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/metr
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
SaroSenior Network Engineer GEGA NETTel: +20 2
4149771/2/3/4ext
e 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
as I undestand they will load balance if they have the same (/admin
dist/metric)
in you example
if you do an
sh ip route
then you will see two paths to the same network no the 3rd one
so your load balancing by default on your example will be through
the path with the same /admin dist/metric) to
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
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
ff708$38afaf20$[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
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
> t
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
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
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 Or
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=7&i=24754&t=24752
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Repo
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 exp
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
> bandwidt
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
ok 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 expl
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 pr
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
Can any one tell me the difference between load sharing and load balancing
?
I would like my company to use two different ISP connections and load
balance between the two.
Is this a case for BGP
Thanks,
Dennis
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=1
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:
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
&
oment.
> >
> > 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 p
-
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 provid
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
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
e 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
> > > bandwi
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
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, n
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
-
> 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 pro
You could do it with just default routes and point some hosts to one IP and
some to another. BGP is your most likely choice, though be prepared to set
up some heavy filtering to ensure the return path for your traffic. Or you
could do localpref or other methods to split up the traffic between th
To me load sharing would be for example having two parallel paths to a
destination and two equal cost routes, with fast switching or CEF per
destination switching some connections take path A others path B. With
process switching or CEF per packet you get load balancing, one packet
down path A
L PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
DBates
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 10:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Load Sharing vs Load Balance [7:18821]
Can any one tell me the difference between load sharing and load balancing
?
I would like my company to use two different ISP connections and load
bal
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
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.
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
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=7&i=7230
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
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
nd 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.
An
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
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 provisi
"Your network diagram unfortunately isn't too clear. From which network to
which network do you want to load-balance? "
What is this supposed to mean?
Dragi
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7723&t=7687
--
FAQ, list
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:
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 tr
-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
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.
"Re
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 Se
> 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
>[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 seri
ECTED]">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 applicabl
y, 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 anyth
ot 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:
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
e 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
&g
ou 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.
> >
> > T
ng
> 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 st
nd 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
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,
y
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=7&i=7463&t=7463
--
FAQ
60 matches
Mail list logo
