From: maureen schaar (maureen.schaar@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 27 2007 - 06:26:02 ART
Channel itself does not have to be L3 to support an ip-based
load-balancing scheme. However, the traffic being transported over the
channel, does have to cross a L3 boundary in order for any ip-based
load-balancing to be effective. Mac-based load-balancing int this case
would not be benificial if you are using one router on each end of the
link, because then the source and destination mac address will always
be the same and will be calculated to the same physical link.
If you are communicating within one vlan over this channel, then
src-mac on both sides will probably be sufficient, in some cases
dst-mac could be better (many flows from one hosts to multiple hosts).
If you are communicating between servers and clients in different
vlan's, where most of the traffic is coming from the servers, then
dst-ip on the server-side on the channel would make sense (and maybe
src-ip on the client side).
Here's a good reference from the cisco website:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094714.shtml
Maureen
On 3/27/07, Digital Yemeni <digital.yemeni@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Got a question...
>
> dst-ip
> src-dst-ip
> src-ip
>
> Since all these are options based on IP, must the etherchannel be L3 for
> them to be used or it does not really matter?! As far as i can understand
> this, if the switches are L2 channelized then they will not be able to
> understand this IP load balancing? Does it make sense?!
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards!
> Digital, CCIE# to be assigned by Cisco when it collects enough $$ out of me!
> :p
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 06:35:53 ART