To: Patrik Olsson; Juniper Puck
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP load-balancing
Dear all,
thanks for your inputs.
Regards.
Aamir
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Patrik Olsson wrote:
> Hello!
>
> bgp multipath only enables per prefix loadbalancing.
> To achieve per flow loadbalance aswell
Dear all,
thanks for your inputs.
Regards.
Aamir
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Patrik Olsson wrote:
> Hello!
>
> bgp multipath only enables per prefix loadbalancing.
> To achieve per flow loadbalance aswell you need to apply a per packet
> loadbalance policy under routing-options forwarding
2009 1:31 PM
To: Arda Balkanay
Cc: Juniper Puck
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP load-balancing
This is what i am pointing to by enabling per packet-load balance we
able to load balance to RIP prefix. But in JNCIP-M study guide Book author
did't implement per-packet load balance in the case stud
This is what i am pointing to by enabling per packet-load balance we
able to load balance to RIP prefix. But in JNCIP-M study guide Book author
did't implement per-packet load balance in the case study solution. only
multipath is enable to load balnce the RIP prefix. is the statement given in
t
Have you configured a load balance policy for your forwarding-table ?
m...@lab1_mx960> show configuration policy-options policy-statement
Load-Balance-Policy
then {
load-balance per-packet;
}
m...@lab1_mx960> show configuration routing-options forwarding-table
export Load-Balance-Policy;
to
-boun...@puck.nether.net] De la part de Aamir Saleem
Envoyé : mardi 24 mars 2009 08:42
À : juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Objet : [j-nsp] BGP load-balancing
Hi All,
I need your input regarding BGP loadbalancing with multipath option.
In JNCIP-M study guide, one of the requirement given in iBGP case study
Hi All,
I need your input regarding BGP loadbalancing with multipath option.
In JNCIP-M study guide, one of the requirement given in iBGP case study is
to "Redistribute a summary of the RIP routes into IBGP from both r6 and r7"
and in second requiement "r5 must IBGP load-balance to the summary ro
> show configuration routing-options forwarding-table
> export load-balance;
>
> /ihsan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kanagaraj Krishna
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:11 PM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.
On Sat Mar 17, 2007, Niels Bakker wrote:
> >It *is* per flow. The old IP 1 could do per packet, current IP 2 cannot.
>
> That's a feature. Per-packet load-balancing can easily lead to packet
> reordering.
Juniper load balance is per-flow, no issues with packet reordering
Thanks
German
pgpyY
> That said, you could look into adding L3 and L4 inspection for
> (potentially) better hashing. Enabling these under [edit
> forwarding-options hash-key family-inet] will start considering
> factors like:
> Source IP address
> Destination IP address
> Protocol
> Source port number
> Destination
> >>I've heard that although the load balance option is known as
> >>"per-packet" but it behaves more like "per flow". Meaning packets
> >>would not be breaked up and merged on the other end. Am i right?
>
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri 16 Mar 2007, 20:57 CET]:
> >It *is* per flow. The old IP 1 coul
On 3/17/07, David Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>when doing the hashing. I haven't tried it yet personally, but it
> likely comes with a CPU hit of some kind.
>
> David
Hi David,
There is no CPU hit associated with the hash-key statements on M/T-series.
In fact hardware always uses hashin
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri 16 Mar 2007, 20:57 CET]:
> >It *is* per flow. The old IP 1 could do per packet, current IP 2 cannot.
>
> That's a feature. Per-packet load-balancing can easily lead to packet
> reordering.
>
I dunno if I'd say 'easily', as the delta would have to be pretty
significan
>* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kanagaraj Krishna) [Fri 16 Mar 2007, 20:51 CET]:
>>I've heard that although the load balance option is known as
>>"per-packet" but it behaves more like "per flow". Meaning packets
>>would not be breaked up and merged on the other end. Am i right?
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri 16
: Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] BGP load balancing on 2 links (same ISP)
Ihsan,
I've heard that although the load balance option is known as
"per-packet"
but it behaves more like "per flow". Meaning packets would not be bre
> I've heard that although the load balance option is known as
> "per-packet"
> but it behaves more like "per flow". Meaning packets would not be breaked up
> and merged on the other end. Am i right?
It *is* per flow. The old IP 1 could do per packet, current IP 2 cannot.
Steinar Haug, N
2.2.2.2;
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> show configuration routing-options forwarding-table
> export load-balance;
>
> /ihsan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kanagaraj Krishna
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:1
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP load balancing on 2 links (same ISP)
> Hi,
> Which is the best way to get BGP load balancing up and running with the
> same provider on a m7i using loopback IP? I've realised quite
ons forwarding-table
export load-balance;
/ihsan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kanagaraj Krishna
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:11 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP load balancing on 2 links (same ISP)
Hi,
Whi
Hi,
Which is the best way to get BGP load balancing up and running with the same
provider on a m7i using loopback IP? I've realised quite a number enquiries on
this matter on most forum. Can it be done? In cisco usually the things needed
are:
- 2 static routes pointing to the providers loopb
20 matches
Mail list logo
