Coming in late, but I feel the types of question you ask indicate your preparing well. ;)
That said, I think a FT LB policy is best here, and consider the omission a piece of errata. If we were not advertising a single rip summary than perhaps the default per-prefix would apply. As documented we have two control plane next hops, but a single data plane one. It would be best to have two at both levels. Regards -----Original Message----- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Aamir Saleem Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:02 AM To: Patrik Olsson; Juniper Puck Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP load-balancing Dear all, thanks for your inputs. Regards. Aamir On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Patrik Olsson <d...@webkom.se> wrote: > Hello! > > bgp multipath only enables per prefix loadbalancing. > To achieve per flow loadbalance aswell you need to apply a per packet > loadbalance policy under routing-options forwarding-table. > > Cheers > Patrik > > > Aamir Saleem wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I need your input regarding BGP loadbalancing with multipath option. > > > > In JNCIP-M study guide, one of the requirement given in iBGP case > > study > is > > to "Redistribute a summary of the RIP routes into IBGP from both r6 > > and > r7" > > and in second requiement "r5 must IBGP load-balance to the summary > > route representing the RIP prefixes". > > > > After advetiseing RIP summary route (192.168.0.0/22) from R6 and R7. > > R5 router is able to see two viable next-hops after enabling > > multipath in R5 ibgp group but in forwarding table of R5 shows only > > one path via R6 is available. > > > > My question is: > > > > Is only enabling multipath option will achive above mention > > requirement regarding BGP loadbalancing ? > > > > As junos perform per-prefix loadbalncing by default so the iBGP case > study > > requiremnt that "r5 must IBGP load-balance to the summary route > representing > > the RIP prefixes" cannot be achiedved by with multipath only. All > > other router behind R5 router also following the same path as chosen by R5. > > > > some output from test senario are below: > > > > aa...@lab1 <aa...@lab1># run show route protocol bgp logical-router > > R5 > > 192.168.0.0/22 > > inet.0: 80 destinations, 136 routes (80 active, 0 holddown, 0 > > hidden) > > + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both > > 192.168.0.0/22 *[BGP/170] 01:50:49, localpref 100, from 10.0.9.6 > > AS path: I > > > to 10.0.8.6 via lt-1/2/0.116 > > to 10.0.8.10 via lt-1/2/0.117 > > [BGP/170] 01:50:49, localpref 100, from 10.0.9.7 > > AS path: I > > > to 10.0.8.10 via lt-1/2/0.117 [edit] > > aa...@lab1# > > > > Forwarding table: > > Logical router: R5 > > Routing table: inet > > Internet: > > Destination Type RtRef Next hop Type Index NhRef Netif > > 192.168.0.0/22 user 0 indr 262148 > 3 > > 10.0.8.6 ucst 974 > > 7 lt-1/2/0.116 > > > > > > Any input is more then welcome. > > > > Regards. > > Aamir > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp