From: Pavel Bykov (slidersv@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 19 2009 - 09:11:23 ART
What about creating a L2tunnel? Or an L3 tunnel? Is that acceptable?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Ali El Moussaoui
<mousawi.ali@gmail.com>wrote:
> :( it didnt work. I think I have to do some tuning now to do the unequal
> load balancing. I am thinking of using regex to allow routes with certain
AS
> PATH on the slower link and all others on the main link then,monitor the
> traffic flow and fine tune. Any suggestions?
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jared Scrivener
<jscrivener@ipexpert.com>wrote:
>
>> Try it without ebgp-multihop but using disable-connected-check
>> instead. See if that works Ive never tried them (dmzlink-bw and
>> disable-connected-check) together, but it might do the trick
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jared Scrivener CCIE3 #16983 (R&S, Security, SP), CISSP
>>
>> Sr. Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
>>
>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
>>
>> Fax: +1.810.454.0130
>>
>> Mailto: jscrivener@ipexpert.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ali El Moussaoui [mailto:mousawi.ali@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 March 2009 2:47 AM
>> *To:* Pavel Bykov
>> *Cc:* ron.wilkerson@gmail.com; Jared Scrivener; Cisco certification
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: BGP unequal load balancing
>>
>>
>>
>> Guys, I tried the dmzlink-bw with ebpg-multihop greater than 1 and it
>> failed.The router threw an error stating that this option is only allowed
on
>> directly connected neighbours (ebgp-multihop = 1)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Pavel Bykov <slidersv@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Uh... no, not junk.
>> There is no perfect load balancing algorithm (that I know of).
>> MLPPP, Etherchannel, CEF, you name it. Eveything has it's drawbacks.
>> Some of them are obvious, like differences in flow nature. Some of them
>> are more subtle, like polarization of ether channels.
>>
>> Remember, one flow is never a good reference.
>> On the other hand, if you have 20000 flows, then you'll see that load
>> balancing doesn't work that bad.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:49 AM, <ron.wilkerson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I understand all that but unless there is some background communication
>> between cef and bgp, the load sharing based on bandwidth isn't possible.
>>
>> Even if cef distributes the buckets to a proper ratio, based on the
>> bandwidth, that still doesn't mean that the multiple paths will be used
>> according to cef's ratio.
>>
>> Using your example, if one of the 5 hashes, given to the slower link
>> generates more traffic than the faster link, then this whole load sharing
>> based on bandwidth doesn't work.
>>
>> The only way for this feature to work properly is for bgp and cef to
>> monitor the interface utilization, and along with that info, decide which
>> path to take. I know this doesn't happen, so I think this feature is junk.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From*: Pavel Bykov
>> *Date*: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:23:34 +0100
>>
>>
>> *To*: <ron.wilkerson@gmail.com>
>> *Subject*: Re: BGP unequal load balancing
>>
>> By estimation.
>> I'm not sure exactly how it would be done in this case, but CEF balances
>> per SRC/DST pair by default.
>> To see what CEF choose some IOSes display the actual internal CEF table,
>> with 16 CEF entries for every destination network.
>> On most IOSes you can see CEF's choice using "show ip cef exact-route
>> SRC-ADDR DST-ADDR" command.
>>
>> If the ration is say 20:5, then out of 16 CEF entries, 4/5 will be sent to
>> one link and 1/5 to the other. Every SRC/DST pair generates a hash - from
1
>> to 16. In this case 3 hashes are assigned to one interface, and 13 to the
>> other.
>> So there is a bigger chance that a flow will be assigned to that interface
>> with bigger hash probability.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:55 PM, <ron.wilkerson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Then I don't see how this feature will work...
>> And bgp is not going to keep track of bandwidth utilization....so how does
>> this work exactly...
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From*: Pavel Bykov
>> *Date*: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:33:06 +0100
>> *To*: <ron.wilkerson@gmail.com>
>> *Subject*: Re: BGP unequal load balancing
>>
>> No, it's still flow based till you switch it. It will TRY to load balance.
>> By no means it means that it will be successful.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM, <ron.wilkerson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Follow up question...
>> Always wondered how bgp's unequal load sharing worked with cef. Since the
>> traffic count will be unequal when using this feature, is the router now
>> performing per packet load sharing?
>>
>> Example, with two paths (unequal)
>>
>> The traffic count for 1st will be, say 5.
>> The 2nd is 3.
>>
>> Wouldn't this lead one to believe that the router is load sharing per
>> packet instead of the default flow based?
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Jared Scrivener" <jscrivener@ipexpert.com>
>>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:25:28
>> To: 'Ali El Moussaoui'<mousawi.ali@gmail.com>; 'Cisco certification'<
>> ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> Subject: RE: BGP unequal load balancing
>>
>>
>> Hey Ali,
>>
>> Try using the "dmzlink-bw" command on your neighbor statements and the
>> "bgp
>> dmzlink-bw" command within the BGP process. Also, you'll need to set
>> "maximum-paths" to 2 (or higher)from within the BGP process (to enable
>> load-balancing).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jared Scrivener CCIE3 #16983 (R&S, Security, SP), CISSP
>> Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
>> Fax: +1.810.454.0130
>> Mailto: jscrivener@ipexpert.com
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> Ali
>> El Moussaoui
>> Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 11:06 AM
>> To: Cisco certification
>> Subject: BGP unequal load balancing
>>
>> Hello Experts,
>> Is there a method *unequal* Load Sharing When Dual-Homed to One Internet
>> Service Provider (ISP) Through a Single Local Router?
>>
>> I have 2 links to the Service Provider (20MB and 6MB). I am recieving the
>> full internet routing table from both links I need to load balance with a
>> ration of 20 : 6 is that possible?
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pavel Bykov
>> ----------------
>> Don't forget to help stopping the braindumps, use of which reduces value
>> of your certifications. Sign the petition at
>> http://www.stopbraindumps.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pavel Bykov
>> ----------------
>> Don't forget to help stopping the braindumps, use of which reduces value
>> of your certifications. Sign the petition at
>> http://www.stopbraindumps.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pavel Bykov
>> ----------------
>> Don't forget to help stopping the braindumps, use of which reduces value
>> of your certifications. Sign the petition at
>> http://www.stopbraindumps.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-- Pavel Bykov ---------------- Don't forget to help stopping the braindumps, use of which reduces value of your certifications. Sign the petition at http://www.stopbraindumps.com/Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 06 2009 - 06:44:06 ART