffic, then simply add a 3rd, 4th, etc LSP. Please let me know if you need further explanation/configuration samples. -Andy On 11/8/07, Hamid Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Its LAyer 3 load balancing. The traffic intended for load-balancing does is on pure IP with OSPF running and having unequal cost paths regards, Salman. GAY Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Which kind of load balancing do you want to do ? layer 3 ? layer 4 ? Are you on a MPLS network ? Regards, Samuel Hamid Ahmed a écrit : > Hi Everyone, > > CAn anyone suggest me how to load balancing between juniper routers for > unequal cost paths. > > BR// > HA > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
