Re: Internet Traffic load balancing

From: Marko Milivojevic <markom_at_ipexpert.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 16:40:17 -0700

I don't follow every topic on GS in detail, but as I said - I haven't
tested this.

Do you have a link to a document where this is detailed?

--
Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427
Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert
FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture
Mailto: markom_at_ipexpert.com
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 16:32, Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> wrote:
> AFAIK, it's been documented that it works as Brian says, i.e., 5:2 relation,
> or even 7:3 if need be.
> This same topic has been here some 2 or 3 months ago ?
> -Carlos
>
> Marko Milivojevic @ 02/05/2011 20:06 -0300 dixit:
>>
>> To make my argument further:
>>
>> R2#sh ip cef 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 detail
>> 0.0.0.0/0, epoch 0, per-destination sharing
>> B DefNet source: 0.0.0.0/0
>> B recursive via 169.254.1.1
>> B  B recursive via 10.0.0.1
>> B  B  B attached to GigabitEthernet0/0
>> B recursive via 169.254.1.2
>> B  B recursive via 10.0.0.1
>> B  B  B attached to GigabitEthernet0/0
>> B recursive via 169.254.1.3
>> B  B recursive via 10.0.0.1
>> B  B  B attached to GigabitEthernet0/0
>> B recursive via 169.254.1.4
>> B  B recursive via 10.0.0.1
>> B  B  B attached to GigabitEthernet0/0
>> B recursive via 169.254.1.5
>> B  B recursive via 10.0.0.1
>> B  B  B attached to GigabitEthernet0/0
>> B recursive via 169.254.2.1
>> B  B recursive via 20.0.0.2
>> B  B  B attached to GigabitEthernet0/1
>> B recursive via 169.254.2.2
>> B  B recursive via 20.0.0.2
>> B  B  B attached to GigabitEthernet0/1
>>
>> As you can see, CEF resolves this in the manner I described.
>>
>> --
>> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427
>> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert
>>
>> FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture
>>
>> Mailto: markom_at_ipexpert.com
>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
>> Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 15:55, Marko Milivojevic <markom_at_ipexpert.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 15:52, Brian McGahan <bmcgahan_at_ine.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes each route is equal, but more point to one exit point vs. another.
>>>> Try it, it works.
>>>
>>> Just to make it clear - I'm not arguing. I like the solution, but I'm
>>> not sure if it's going to solve the problem for the reasons below.
>>>
>>> I'm sure they will show in the routing table as 7 different routes.
>>> However, when CEF resolves adjacencies, there will still be only two
>>> exits. While we may have the impression that we have 5:2 ratio by
>>> looking into the RIB, are we _actually_ going to have it with the
>>> traffic.
>>>
>>> Without generating the traffic and measuring the output, I'm not quite
>>> sure how to test this...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427
>>> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert
>>>
>>> FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture
>>>
>>> Mailto: markom_at_ipexpert.com
>>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
>>> Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Carlos G Mendioroz B <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> B LW7 EQI B Argentina
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon May 02 2011 - 16:40:17 ART

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jun 01 2011 - 09:01:11 ART