Hi Telmo, Your initial assumtion is correct, the lower end M series can't hash based on two MPLS label and IP payload, if you configure that it will hash based on the top label and the IP payload. I believe this is due to a hardware limitation as a T320 running the exact same code can hash based on all three (I've seen this in our lab). In practice this should not affect your load balancing unless you have a very large traffic stream to one LSP endpoint without any variation in source or destination IP address (or a variation such that the hash always chooses the same link). This is highly unlikely for internet traffic but if you have a SAN or something you could very well run into the problem. This is the configuration we have:
forwarding-options { hash-key { family mpls { label-1; label-2; payload { ip; } } } } routing-options { forwarding-table { export rp-core-load-balance; } } policy-statement rp-core-load-balance { term core { from instance master; then { load-balance per-packet; } } } If you are testing in the lab then make sure you traffic generator sends multiple IP streams with a constant source address and the destination address incrementing by one for each stream. You should then see load balancing. Jonathan On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Thedin Guruge <the...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > If LDP is used for MPLS signaling, and your igp has two equal cost paths > (via two diff interfaces) to the destination you want load balancing, then > i > don't see why it shouldn't occur. ECMP is on by default in Junos and yeah > M's can only hash on first mpls label and ip payload, but it shouldn't > matter for your case, i've seen M10s hashing LDP traffic for IGP equal cost > destinations. btw, what's your IGP? > > Cheers > > Thedin > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Matthew Tighe <matthew.e.ti...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > I think you may to do this for LDP LSPs. My experience is with RSVP LSPs > > but > > the concept should be the same. Multiple LSPs are needed to load balance. > > Seems like this command does that with LDP: > > > > > > > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.4/topics/usage-guidelines/mpls-configuring-fec-deaggregation.html > > > > < > > > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.4/topics/usage-guidelines/mpls-configuring-fec-deaggregation.html > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Ezequiel Carson <ezequ...@ifxcorp.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Matthew, > > > > > > Our lsp's arw dinamicaly built using ldp. > > > > > > this issue is happening when you the router receives an incomming mpls > > > packet (labeled). > > > > > > Resuming: once the router has placed the label 112233 on interfaces X,Y > > and > > > Z , every single packet will be routed using the same interface ex: X > and > > > never will use Y or Z > > > > > > We already have configured the forwarding-option hash algorith but is > not > > > working > > > > > > Txs > > > Ezequiel > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > *From*: Matthew Tighe <matthew.e.ti...@gmail.com> > > > *To*: Telmo Di Leva > > > *Cc*: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>; > > Ezequiel > > > Carson; Andres Arturo Diaz Montes > > > *Sent*: Thu Feb 03 10:47:27 2011 > > > *Subject*: Re: [j-nsp] MPLS LSP Load Balance > > > > > > Do you have multiple LSPs defined (one for each path you want to load > > > balance over)? > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Telmo Di Leva <tdil...@ifxcorp.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Dear JNSP, in this oportunity we are contacting you because we have > the > > >> following trouble: > > >> Our core plataform is based on M20 and M160. > > >> For some reason, we cant balance mpls traffic thru multiples oc3. > > >> We have this links explaining our limitation whit M series: > > >> > > >> > > > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos9.5/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-mpls-applications/mpls-configuring-load-balancing-for-mpls-lsps.html > > >> Note: You can include this combination of statements on M320 and > > T-series > > >> routing platforms only. If you include them on an M-series router, > only > > the > > >> first MPLS label and the IP payload are used in the hash key. > > >> Can this would be a problem to balance traffic in our backbone? > > >> We cant find a way to fix the unbalanced mpls traffic. > > >> Is corrected in some JUNOS version for M series? > > >> We will really apreciate your help. > > >> Bes regards. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matthew Tighe > > > matthew.e.ti...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthew Tighe > > matthew.e.ti...@gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp