RE: CEF Per-packet load sharing [7:72232]
If you have a large number of hosts communicating then you shouldnt need to go per packet. Per packet is generally considered a no-no as it leads to out of order packets arriving at the remote host, which then has to reorder the stream. This kippers the performance of the hosts in most circumstances. per destination load balancing builds a hash of streams to interface so a particular stream will always go the same route and so packet arrive in order. Different streams are balanced across as many equal routes as youve got. Sometimes this hashing can get polarised which is bad (sending more down one route than the other) so you need to configure ip cef load-sharing algorithm universal. NB: when I say stream here I mean Source/destination pairs, not including port numbers etc. like netflow. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72300t=72232 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CEF Per-packet load sharing [7:72232]
Does anyone know of any performance limitations relating to the use of per-packet load sharing in conjunction with CEF EIGRP? I only want to use it on 2 VLAN interfaces so is it possible to configure on a per-interface basis or just globally? Many thanks Tim Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72232t=72232 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CEF Per-packet load sharing [7:72232]
in the new codes, if you turn on ip load-sharing per-packet cef is automatically enabled globally. CEF as far as performance issues, uses a bit of ram equal to the number of routes in your FIB (routing table). Cef builds its own little adjacency table to do those really fast lookups. For modern routers, with more RAM than my PC this is rarely an issue. Of course if your running an old MSFC1 or NFFC (cat5k) you may fret. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72239t=72232 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CEF Per-packet load sharing [7:72232]
Hi, you can turn on per-packet load sharing on a per-interface basis. You can also disable CEF on a per-interface basis once it is enabled globally, but you probably don't want to do this. I don't think there is any performance difference between per-flow and per-packet load sharing when using CEF. Thanks, Zsombor At 09:10 AM 7/14/2003 +, Tim Champion wrote: Does anyone know of any performance limitations relating to the use of per-packet load sharing in conjunction with CEF EIGRP? I only want to use it on 2 VLAN interfaces so is it possible to configure on a per-interface basis or just globally? Many thanks Tim Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72245t=72232 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was CEF and per packet load sharing [7:72258]
Consider two routers which have 3 GEs between them (no L2 device between them). Is it better to configure each of these GEs as a standalone L3 connection or to combine them GEs into an etherchannel (802.1ae?) bundle? My $0.02 would be to keep them at L3 and not run another protocol underneath to enable bundling. The question I've heard with this approach is how granular the load splitting works when splitting load across three interfaces. If CEF does per packet load splitting, would the load be (nearly) equal across the three interfaces (eg within 1-2% at all times)? When using per packet CEF, is there an issue with packets being received out of order? (Consider some flow where a large packet is sent over one interface and the following flow packet is small and sent over another interface. The small packet might be received completely before the large packet. Does per packet CEF address this issue?) I had heard that etherchannel (or the IEEE derivative) would support nearly equal load splitting across N interfaces. And it also defines a mechanism so that the receiving router would be able to detect and re-order packets which arrive out of order). Comments? Pointers to relevant docs? THanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72258t=72258 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: was CEF and per packet load sharing [7:72258]
We use CEF quite a bit, over 200 remote nodes with multiple circuits, it works out very well for us. The load on the circuits is always very close, I couldn't tell you with any certainty that it is within 1 to 2 percent though. I have had 2 issues with CEF in the past 2 years, and both involved FTP applications from certain vendors. It seems that every now and then I run across an FTP application that doesn't work correctly with CEF, the issue was that you would only get one quarter of the available bandwidth when using CEF, but as soon as you use multilink the issue goes away, I don't know what it is and it has never been worth the time to find out. All in all I am very happy with CEF using per-packet load sharing and I would recommend it over multilink any day (personal preference, I am not saying that people who use multilink are bad). I can't say anything in defense of or against etherchannel because I have only used it in the lab. -Original Message- From: p b [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: was CEF and per packet load sharing [7:72258] Consider two routers which have 3 GEs between them (no L2 device between them). Is it better to configure each of these GEs as a standalone L3 connection or to combine them GEs into an etherchannel (802.1ae?) bundle? My $0.02 would be to keep them at L3 and not run another protocol underneath to enable bundling. The question I've heard with this approach is how granular the load splitting works when splitting load across three interfaces. If CEF does per packet load splitting, would the load be (nearly) equal across the three interfaces (eg within 1-2% at all times)? When using per packet CEF, is there an issue with packets being received out of order? (Consider some flow where a large packet is sent over one interface and the following flow packet is small and sent over another interface. The small packet might be received completely before the large packet. Does per packet CEF address this issue?) I had heard that etherchannel (or the IEEE derivative) would support nearly equal load splitting across N interfaces. And it also defines a mechanism so that the receiving router would be able to detect and re-order packets which arrive out of order). Comments? Pointers to relevant docs? THanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72259t=72258 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: was CEF and per packet load sharing [7:72258]
I had heard that etherchannel (or the IEEE derivative) would support nearly equal load splitting across N interfaces. And it also defines a mechanism so that the receiving router would be able to detect and re-order packets which arrive out of order). I've never heard of that. In fact, excerpts from the document link below state the algorithm is deterministic; given the same addresses and session information, you always hash to the same port in the channel, preventing out-of-order packet delivery. You could always read this doc: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_note09 186a0080094714.shtml Which is Understanding EtherChannel Load Balancing and Redundancy on Catalyst Switches Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: p b [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: was CEF and per packet load sharing [7:72258] Consider two routers which have 3 GEs between them (no L2 device between them). Is it better to configure each of these GEs as a standalone L3 connection or to combine them GEs into an etherchannel (802.1ae?) bundle? My $0.02 would be to keep them at L3 and not run another protocol underneath to enable bundling. The question I've heard with this approach is how granular the load splitting works when splitting load across three interfaces. If CEF does per packet load splitting, would the load be (nearly) equal across the three interfaces (eg within 1-2% at all times)? When using per packet CEF, is there an issue with packets being received out of order? (Consider some flow where a large packet is sent over one interface and the following flow packet is small and sent over another interface. The small packet might be received completely before the large packet. Does per packet CEF address this issue?) I had heard that etherchannel (or the IEEE derivative) would support nearly equal load splitting across N interfaces. And it also defines a mechanism so that the receiving router would be able to detect and re-order packets which arrive out of order). Comments? Pointers to relevant docs? THanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72264t=72258 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: was CEF and per packet load sharing [7:72258]
At 06:18 PM 7/14/2003 +, p b wrote: Consider two routers which have 3 GEs between them (no L2 device between them). Is it better to configure each of these GEs as a standalone L3 connection or to combine them GEs into an etherchannel (802.1ae?) bundle? My $0.02 would be to keep them at L3 and not run another protocol underneath to enable bundling. Bundling is useful to decrease L3 complexity (less IP addresses, less links, less instability in routing). The question I've heard with this approach is how granular the load splitting works when splitting load across three interfaces. I think the Cisco implementation splits based on flow (not quite sure what flow exactly means in this context but it is not that important), so the load might be split unevenly. If CEF does per packet load splitting, would the load be (nearly) equal across the three interfaces (eg within 1-2% at all times)? Should be. Unless you construct traffic specifically to screw it up, like send 2 64 byte packets, then a 1500 byte packet, and then repeat... :) When using per packet CEF, is there an issue with packets being received out of order? Yes. (Consider some flow where a large packet is sent over one interface and the following flow packet is small and sent over another interface. The small packet might be received completely before the large packet. Does per packet CEF address this issue?) No. How could it? CEF is a decision making mechanism local to the router, not an encapsulation. Thanks, Zsombor I had heard that etherchannel (or the IEEE derivative) would support nearly equal load splitting across N interfaces. And it also defines a mechanism so that the receiving router would be able to detect and re-order packets which arrive out of order). Comments? Pointers to relevant docs? THanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=72273t=72258 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
load sharing with failover [7:70331]
Dear All How I can apply load sharing with failover by using HSRP or any other technology if there is firewall behind the two routers please review the graph in the attached file . The problem is I can't put two default gateways in the firewall so please you advice. How I can solve this problem reversing to this url http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html Best regards, Ali Al-Sayyed CCDA CCNP CSS Batelco Jeraisy limited Title : Platform specialist Dep: Network operation Center Tel : +966 1 419800 Ext : 3046 Mob : +966 0 56259533 Mailto : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [GroupStudy removed an attachment of type application/vnd] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70331t=70331 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
Hello, Thanks for answering me. I am using BGP because we have 2 Internet access and my customer has 2 providers too. Then, we have to use BGP This is the BGP configuration neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx description eBGP with Mycustomer neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ebgp-multihop 2 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx password 7 - neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx update-source Loopback1 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx version 4 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx maximum-prefix 8 I don't know why the packets that I am sending to my customer are not simetric in both links. However, the customer sends to me almost the same amount of traffic in both interfaces Thanks Alejandro MADMAN wrote: First problem, BGP doesn't load share but with IOS you can source an interface like a loopback, see BGP and loadsharing. If you have two parallel paths to a single provider why are you doing BGP??? Since you choose BGP I'll assume this is an Internet connection, set up two default routes, ip cef global command and the configs you have sent and you will have symetrical outgoing loadsharing. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hi All, This is my first message in the list. I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links with us (Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet sharing in order to balanced the link. In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very simetric in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from us is not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using load balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very very similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this moment. This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router: interface Serial2/0 description Link 1 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no cdp enable hold-queue 1024 out ! interface Serial2/4 description Link number 2 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable Any ideas? Thanks Alejandro Acosta P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T -- 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=7i=29067t=28960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
Again I only see a single neighbor, not dual homed, therefore two default routes would suffice. Your customer may have two providers but that has no bearing on you a far as needing BGP though it seems to me you would be the customer as the dual connected seems more likely to be upstream but I obviously don't have the big picture.. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hello, Thanks for answering me. I am using BGP because we have 2 Internet access and my customer has 2 providers too. Then, we have to use BGP This is the BGP configuration neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx description eBGP with Mycustomer neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ebgp-multihop 2 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx password 7 - neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx update-source Loopback1 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx version 4 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx maximum-prefix 8 I don't know why the packets that I am sending to my customer are not simetric in both links. However, the customer sends to me almost the same amount of traffic in both interfaces Thanks Alejandro MADMAN wrote: First problem, BGP doesn't load share but with IOS you can source an interface like a loopback, see BGP and loadsharing. If you have two parallel paths to a single provider why are you doing BGP??? Since you choose BGP I'll assume this is an Internet connection, set up two default routes, ip cef global command and the configs you have sent and you will have symetrical outgoing loadsharing. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hi All, This is my first message in the list. I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links with us (Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet sharing in order to balanced the link. In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very simetric in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from us is not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using load balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very very similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this moment. This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router: interface Serial2/0 description Link 1 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no cdp enable hold-queue 1024 out ! interface Serial2/4 description Link number 2 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable Any ideas? Thanks Alejandro Acosta P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it -- 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=7i=29073t=28960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
Try the router bgp command maximum-paths 2 CM - Original Message - From: Alejandro Acosta To: Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:40 PM Subject: Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960] Hello, Thanks for answering me. I am using BGP because we have 2 Internet access and my customer has 2 providers too. Then, we have to use BGP This is the BGP configuration neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx description eBGP with Mycustomer neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ebgp-multihop 2 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx password 7 - neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx update-source Loopback1 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx version 4 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx maximum-prefix 8 I don't know why the packets that I am sending to my customer are not simetric in both links. However, the customer sends to me almost the same amount of traffic in both interfaces Thanks Alejandro MADMAN wrote: First problem, BGP doesn't load share but with IOS you can source an interface like a loopback, see BGP and loadsharing. If you have two parallel paths to a single provider why are you doing BGP??? Since you choose BGP I'll assume this is an Internet connection, set up two default routes, ip cef global command and the configs you have sent and you will have symetrical outgoing loadsharing. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hi All, This is my first message in the list. I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links with us (Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet sharing in order to balanced the link. In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very simetric in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from us is not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using load balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very very similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this moment. This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router: interface Serial2/0 description Link 1 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no cdp enable hold-queue 1024 out ! interface Serial2/4 description Link number 2 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable Any ideas? Thanks Alejandro Acosta P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T -- 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=7i=29080t=28960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
You guys peering with each others loopbacks with 2 equal cost routes to get there?? Bri - Original Message - From: MADMAN To: Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 7:02 AM Subject: Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960] Again I only see a single neighbor, not dual homed, therefore two default routes would suffice. Your customer may have two providers but that has no bearing on you a far as needing BGP though it seems to me you would be the customer as the dual connected seems more likely to be upstream but I obviously don't have the big picture.. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hello, Thanks for answering me. I am using BGP because we have 2 Internet access and my customer has 2 providers too. Then, we have to use BGP This is the BGP configuration neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx description eBGP with Mycustomer neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ebgp-multihop 2 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx password 7 - neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx update-source Loopback1 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx version 4 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx maximum-prefix 8 I don't know why the packets that I am sending to my customer are not simetric in both links. However, the customer sends to me almost the same amount of traffic in both interfaces Thanks Alejandro MADMAN wrote: First problem, BGP doesn't load share but with IOS you can source an interface like a loopback, see BGP and loadsharing. If you have two parallel paths to a single provider why are you doing BGP??? Since you choose BGP I'll assume this is an Internet connection, set up two default routes, ip cef global command and the configs you have sent and you will have symetrical outgoing loadsharing. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hi All, This is my first message in the list. I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links with us (Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet sharing in order to balanced the link. In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very simetric in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from us is not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using load balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very very similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this moment. This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router: interface Serial2/0 description Link 1 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no cdp enable hold-queue 1024 out ! interface Serial2/4 description Link number 2 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable Any ideas? Thanks Alejandro Acosta P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it -- 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=7i=29102t=28960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
First...I am assuming that you have 'ip cef' on globally. next...Look at the configs... you have different queueing strategies on each. I have run into a problem like this, where will one using fifo and one using fair-queue you will see issues with the load-sharing. Try to either make them both fair-queue, or both no fair-queue. As well as trying to make the hold queue you have set be either gone/default, or alike on both. See if that helps. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Alejandro Acosta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960] Hi All, This is my first message in the list. I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links with us (Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet sharing in order to balanced the link. In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very simetric in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from us is not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using load balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very very similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this moment. This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router: interface Serial2/0 description Link 1 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no cdp enable hold-queue 1024 out ! interface Serial2/4 description Link number 2 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable Any ideas? Thanks Alejandro Acosta P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29108t=28960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
Yes, both links are connected via MW myrouter -- mw -- customerrouter There are 2 serial links of 2 Mbps Thks Alejandro,- Brian wrote: You guys peering with each others loopbacks with 2 equal cost routes to get there?? Bri - Original Message - From: MADMAN To: Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 7:02 AM Subject: Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960] Again I only see a single neighbor, not dual homed, therefore two default routes would suffice. Your customer may have two providers but that has no bearing on you a far as needing BGP though it seems to me you would be the customer as the dual connected seems more likely to be upstream but I obviously don't have the big picture.. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hello, Thanks for answering me. I am using BGP because we have 2 Internet access and my customer has 2 providers too. Then, we have to use BGP This is the BGP configuration neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx description eBGP with Mycustomer neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ebgp-multihop 2 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx password 7 - neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx update-source Loopback1 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx version 4 neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx maximum-prefix 8 I don't know why the packets that I am sending to my customer are not simetric in both links. However, the customer sends to me almost the same amount of traffic in both interfaces Thanks Alejandro MADMAN wrote: First problem, BGP doesn't load share but with IOS you can source an interface like a loopback, see BGP and loadsharing. If you have two parallel paths to a single provider why are you doing BGP??? Since you choose BGP I'll assume this is an Internet connection, set up two default routes, ip cef global command and the configs you have sent and you will have symetrical outgoing loadsharing. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hi All, This is my first message in the list. I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links with us (Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet sharing in order to balanced the link. In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very simetric in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from us is not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using load balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very very similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this moment. This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router: interface Serial2/0 description Link 1 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no cdp enable hold-queue 1024 out ! interface Serial2/4 description Link number 2 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable Any ideas? Thanks Alejandro Acosta P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it -- 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=7i=29116t=28960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
Hi All, This is my first message in the list. I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links with us (Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet sharing in order to balanced the link. In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very simetric in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from us is not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using load balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very very similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this moment. This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router: interface Serial2/0 description Link 1 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no cdp enable hold-queue 1024 out ! interface Serial2/4 description Link number 2 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable Any ideas? Thanks Alejandro Acosta P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=28960t=28960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
First problem, BGP doesn't load share but with IOS you can source an interface like a loopback, see BGP and loadsharing. If you have two parallel paths to a single provider why are you doing BGP??? Since you choose BGP I'll assume this is an Internet connection, set up two default routes, ip cef global command and the configs you have sent and you will have symetrical outgoing loadsharing. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hi All, This is my first message in the list. I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links with us (Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet sharing in order to balanced the link. In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very simetric in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from us is not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using load balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very very similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this moment. This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router: interface Serial2/0 description Link 1 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no cdp enable hold-queue 1024 out ! interface Serial2/4 description Link number 2 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable Any ideas? Thanks Alejandro Acosta P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T -- 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=7i=28971t=28960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
Dave, I have a dumb question regarding multiple defaults. Lets say that you had a multihomed BGP config connected to 2 different providers. Lets say that you had 2 routers below the firewalls sourcing the default. Then take a look at the routing tables below these 2 routers. Wouldn't nearly every routing proto (other than RIP assuming the hop counts were the same) only list 1 default? Wouldn't it be true that outbound traffic patterns would be based upon metrics from the routers sourcing the default? If this is true, then it's not really load balancing. I can think of scenarios were nearly all outbound traffic would be destined for only 1 of the 2 links. I'm sure I'm missing something dumb, but figured it was worth asking anyway. Gregg MADMAN wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... First problem, BGP doesn't load share but with IOS you can source an interface like a loopback, see BGP and loadsharing. If you have two parallel paths to a single provider why are you doing BGP??? Since you choose BGP I'll assume this is an Internet connection, set up two default routes, ip cef global command and the configs you have sent and you will have symetrical outgoing loadsharing. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hi All, This is my first message in the list. I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links with us (Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet sharing in order to balanced the link. In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very simetric in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from us is not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using load balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very very similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this moment. This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router: interface Serial2/0 description Link 1 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no cdp enable hold-queue 1024 out ! interface Serial2/4 description Link number 2 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable Any ideas? Thanks Alejandro Acosta P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T -- 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=7i=28979t=28960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
In this situation it is best not to characterize BGP as a load-balancing method. BGP is designed to choose the shortest path; the shortest AS path, path vector routing. Therefore if most of your Internet traffic has a shorter path to its destination via ISP A then you will see much higher usage on that link. With BGP you can turn the 'dials' to create an equal traffic load on each link, but it is likely that you would introduce suboptimal routing by forcing traffic down one path and all you will really have done is create an equal load. Cheers, Dan -Original Message- From: Gregg Malcolm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960] Dave, I have a dumb question regarding multiple defaults. Lets say that you had a multihomed BGP config connected to 2 different providers. Lets say that you had 2 routers below the firewalls sourcing the default. Then take a look at the routing tables below these 2 routers. Wouldn't nearly every routing proto (other than RIP assuming the hop counts were the same) only list 1 default? Wouldn't it be true that outbound traffic patterns would be based upon metrics from the routers sourcing the default? If this is true, then it's not really load balancing. I can think of scenarios were nearly all outbound traffic would be destined for only 1 of the 2 links. I'm sure I'm missing something dumb, but figured it was worth asking anyway. Gregg MADMAN wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... First problem, BGP doesn't load share but with IOS you can source an interface like a loopback, see BGP and loadsharing. If you have two parallel paths to a single provider why are you doing BGP??? Since you choose BGP I'll assume this is an Internet connection, set up two default routes, ip cef global command and the configs you have sent and you will have symetrical outgoing loadsharing. Dave Alejandro Acosta wrote: Hi All, This is my first message in the list. I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links with us (Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet sharing in order to balanced the link. In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very simetric in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from us is not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using load balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very very similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this moment. This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router: interface Serial2/0 description Link 1 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no cdp enable hold-queue 1024 out ! interface Serial2/4 description Link number 2 bandwidth 2048 ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable Any ideas? Thanks Alejandro Acosta P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T -- 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=7i=28990t=28960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP and ip load-sharing [7:28960]
Not dumb at all, one of the tricky things in redundant links AND
redundant routers is default routing, redundancy and load sharing are
NOT good bedfellows. With two providers and two routers I generally
configure full BGP routing, IBGP between the two routers and HSRP. The
firewall behind the router defaults to the active router and that router
either forwards out it's serial or sends the packtet to the other BGP
speaking router based on it's routing table.
The question asked on this post had only one router with two serial
connections, which is why I suggested dual default routes, BGP is
unecessary overengineering.
Gregg Malcolm wrote:
Dave,
I have a dumb question regarding multiple defaults. Lets say that you had
a
multihomed BGP config connected to 2 different providers. Lets say that
you
had 2 routers below the firewalls sourcing the default. Then take a look
at
the routing tables below these 2 routers. Wouldn't nearly every routing
proto (other than RIP assuming the hop counts were the same) only list 1
default? Wouldn't it be true that outbound traffic patterns would be based
upon metrics from the routers sourcing the default? If this is true, then
it's not really load balancing. I can think of scenarios were nearly all
outbound traffic would be destined for only 1 of the 2 links. I'm sure I'm
missing something dumb, but figured it was worth asking anyway.
Gregg
MADMAN wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
First problem, BGP doesn't load share but with IOS you can source an
interface like a loopback, see BGP and loadsharing.
If you have two parallel paths to a single provider why are you doing
BGP??? Since you choose BGP I'll assume this is an Internet connection,
set up two default routes, ip cef global command and the configs you
have sent and you will have symetrical outgoing loadsharing.
Dave
Alejandro Acosta wrote:
Hi All,
This is my first message in the list.
I am running a BGP session with a customer. It has 2 serial links
with
us
(Each link of 2 Mbps). The customer and me have selected per-packet
sharing
in order to balanced the link.
In this moment, the traffic that comes from the customer is very
simetric
in both links, however, the traffic that is sent to the customer from
us
is
not simetric. As far as I know (if I am not wrong), if we are using
load
balacing per-packet, the incoming and outgoing traffic should be very
very
similar, right?. Why only the incoming traffic is simetric in this
moment.
This is the configuration for both interfaces in my router:
interface Serial2/0
description Link 1
bandwidth 2048
ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
no ip directed-broadcast
ip load-sharing per-packet
no ip mroute-cache
load-interval 30
no cdp enable
hold-queue 1024 out
!
interface Serial2/4
description Link number 2
bandwidth 2048
ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
no ip directed-broadcast
ip load-sharing per-packet
no ip mroute-cache
load-interval 30
no fair-queue
no cdp enable
Any ideas?
Thanks
Alejandro Acosta
P.D. I am using IOS 12.0(7)T
--
David Madland
Sr. Network Engineer
CCIE# 2016
Qwest Communications Int. Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
612-664-3367
Emotion should reflect reason not guide it
--
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=7i=28993t=28960
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: load sharing [7:24752]
You need to elaborate this , using BGP ? regards, suaveguru --- Mohammed Saro wrote: We have two links to our provider and this provider makes load sharing per packet but sometimes one of two links is saturated and the other has free bandwidth can any one explain this weird behavior Best Regards, Mohamed Saro Senior Network Engineer GEGA NET Tel: +20 2 4149771/2/3/4 ext.:111 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=24762t=24752 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
load sharing
We have two links to our provider and this provider makes load sharing per packet but sometimes one of two links is saturated and the other has free bandwidth can anyone explain this weird behavior Best Regards,Mohamed SaroSenior Network Engineer GEGA NETTel: +20 2 4149771/2/3/4ext.:111
Re: load sharing [7:24752]
You need to elaborate this , using BGP ? regards, suaveguru --- Mohammed Saro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have two links to our provider and this provider makes load sharing per packet but sometimes one of two links is saturated and the other has free bandwidth can any one explain this weird behavior Best Regards, Mohamed Saro Senior Network Engineer GEGA NET Tel: +20 2 4149771/2/3/4 ext.:111 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=24752t=24752 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
RE: load sharing [7:24823]
This scenario assumes that several subnets are routed across these two links. If a subnet or multiple subnets are only routed across one of the links, this could occur. Jeff. -Original Message- From: Mohammed Saro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:06 AM To: GroupStudy Subject: load sharing [ Part 1, Text/PLAIN (charset: Unknown windows-1256) 12 lines. ] [ Unable to print this part. ] [ The following text is in the windows-1256 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the US-ASCII character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] We have two links to our provider and this provider makes load sharing per packet but sometimes one of two links is saturated and the other has free bandwidth can any one explain this weird behavior Best Regards, Mohamed Saro Senior Network Engineer GEGA NET Tel: +20 2 4149771/2/3/4 ext.:111 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=24823t=24823 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: load sharing [7:24752]
I assume you mean using BGP? I have absolutely no experience with BGP at all, so this could be way off base, but which direction are the links unbalanced in - for incoming traffic, outgoing traffic, or both? If it's traffic from you to the provider that is not shared evenly, then have a look at how YOU are load sharing, and make sure that is per-packet. JMcL Mohammed Saro wrote: We have two links to our provider and this provider makes load sharing per packet but sometimes one of two links is saturated and the other has free bandwidth can any one explain this weird behavior Best Regards, Mohamed Saro Senior Network Engineer GEGA NET Tel: +20 2 4149771/2/3/4 ext.:111 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=24856t=24752 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
load sharing
[ Part 1, Text/PLAIN (charset: Unknown windows-1256) 12 lines. ] [ Unable to print this part. ] [ The following text is in the windows-1256 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the US-ASCII character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] We have two links to our provider and this provider makes load sharing per packet but sometimes one of two links is saturated and the other has free bandwidth can any one explain this weird behavior Best Regards, Mohamed Saro Senior Network Engineer GEGA NET Tel: +20 2 4149771/2/3/4 ext.:111
load sharing [7:24752]
We have two links to our provider and this provider makes load sharing per packet but sometimes one of two links is saturated and the other has free bandwidth can any one explain this weird behavior Best Regards, Mohamed Saro Senior Network Engineer GEGA NET Tel: +20 2 4149771/2/3/4 ext.:111 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=24752t=24752 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: load sharing [7:24752]
can u tell us more about the load-balance technology you use in you network? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=24754t=24752 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Load Sharing vs Load Balance [7:18821]
Hi Dennis, The site below explains how to implement load sharing using BGP. Bcos of the very nature of BGP you can have one best route anad hence u can implement load sharing and not load balancing. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/40.html THanks Naresh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=19254t=18821 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687]
Can Use Floating routes to do the Load balancing on the Links. giving different metrics to each Link. Namish MCSE,CCNA,CCNP Rashid Lohiya : Just out of curiosity, would 2 static routes with same metrics not do the trick? One packet out one interface and the other out the 2nd? Not sure, just wondering! Or will only the first static get all the packets? Rashid Lohiya [EMAIL PROTECTED] 020 8509 2990 07785 362626 www.pioneer-computers.com London UK Tay Chee Yong wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hi all, I would like to perform load sharing 2 serial links on a Cisco 2501, how should I go about doing that?? I had thought of using HSRP, but I think it is not applicable in this scenario. Any advise?? Below is the network diagram. (10.10.10.1/24) | E0 - | Cisco 2501 | - / S0\ S1 2Mbps / \ 2Mbps / S0 \ S0 - | 2501 | | 2501 | -- | E0 | E0 (192.168.1.1/24) (192.154.10.1/24) Thank you and regards, Cheeyong This mail sent through : http://mail.sify.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7946t=7687 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687]
Just out of curiosity, would 2 static routes with same metrics not do the trick? One packet out one interface and the other out the 2nd? Not sure, just wondering! Or will only the first static get all the packets? Rashid Lohiya [EMAIL PROTECTED] 020 8509 2990 07785 362626 www.pioneer-computers.com London UK Tay Chee Yong wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hi all, I would like to perform load sharing 2 serial links on a Cisco 2501, how should I go about doing that?? I had thought of using HSRP, but I think it is not applicable in this scenario. Any advise?? Below is the network diagram. (10.10.10.1/24) | E0 - | Cisco 2501 | - / S0\ S1 2Mbps / \ 2Mbps / S0 \ S0 - | 2501 | | 2501 | -- | E0 | E0 (192.168.1.1/24) (192.154.10.1/24) Thank you and regards, Cheeyong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7880t=7687 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687]
Hi Remmert, I thought you could use HSRP to load balance as well as for redundancy.. Here's an link showing how to set this up http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html However, using HSRP for load sharing is only useful in certain situations.. Mike W. Remmert Veen wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hi Cheeyong, HSRP indeed won't do the trick, this is a redundancy mechanism. To enable load-sharing, check what routing protocol you are running. OSPF and EIGRP are able to do equal-cost load-sharing by default. If the 2 serial links are unequal cost, I'd recommend EIGRP to provision unequal-cost load-sharing. Your network diagram unfortunately isn't too clear. From which network to which network do you want to load-balance? I hope this helps for now, let me know if I can further help you out. Regards, Remmert Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7888t=7687 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687]
There is a GREAT book on real life stub BGP setups. It discusses all the redundency issues and well as load balancing limitations. It is written so you don't have to be a BGP guru to understand it. It called BGP4 Inter-domain routing in the internet by John stewart. I use this book a lot for referencing. The ISBN # is 0-201-37950-1 All your questions regarding these kinds on set ups are answered in this book Good luck. Tony M. #6172 - Original Message - From: Michael L. Williams To: Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 11:03 AM Subject: Re: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687] Hi Remmert, I thought you could use HSRP to load balance as well as for redundancy.. Here's an link showing how to set this up http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html However, using HSRP for load sharing is only useful in certain situations.. Mike W. Remmert Veen wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hi Cheeyong, HSRP indeed won't do the trick, this is a redundancy mechanism. To enable load-sharing, check what routing protocol you are running. OSPF and EIGRP are able to do equal-cost load-sharing by default. If the 2 serial links are unequal cost, I'd recommend EIGRP to provision unequal-cost load-sharing. Your network diagram unfortunately isn't too clear. From which network to which network do you want to load-balance? I hope this helps for now, let me know if I can further help you out. Regards, Remmert Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7905t=7687 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687]
There was a version of this just released in the last month, is that the version you have?? Brian Sonic Whalen Success = Preparation + Opportunity On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Tony Medeiros wrote: There is a GREAT book on real life stub BGP setups. It discusses all the redundency issues and well as load balancing limitations. It is written so you don't have to be a BGP guru to understand it. It called BGP4 Inter-domain routing in the internet by John stewart. I use this book a lot for referencing. The ISBN # is 0-201-37950-1 All your questions regarding these kinds on set ups are answered in this book Good luck. Tony M. #6172 - Original Message - From: Michael L. Williams To: Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 11:03 AM Subject: Re: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687] Hi Remmert, I thought you could use HSRP to load balance as well as for redundancy.. Here's an link showing how to set this up http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/7.html However, using HSRP for load sharing is only useful in certain situations.. Mike W. Remmert Veen wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hi Cheeyong, HSRP indeed won't do the trick, this is a redundancy mechanism. To enable load-sharing, check what routing protocol you are running. OSPF and EIGRP are able to do equal-cost load-sharing by default. If the 2 serial links are unequal cost, I'd recommend EIGRP to provision unequal-cost load-sharing. Your network diagram unfortunately isn't too clear. From which network to which network do you want to load-balance? I hope this helps for now, let me know if I can further help you out. Regards, Remmert Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7911t=7687 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687]
Hi Rashid, Static routes will not be efficient in terms of sharing the load of the 2 E1 links. If one of the network connecting to link1 generates more traffic than the other link, then it defeats the purpose of commissioning another new 2Mbps to sharing the congestion. Regards, Cheeyong At 11:23 AM 6/10/01 -0400, Rashid Lohiya wrote: Just out of curiosity, would 2 static routes with same metrics not do the trick? One packet out one interface and the other out the 2nd? Not sure, just wondering! Or will only the first static get all the packets? Rashid Lohiya [EMAIL PROTECTED] 020 8509 2990 07785 362626 www.pioneer-computers.com London UK Tay Chee Yong wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hi all, I would like to perform load sharing 2 serial links on a Cisco 2501, how should I go about doing that?? I had thought of using HSRP, but I think it is not applicable in this scenario. Any advise?? Below is the network diagram. (10.10.10.1/24) | E0 - | Cisco 2501 | - / S0\ S1 2Mbps / \ 2Mbps / S0 \ S0 - | 2501 | | 2501 | -- | E0 | E0 (192.168.1.1/24) (192.154.10.1/24) Thank you and regards, Cheeyong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7935t=7687 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687]
Hi Cheeyong, HSRP indeed won't do the trick, this is a redundancy mechanism. To enable load-sharing, check what routing protocol you are running. OSPF and EIGRP are able to do equal-cost load-sharing by default. If the 2 serial links are unequal cost, I'd recommend EIGRP to provision unequal-cost load-sharing. Your network diagram unfortunately isn't too clear. From which network to which network do you want to load-balance? I hope this helps for now, let me know if I can further help you out. Regards, Remmert Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7692t=7687 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687]
if you are running ppp encapsulation over those two lines (which you should consider) you can run a multilink (go to cco and do search on configuring virtual templates), and have a full pipe of 3 mb. other way is to run one of the routing protocols, whichever you want. Dragi Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7725t=7687 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Load Sharing of 2 Serial on 2501 [7:7687]
Hi Remmert, Thank you for your advise. Below is the updated network diagram. (10.10.10.1/24) | E0 - | Cisco 2501 R1 | - / S0 \ S1 (Link 1) 2Mbps / \ 2Mbps (Link 2) / S0/1\ S0/1 - - | 7206 R2 | | 7206 R3 | --- | F0/0| F0/0 (192.168.1.1/24) (192.168.1.2/24) I am current only having 1 link from R1 to R2, using static routing. I will be commissioning another 2Mbps link from R1 to R3, and would like to load share the 2 links. Currently, R2 is running OSPF, and R3 is also running OSPF. I would not prefer running dynamic routing protocol over the 2 2Mbps, as they will utilize the bandwidth when updating the routing table. I think someone actually mentioned about multilink ppp in the previous mails. Can I know more about this type of implementation?? What are the pros and cons of implementing multilink ppp? Can load sharing be achieved?? Regards, Cheeyong At 05:55 AM 6/8/01 -0400, Remmert Veen wrote: Hi Cheeyong, HSRP indeed won't do the trick, this is a redundancy mechanism. To enable load-sharing, check what routing protocol you are running. OSPF and EIGRP are able to do equal-cost load-sharing by default. If the 2 serial links are unequal cost, I'd recommend EIGRP to provision unequal-cost load-sharing. Your network diagram unfortunately isn't too clear. From which network to which network do you want to load-balance? I hope this helps for now, let me know if I can further help you out. Regards, Remmert Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7815t=7687 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BGP multi-homed load sharing/balancing and redundancy [7:7371]
Below is my company Internet connecttion. +--++--+ | UUNet router |+ Verizon router + +--++--+ | || Hssi0S0 S1 \ // \// \T-3 / T1 / T1 \// \ // Hssi0 S0 S1 | || +---+ | My company Internet router + +---+ | FastEthernet0 | FIREWALL We currently use default route via T3 to UUNET for Internet connection. The two T1 to Verizon is for backup in case the T3 link is down. This is a manual switch over between the T3 and T1 for backup since we use the default and static route. We are in the process of implemeting BGP4 for load balacing and redundancy. Can someone shed me some light on the best way to implement BGP across these three link for redundancy and load sharing/balancing. Many thanks in advance. Kim. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7371t=7371 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BGP multi-homed load sharing/balancing and redunda [7:7371]
most of it will have to be done by your isps. they will have to work on the bgp for you, probably. verizon is a stinky company, but still, if you are getting ppp encap over those two links, the easiest way is to bind both interfaces into one virtual template and have a 3mb multilink pipe. Again, you isps have to work together on this. Dragi Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7395t=7371 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP multi-homed load sharing/balancing and redundancy [7:7463]
Just a quick recommendation, get the Halabi's BGP book. It's indeed the bible for configuring BGP and I am sure you can figure things out with that book. Richard Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=7463t=7463 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP multi-homed load sharing/balancing and redundancy [7:2365]
add on to this . After running BGP you can then control routes using AS-PATH prepend, policy routing ,filter-list etc. For more information on the details you can contact me directly regards, suaveguru --- Yonkerbonk wrote: If you're not running BGP to ISP2 yet and you have a default route in there, it will take precedence over the BGP routes to ISP1. So, you will end up only using the FT3 link. When you get BGP running to ISP2, in step two, then things will work fine. Michael Le, CCIE #6811 --- Kim Seng wrote: Everyone, I currently have two T-1's to ISP1 and a Fractional T3 to ISP2. I am using static and default routes to connect them to the internet. There is no automaticaly fail-over as you know. Therefore, I am changing our ISPs but keep the BW the same. Two T1's to ISP1 and FT3 to ISP2 and I would like to run BGP-4 at this time with multihomed load sharing and load balancing across these 3 links. These will be two steps upgrade: 1. Run BGP load sharing/balancing across two T1 links to ISP1. Can I do this while the FT3 link is still up and running with default route to ISP2. Another word, can I do load sharing/balancing and redundancy at this step across these three links? (BGP via T1s to ISP1 and FT3 default route to ISP2) 2. The second step is changing the fractional T3 from default route to run BGP and do load sharing ,balancing and redundancy across these three links. Can these be done and what would be the appropriate steps. Many thanks in advance. Kim. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=2365t=2365 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP multi-homed load sharing/balancing and redundancy [7:2379]
(my posts from the last 2 days haven't showed up, so this may show twice) Or get the BGP Bible by Halabi, which makes a great reference book months down the line when you need to make changes and don't have it all on the top of your head. Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition (c) Aug 2000: http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/compare/isbn/157870233X -- Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+ List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/ suaveguru wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... add on to this . After running BGP you can then control routes using AS-PATH prepend, policy routing ,filter-list etc. For more information on the details you can contact me directly regards, suaveguru --- Yonkerbonk wrote: If you're not running BGP to ISP2 yet and you have a default route in there, it will take precedence over the BGP routes to ISP1. So, you will end up only using the FT3 link. When you get BGP running to ISP2, in step two, then things will work fine. Michael Le, CCIE #6811 --- Kim Seng wrote: Everyone, I currently have two T-1's to ISP1 and a Fractional T3 to ISP2. I am using static and default routes to connect them to the internet. There is no automaticaly fail-over as you know. Therefore, I am changing our ISPs but keep the BW the same. Two T1's to ISP1 and FT3 to ISP2 and I would like to run BGP-4 at this time with multihomed load sharing and load balancing across these 3 links. These will be two steps upgrade: 1. Run BGP load sharing/balancing across two T1 links to ISP1. Can I do this while the FT3 link is still up and running with default route to ISP2. Another word, can I do load sharing/balancing and redundancy at this step across these three links? (BGP via T1s to ISP1 and FT3 default route to ISP2) 2. The second step is changing the fractional T3 from default route to run BGP and do load sharing ,balancing and redundancy across these three links. Can these be done and what would be the appropriate steps. Many thanks in advance. Kim. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=2379t=2379 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP multi-homed load sharing/balancing and redundancy [7:2335]
But the router will choose the more specific route, even if the distance of static route is smaller than the BGP's. So it should be choose ISP1 frirstly, then if there is no specific route for it, it will use the default route to ISP2. I am not sure. Yonkerbonk wrote: If you're not running BGP to ISP2 yet and you have a default route in there, it will take precedence over the BGP routes to ISP1. So, you will end up only using the FT3 link. When you get BGP running to ISP2, in step two, then things will work fine. Michael Le, CCIE #6811 --- Kim Seng wrote: Everyone, I currently have two T-1's to ISP1 and a Fractional T3 to ISP2. I am using static and default routes to connect them to the internet. There is no automaticaly fail-over as you know. Therefore, I am changing our ISPs but keep the BW the same. Two T1's to ISP1 and FT3 to ISP2 and I would like to run BGP-4 at this time with multihomed load sharing and load balancing across these 3 links. These will be two steps upgrade: 1. Run BGP load sharing/balancing across two T1 links to ISP1. Can I do this while the FT3 link is still up and running with default route to ISP2. Another word, can I do load sharing/balancing and redundancy at this step across these three links? (BGP via T1s to ISP1 and FT3 default route to ISP2) 2. The second step is changing the fractional T3 from default route to run BGP and do load sharing ,balancing and redundancy across these three links. Can these be done and what would be the appropriate steps. Many thanks in advance. Kim. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=2335t=2335 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BGP multi-homed load sharing/balancing and redundancy [7:2095]
Everyone, I currently have two T-1's to ISP1 and a Fractional T3 to ISP2. I am using static and default routes to connect them to the internet. There is no automaticaly fail-over as you know. Therefore, I am changing our ISPs but keep the BW the same. Two T1's to ISP1 and FT3 to ISP2 and I would like to run BGP-4 at this time with multihomed load sharing and load balancing across these 3 links. These will be two steps upgrade: 1. Run BGP load sharing/balancing across two T1 links to ISP1. Can I do this while the FT3 link is still up and running with default route to ISP2. Another word, can I do load sharing/balancing and redundancy at this step across these three links? (BGP via T1s to ISP1 and FT3 default route to ISP2) 2. The second step is changing the fractional T3 from default route to run BGP and do load sharing ,balancing and redundancy across these three links. Can these be done and what would be the appropriate steps. Many thanks in advance. Kim. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=2095t=2095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP multi-homed load sharing/balancing and redundancy [7:2107]
If you're not running BGP to ISP2 yet and you have a default route in there, it will take precedence over the BGP routes to ISP1. So, you will end up only using the FT3 link. When you get BGP running to ISP2, in step two, then things will work fine. Michael Le, CCIE #6811 --- Kim Seng wrote: Everyone, I currently have two T-1's to ISP1 and a Fractional T3 to ISP2. I am using static and default routes to connect them to the internet. There is no automaticaly fail-over as you know. Therefore, I am changing our ISPs but keep the BW the same. Two T1's to ISP1 and FT3 to ISP2 and I would like to run BGP-4 at this time with multihomed load sharing and load balancing across these 3 links. These will be two steps upgrade: 1. Run BGP load sharing/balancing across two T1 links to ISP1. Can I do this while the FT3 link is still up and running with default route to ISP2. Another word, can I do load sharing/balancing and redundancy at this step across these three links? (BGP via T1s to ISP1 and FT3 default route to ISP2) 2. The second step is changing the fractional T3 from default route to run BGP and do load sharing ,balancing and redundancy across these three links. Can these be done and what would be the appropriate steps. Many thanks in advance. Kim. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=2107t=2107 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Routing Protocol Load-Sharing
What is the maximum number of equal-path equal-cost load sharing / balancing will OSPF or EIGRP do? Basically, I have 12 T1 circuits that I am thinking of load-sharing between two Data Centers. I am either thinking of using a Larscom Orion 4000 IMUX to bundle the T1 into two groups and out into HSSI interfaces of the 7000 routers, or just simply hook-up all 12 T1 directly to the routers and have them load-share the links via routing protocols. But I am not certain if the second option will work. I know that the routers will be taxed more and the network overall will have several more routes to handle, but the advantage is that each link is completely redundant from each other. But more than anything, I am not sure if any routing protocols will handle 12 equal-path/equal-cost load-sharing and balancing. Thanks, Evan You - CCNA ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Routing Protocol Load-Sharing
Hi Evan, Ospf is like 6 equal cost paths and EIGRP is like 4 equal or unequal cost paths. EIGRP is more flexible to have unequal load balancing. Cu Geert Hampe CCNP+Voice+ATM CCDP Evan You [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 001001bff708$38afaf20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:001001bff708$38afaf20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... What is the maximum number of equal-path equal-cost load sharing / balancing will OSPF or EIGRP do? Basically, I have 12 T1 circuits that I am thinking of load-sharing between two Data Centers. I am either thinking of using a Larscom Orion 4000 IMUX to bundle the T1 into two groups and out into HSSI interfaces of the 7000 routers, or just simply hook-up all 12 T1 directly to the routers and have them load-share the links via routing protocols. But I am not certain if the second option will work. I know that the routers will be taxed more and the network overall will have several more routes to handle, but the advantage is that each link is completely redundant from each other. But more than anything, I am not sure if any routing protocols will handle 12 equal-path/equal-cost load-sharing and balancing. Thanks, Evan You - CCNA ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Routing Protocol Load-Sharing
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Evan You wrote: What is the maximum number of equal-path equal-cost load sharing / balancing will OSPF or EIGRP do? 6 i believe, and I believe 4 is the default. Brian Basically, I have 12 T1 circuits that I am thinking of load-sharing between two Data Centers. I am either thinking of using a Larscom Orion 4000 IMUX to bundle the T1 into two groups and out into HSSI interfaces of the 7000 routers, or just simply hook-up all 12 T1 directly to the routers and have them load-share the links via routing protocols. But I am not certain if the second option will work. I know that the routers will be taxed more and the network overall will have several more routes to handle, but the advantage is that each link is completely redundant from each other. But more than anything, I am not sure if any routing protocols will handle 12 equal-path/equal-cost load-sharing and balancing. Thanks, Evan You - CCNA ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Brian Feeny, CCNA [EMAIL PROTECTED] 318-222-2638 x 109 http://www.shreve.net/~signal Network Administrator ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881) ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Routing Protocol Load-Sharing
Chuck, Thanks for the input. I agree with your logic. But part of the problem is that these are International circuits going from one country to another. And believe it or not, most of the time it's much cheaper to bundle several E1s or T1s together instead of getting a fractional T3 or E3 internationally (I know, I work for WorldCom). - Evan -Original Message- From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:02 AM To: Cisco Mail List; Evan You Subject:RE: Routing Protocol Load-Sharing Evan, at some point you might want to look beyond single circuits. An alternative might be to aggregate your bandwidth by having your carrier terminate it as ATM, and populate your routers with IMA cards to give you bandwidth. Fractional DS3 should be a lot less expensive and gives you a lot more room to grow. As you have now discovered, adding T-1s to solve bandwidth problems has its limits. The fact that you have 12 point to points between two sites tells me 1) that it's past time to look at this with fresh eyes, 2) your company must have too much money, and 3) your telco really loves you :- OSPF is 4 equal cost paths. EIRP is 6, and the paths can be of unequal cost. Where are you located? Contact me off line. Chuck ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Routing Protocol Load-Sharing
I believe the no# is 6 Duck - Original Message - From: Evan You [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 6:48 AM Subject: Routing Protocol Load-Sharing What is the maximum number of equal-path equal-cost load sharing / balancing will OSPF or EIGRP do? Basically, I have 12 T1 circuits that I am thinking of load-sharing between two Data Centers. I am either thinking of using a Larscom Orion 4000 IMUX to bundle the T1 into two groups and out into HSSI interfaces of the 7000 routers, or just simply hook-up all 12 T1 directly to the routers and have them load-share the links via routing protocols. But I am not certain if the second option will work. I know that the routers will be taxed more and the network overall will have several more routes to handle, but the advantage is that each link is completely redundant from each other. But more than anything, I am not sure if any routing protocols will handle 12 equal-path/equal-cost load-sharing and balancing. Thanks, Evan You - CCNA ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
load-sharing
ok... here goes... as i understand it, if you have multiple routes with the same Specifity, Admin distance, and Metric then (most?) dynamic routing protocols will load balance... and if you add yet another static route to that destination, (not necisarrilly with the same specifity/admin dist/metric) then that route will also load balance... jeez. - i do understand that routing protocols do not really "load balance, the simply chose possible Load balanceing canidates. jeez*2 comments/reccomendations to give up welcome. critisizms on my spelling certainly NOT welcome! = ciscocabanaboy, CCNP-Voice, CCDP, MCSE, CNX, A+, N+, I-net+, BOFH... __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
