"but one particular subnet pair is exchanging quite a bit of
traffic). All of
the addresses are unique within our domain"
Can you clarify the nature of you test traffic to the busy subnet in
question?
1. Number of vrf ingress interfaces?
2. Number of source-Ips
3. Number of destination ips w/in that subnet
Basically, how many flows do you have heading to that busy subnet?
IIRC, as an ingress node we would do an IP hash, and this should use
the incoming interface and IP S/D addresses by default. On some
platforms when you start adding additional hashes, such as a L4 port,
you may start eating into the number of IP address bits that are
actually hashed. Meaning, you gain port entropy but loose some
granularity at the IP address level. Hence these knobs have a bit of
variance for each person that test them, as their flow specifics may
or may not benefit from some combination.
As always, the more variance and the larger the number of streams the
better the expected results. If there is a single pair of busy
speakers on that subnet that would explain things. If you had 10 (or
more) more or less equally active streams, and still had the results
below, then that would seem broken IMO. I may be wrong, but if you
only have 3 such streams, then each stream is independently hashed,
and there is a 12 % chance (.50 x .50 x.50) you will get unlucky and
find all three on the same link.
HTHs.
-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
] On Behalf Of Christian Martin
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:58 PM
To: Steven Brenchley
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MPLS VPN Load-balancing
Steven,
Thanks for the response. I was unaware of this limitation in the
ABC- chip, but I am still curious as to why the incoming traffic to
the PE, which should be hashed at IP only, is not properly balanced
across the outbound (MPLS) links. The lookup is done on the IP
header only, which should have enough entropy to create a reasonably
balanced modulus. Unless the outbound FIB entries play a role
somehow? I could see if this were a P and MPLS was coming in and
out, but it is
IP--->push--push---forward...
Also note that the outer label is of course different on the two
links (learned via LDP).
Cheers,
Chris
On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Steven Brenchley wrote:
Hi Christian,
The problem your hitting is a limitation of the M10i chip set.
It can only look at the top two labels and since both top labels are
the same for all this traffic it's going to look like the same flow
and send it all across the same link. The only way I've been able
to
get a simulance of load balancing is by creating multiple LSP's
between the same end points and manually push different traffic
across
the different LSP's. It's really clunky but there are no switches
that will work around this limitation on the current M10i CFEB.
If you where using a T-series, M320,M120, or MX router you don't
have this limitation. They can all go deeper into the packet to
determine load balance.
On the a semi brighter side, on the horizon there are some new
Ichip based CFEB's which will not have this limitation. I don't
recall when those will be available but you could probably get a
hold
of your SE and get a time table from them.
Steven Brenchley
===============================
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Christian Martin
<christian.mar...@teliris.com
wrote:
NSP-ers,
I have a Cisco---Juniper pair connected over a pair of T3 links.
The Juniper acts as a PE and is pushing two labels for a specific
route learned on the PE destined to a single remote PE well beyond
the
Cisco P. The traffic is destined to several IP addresses clustered
in
this subnet (sort of like 10, 11, 12, 13) and the forwarding table
shows that there are two correctly installed next- hops - same VPN
label, different LDP label (we have applied several different types
of
hashings and of course have our forwarding table export policy in
place). Nevertheless, the Juniper is doing a very poor job
load-balancing the traffic, and the Cisco is splitting it almost
evenly. There is in fact a larger number of routes being shared
across this link (about 20 or so VPN routes in different VRFs and
thus
different VPN labels - all sharing the same 2 LDP labels, but one
particular subnet pair is exchanging quite a bit of traffic). All
of
the addresses are unique within our domain.
Has anyone had issues with load-balancing a single subnet across an
MPLS VPN link pair? Note again that this is a PE-P (J--C) problem
and
that the IP addresses are all arranged locally. I know Juniper are
secretive about their hashing algorithm (can't lose any hero tests,
can we?), but we are getting like 5:1 load share if we are lucky and
are bumping up against the T3's capacity. The box is an M10i.
As always, any help would be appreciated.
Cheers,
C
show route forwarding-table destination 10.160.2.0/24
Routing table: foo.inet
Internet:
Destination Type RtRef Next hop Type Index NhRef
Netif
10.160.2.0/24 user 0 indr 262175 2
ulst 262196 2
Push 74 600 1
t3-0/0/0.1000
Push 74 632 1
t3-0/0/1.1000
PE-P next-hop count (all showing load-balancing in effect)
show route next-hop 172.16.255.11 terse | match > | count
Count: 106 lines
monitor interface traffic
Interface Link Input bytes (bps) Output
bytes (bps)
t3-0/0/0 Up 541252651233 (25667208) 691166913860
(35611752)
t3-0/0/1 Up 279149587856 (8737568)
24893605598 (20112)
Note that the Cisco is doing 25/9 Mbps and the Juniper 35/.02.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
--
Steven Brenchley
-------------------------------------
There are 10 types of people in the world those who understand
binary
and those who don't.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
