just to clarify , you have :
PE2 with 2 link , 1 to RR1 (let's call it link 1) and 1 to RR2 (link 2) PE3 with 2 link , 1 to RR1 (let's call it Link 3) and 1 to RR2 (link4) you could set local pref to link to PE2 to 150 (RR1 to PE2 will be preferred), and link 2 (PE2 to RR2) as standard 100 then set link 3 standard 100 (PE3 to RR1) but set link 4 with 150 (RR2 to PE3 will be preferred) then RR1 has prefered path via PE2 (via link 1 high local pref), RR2 have prefered path via PE3( via link 4 high local pref) , Each RR may advertise both route to PE1 then on PE1 , u need load balancing configured , I can't guarantee either , but need to be tested. On 10 August 2011 21:06, Stefan Fouant <sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net>wrote: > Have you tried the advertise-inactive knob on the RR? I can't guarantee > that this will work but it just might also advertise the route towards PE3 > as well. > > Of course, if this works, then you would need to enable multipathing on PE1 > accordingly. > > Stefan Fouant > JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI > Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks > http://www.shortestpathfirst.net > http://www.twitter.com/sfouant > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 10, 2011, at 2:44 PM, biwa net <biwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear All > > > > I have a setup where I need to load balancing routes received from 2 RR > in > > IPV4 environment (not VPN-IPV4) > > > > I have my PE (let's called PE1) connected to 2 RR (cluster), my > destination > > subnet eg: 10.1.1.1/24 is behind 2 PE (PE-2 and PE3) which are also > client > > of the same 2RR > > > > PE-2 and PE3 are sending the same route 10.1.1.1/24 to the RR , which > as > > per normal behavior is selecting the best route to PE1 , > > > > My issue is that RR is always advertising the route 10.1.1.1/24 through > PE2 > > (due to lower router id) as best path and I would like to load balanced > it > > through PE2 and PE3 > > > > Anyone can recommend a way to load balance ? > > > > Unfortunately I dont have a lab to test any solution and there are live > > traffic on this ,so all I can do is guessing is whether the below 2 > option > > would work or not. > > > > 2 option I have > > > > 1.So here I am trying to thinking about testing the multipath command > under > > the RR configuration to see if I am receiving routes from both PE or not > , > > > > 2. try to put all devices them in routing instance VRF , with the BGP > > configuration under it (both RR and client) , and RD configured in the > VRF > > (but not putting any vpn family under bgp) so that it stays IPV4 routes , > > maybe I could cheat the RR to believe these are 2 differentes routes due > to > > the RD, but dont know if this works or not . > > > > anyone has had similar issue and found a workaround ? > > > > does the 2 option above actually work or not ? > > > > thanks for any input > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Humair _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp