Re: Internet Traffic load balancing

I don't recall the place where I see it first,
Ivan Pepelnjak has a nice blog post at
http://blog.ioshints.info/2006/10/cef-load-sharing-details.html

-Carlos

Marko Milivojevic @ 02/05/2011 20:40 -0300 dixit:
> 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
>>> DefNet source: 0.0.0.0/0
>>> recursive via 169.254.1.1
>>> recursive via 10.0.0.1
>>> attached to GigabitEthernet0/0
>>> recursive via 169.254.1.2
>>> recursive via 10.0.0.1
>>> attached to GigabitEthernet0/0
>>> recursive via 169.254.1.3
>>> recursive via 10.0.0.1
>>> attached to GigabitEthernet0/0
>>> recursive via 169.254.1.4
>>> recursive via 10.0.0.1
>>> attached to GigabitEthernet0/0
>>> recursive via 169.254.1.5
>>> recursive via 10.0.0.1
>>> attached to GigabitEthernet0/0
>>> recursive via 169.254.2.1
>>> recursive via 20.0.0.2
>>> attached to GigabitEthernet0/1
>>> recursive via 169.254.2.2
>>> recursive via 20.0.0.2
>>> 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 <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
>>

-- 
Carlos G Mendioroz  <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>  LW7 EQI  Argentina
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net