Activate "indexed-next-hop" and try this as hash key
hash-key {
family mpls {
label-1;
payload {
ip {
port-data;
}
}
}
}
Thanks,
Nilesh.
As ad Arafat wrote:
Hello Nilesh,
Thank you very much for your suggestion.
I had try It out but the bandwidth same as before :(
load-balance {
no-next-hop-cloning;
inactive: equal-weighted-mode;
inactive: indexed-next-hop;
}
hash-key {
family inet {
layer-3;
layer-4;
}
family mpls {
label-1;
label-2;
payload {
ip;
}
}
}
Logical interface as1.0 (Index 72) (SNMP ifIndex 133) (Generation 248)
Flags: Point-To-Point SNMP-Traps 0x4000 Encapsulation: PPP
Statistics Packets pps Bytes bps
Bundle:
Input : 1574238316 27467 549195500508 70996288
Output: 1585499563 27551 822963970038 121087264
Link:
so-0/1/1.0
Input : 1542528979 26723 531046561900 67867536
Output: 593617855 9115 130919023851 15468328
so-0/1/0.0
Input : 31709337 744 18148938608 3128752
Output: 991881708 18436 692044946187 105618936
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Nilesh Khambal <nkham...@juniper.net> wrote:
try, these things in the same order one at time and see if one of them makes
any difference.
1. Remove "equal-weighted-mode". Check load-balancing
2. Remove "indexed-next-hop" and add "no-next-hop-cloning" Check
load-balancing.
load-balance {
no-next-hop-cloning;
}
Thanks,
Nilesh.
As ad Arafat wrote:
Nilesh,
Sorry to bothering you again, as JTAC suggestion, i had apply the
forwarding-option configuration at the both side of PE:
load-balance {
equal-weighted-mode;
indexed-next-hop;
}
hash-key {
family inet {
layer-3;
layer-4;
}
family mpls {
label-1;
label-2;
payload {
ip;
}
}
}
But it still cant load-share in the bandwith, :(
PE1.batam "sh int as1 detail"
Logical interface as1.0 (Index 72) (SNMP ifIndex 133) (Generation 248)
Flags: Point-To-Point SNMP-Traps 0x4000 Encapsulation: PPP
Statistics Packets pps Bytes bps
Bundle:
Input : 1469518591 26072 515087563009 66790808
Output: 1479039012 25262 764318666407 106322328
Link:
so-0/1/1.0
Input : 1440546432 25294 498347148297 63414280
Output: 560001305 8109 123610734671 13742872
so-0/1/0.0
Input : 28972159 778 16740414712 3376528
Output: 919037707 17153 640707931736 92579456
With this this bandwidth it seem 2 x stm-1 underutilized and the
traffic over this interface experiencing heavy congestion.
Do you have any suggestion to workaround this?
If we remove the sonet links from aggregated sonet and created two
independent sonet interface do we have 2 x stm-1 bandwidth?
Thanks before
Best Regads
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:34 PM, As ad Arafat <asad.ara...@gmail.com>
wrote:
hehehe :D
Thanks Nilesh
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Nilesh Khambal <nkham...@juniper.net>
wrote:
I see that you have a JTAC case opened. So I will shut up now :) and let
JTAC drive it forward.
Just as a note, load balancing in JUNOS, largely depends on what kind of
traffic you are trying to load balace. I am sure JTAC will ask you about
it
during the progress of the case. Unfortunately, there is no one solution
that fits all the traffic patterns. It needs to be fine tuned as per
your
your requirement.
Thanks,
Nilesh.
On Feb 17, 2009, at 9:49 PM, "As ad Arafat" <asad.ara...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nilesh,
I already add "family inet" as hash-key on both PE, but it still cant
achieve load sharing in as1
Best Regards
As'ad
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Nilesh Khambal <nkham...@juniper.net>
wrote:
Is it the traffic coming in from "pacnet" vrf that you are trying to
load
balance when going over as1 towards MPLS cloud? If so, I think you
should
configure "family inet" hashing as well on the PE.
Thanks,
Nilesh
As ad Arafat wrote:
Hi Nilesh,
I attached "show route a.b.c.d extensive" and "show route
forwarding-table destination a.b.c.d extensive"
i use hash like this.
hash-key {
family mpls {
label-1;
payload {
ip;
}
}
}
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Nilesh Khambal
<nkham...@juniper.net>
wrote:
Can you please send the output of below 2 commands for the
destination
that
you want to load balance?
"show route a.b.c.d extensive"
"show route forwarding-table destination a.b.c.d extensive"
What kind of hashing have you configured under "edit
forwarding-options"?
Thanks,
Nilesh.
As ad Arafat wrote:
Hi list,
I got m7i and m10i linked aggregated sonet interface with 2 sonet
interface inside it.
I already add load-balancing per-packet policy and
forwarding-option
cinfiguration
But one of sonet interface seem underutilized.
Any workaround for this issue?
Best Regads
Asad
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
<PE1.Equinix6>
<PE1.Batam6>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
