Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
At 5:04 PM -0400 5/3/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote: >Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real world? I've >never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done. Could you clarify a bit more what you are trying to do? 802.1D specifically picks a single path, which is the antithesis of load balancing. Assigning multiple VLANs, each with their own STP, to different facilities...sure. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43269&t=43265 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
yes..we use load balancing, if you call it that, in data centers.. Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Steven A. Ridder" To: Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:04 PM Subject: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265] > Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real world? I've > never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done. > > -- > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > Get in my head: > http://sar.dynu.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43267&t=43265 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set priority on even VLAN/s to A odd to B. Dave "Steven A. Ridder" wrote: > > Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real world? I've > never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done. > > -- > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > Get in my head: > http://sar.dynu.com -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43268&t=43265 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
-- RFC 1149 Compliant. Get in my head: http://sar.dynu.com ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 5:04 PM -0400 5/3/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote: > >Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real world? I've > >never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done. > > Could you clarify a bit more what you are trying to do? 802.1D > specifically picks a single path, which is the antithesis of load > balancing. Assigning multiple VLANs, each with their own STP, to > different facilities...sure. That's what I was talking about, I'm just curios to see how common it is. Sounds like it's pretty common. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43270&t=43265 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
Care to share those configs? ""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > yes..we use load balancing, if you call it that, in data centers.. > > Larry Letterman > Cisco Systems > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - Original Message - > From: "Steven A. Ridder" > To: > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:04 PM > Subject: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265] > > > > Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real world? I've > > never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done. > > > > -- > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > Get in my head: > > http://sar.dynu.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43275&t=43265 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but VLAN priorization isn't really load balancing- you are just forcing VLANS over a preselected path. It does not take into consideration that one VLAN may utilize more bandwidth than another. Sean > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > MADMAN > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265] > > > Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have > switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set > priority on even VLAN/s to A odd to B. > > Dave > > "Steven A. Ridder" wrote: > > > > Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real > world? I've > > never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done. > > > > -- > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > Get in my head: > > http://sar.dynu.com > -- > David Madland > Sr. Network Engineer > CCIE# 2016 > Qwest Communications Int. Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 612-664-3367 > > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43278&t=43265 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
Dave has described the "switch blocks" as given in the BCMSM course. Further details would be that the Distribution Layer 65xx switches would have routing capability. They would also use HSRP on the VLANs so that each trunk link to the Access Layer switches would be the primary for one set of VLANs and the secondary for the other set. In case of a link failure all traffic would failover to the remaining link. Each switch block is a unique VTP domain. Traffic between switch blocks is routed. HTH > -Original Message- > From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 5:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265] > > > Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have > switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set > priority on even VLAN/s to A odd to B. > > Dave > > "Steven A. Ridder" wrote: > > > > Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real > world? I've > > never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done. > > > > -- > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > Get in my head: > > http://sar.dynu.com > -- > David Madland > Sr. Network Engineer > CCIE# 2016 > Qwest Communications Int. Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 612-664-3367 > > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43279&t=43265 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
Yes... that's true it's not true load balancing but it let's call it load "sharing"... =) Actually, of the many things we consider load balancing, many aren't true load balancing but a load sharing that under certain circumstances could be equal like Etherchannel and EIGRP (and other routing protocols) load "balancing".. Even under the best configuration Etherchannel has to rely on the source and/or destination MAC or IP addresses to determine which "pipe" it takes, unless the statistics of IP and/or MAC addr distribution close to "random", Etherchannel isn't true balancing. For "equal-cost load balancing" with routing protocols, if you're using fast-switching, you only get per-destination load balancing, not per packet. To get per-packet load balancing, you must disable fast switching (i.e. use process switching... ewww) So if you have a router at a remote site with two T1s back to the home office where the server is, if most of your traffic is PCs talking to the server, then all of that traffic to that server will choose one of the two T1s (per-destination) and leave the other relatively unused unless you enable process-switching.. (see http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/46.html) It appears that CEF is an exception that can indeed do per-packet load-balancing without a hit in performance (process switching) by default it allows up to 4 paths (1 for BGP) but can be changed... (see http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ifaa/pa/much/tech/althb_wp.htm) (watch for URL wrap) As for Multilink PPP, I can't find any documentation on Cisco's site or otherwise that specifically says that it does per-packet load balancing, however, one of the functions of MLPPP is that it can perform fragmentation and reassembly of packets over a given size, so if it can do that, I would assume that it can do per-packet load balancing... Anyway.. weren't looking for that long winded response, were ya? =) Mike W. "Sean Knox" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Correct me if I'm wrong, but VLAN priorization isn't really load balancing- > you are just forcing VLANS over a preselected path. It does not take into > consideration that one VLAN may utilize more bandwidth than another. > > Sean > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > MADMAN > > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:05 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265] > > > > > > Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have > > switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set > > priority on even VLAN/s to A odd to B. > > > > Dave > > > > "Steven A. Ridder" wrote: > > > > > > Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real > > world? I've > > > never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > Get in my head: > > > http://sar.dynu.com > > -- > > David Madland > > Sr. Network Engineer > > CCIE# 2016 > > Qwest Communications Int. Inc. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 612-664-3367 > > > > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43280&t=43265 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
At 8:52 PM -0400 5/3/02, Sean Knox wrote: >Correct me if I'm wrong, but VLAN priorization isn't really load balancing- >you are just forcing VLANS over a preselected path. It does not take into >consideration that one VLAN may utilize more bandwidth than another. > >Sean Remember that the network designer is going to force VLANs over paths. The design should reflect actual traffic measurements, or at least estimates. This isn't a one-time decision. There should be regular utilization measurement and adjustments as indicated by measurement. > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >> MADMAN >> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:05 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265] >> >> >> Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have >> switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set >> priority on even VLAN/s to A odd to B. >> >>Dave >> >> "Steven A. Ridder" wrote: >> > >> > Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real >> world? I've >> > never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done. >> > >> > -- >> > >> > RFC 1149 Compliant. >> > Get in my head: >> > http://sar.dynu.com >> -- >> David Madland >> Sr. Network Engineer >> CCIE# 2016 >> Qwest Communications Int. Inc. >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 612-664-3367 >> >> "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43283&t=43265 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
Do mean if I have 2 6509 with MSFC2/PFC2's, I configure STP for say odd vlans to go to the first MSFC and EVEN VLAN's to the SECOND MSFC ? This is done all the time.. read up on "MISTP" on cco. Basically you "map vlans to instances of spanning tree protocol" also you can use the older way of setting STP priority on a per vlan basis for each vlan with round-robin vlan staggering on msfc's like (vlan 1 bridge-priority can be 1, on msfc 1 and 65000 on vlan 2, and VICE VERSA for msfc 2) check this doc http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/sw_7_1/conf_gd/spantree.htm#xtocid2339718 Joseph Brunner ASN 21572 MortgageIT MITLending New York, NY 10038 (212) 651 - 7695 Voice Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43271&t=43265 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
I second that.
Theo
"Sean Knox"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/04/2002 09:52 AM
Please respond to "Sean Knox"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: RE: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but VLAN priorization isn't really load
balancing-
you are just forcing VLANS over a preselected path. It does not take into
consideration that one VLAN may utilize more bandwidth than another.
Sean
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> MADMAN
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
>
>
> Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have
> switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set
> priority on even VLAN/s to A odd to B.
>
> Dave
>
> "Steven A. Ridder" wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real
> world? I've
> > never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done.
> >
> > --
> >
> > RFC 1149 Compliant.
> > Get in my head:
> > http://sar.dynu.com
> --
> David Madland
> Sr. Network Engineer
> CCIE# 2016
> Qwest Communications Int. Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 612-664-3367
>
> "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43454&t=43265
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
