Re: Internet Traffic load balancing

Very cool to see this idea, wow ... I would not have thought of that.

I would however, be more inclined to consider a different solution. The CEF
load balancing idea is fine if all flows are equal ... but ... as we know,
no all flows are equal. And ... nothing will come out even or exactly
70/30% either ... so we should probably aim for 'close-enough'.

What type of traffic are we talking about?

What about the millisecond bursts, what if a 'heavy' flow goes out the
slower link? What if a voice and or video etc ... also happen to also go
out the slow link? Which flow gets dropped, delayed, shaped ... etc ....?
Is this ok?

Since this clever solution only considers L3, you may be causing more harm
at various times in your network.

From a production standpoint, this would be hard to pinpoint and tshoot
since the nature of flows is changing ... good today, bad tomorrow, good at
10 am, but not at 1PM when people come back from lunch ... etc ...

Might be best to look at PBR or another solution which can distribute the
load based on packet sizes or protocol. Maybe send just http or something
similar out the slow link, and send everything else out the larger
connection.

Also, whatever solution is chosen, how will you know if you have configured
the right solution? You will need to monitor the interfaces / queues for
drops etc ...

I am learning from you all! Nice to see this thread!!! You guys totally
rock.

I vote for a lab test ... who can test this, PBR, and this scenario?
"Inquiring minds what to know" ... as the expression goes.

All those in favor of Marko testing this, say "Aye" . I think the group
votes for you Marko ...

;-)

.
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:55 PM, <ron.wilkerson_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Most definitely per packet.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>
> Sender: nobody_at_groupstudy.com
> Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 21:45:14
> To: Marko Milivojevic<markom_at_ipexpert.com>
> Reply-To: Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>
> Cc: Brian McGahan<bmcgahan_at_ine.com>; masroor ali<masror.ali_at_gmail.com>;
> Cisco certification<ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
> Subject: Re: Internet Traffic load balancing
>
> This was generated from the switching point ? I.e. it was generated by
> the router having the 5:2 statics ?
>
> I would test it from a neighbour, so CEF is used for sure. Local trafic
> is process switched most probably.
>
> -Carlos
>
> Marko Milivojevic @ 02/05/2011 21:10 -0300 dixit:
> >> I wonder if we could test this with a simple ping?
> >
> > Disclaimer: This is unbelievably unscientific, quick and dirty and in
> > no way proves either point. I still think a proper traffic generator
> > is required.
> >
> > I added 7 loopbacks on another router (the one that is default gateway
> > for both interfaces):
> >
> > 101.100.100.100
> > 102.100.100.100
> > 103.100.100.100
> > 104.100.100.100
> > 105.100.100.100
> > 106.100.100.100
> > 107.100.100.100
> >
> > I ran the following from the router with static routes (prior to this,
> > I made sure the ARP table was populated and I cleared the counters and
> > disabled anything else on the router than can generate packets and/or
> > frames, leaving only my pings in output counters):
> >
> > foreach ip {
> > 101.100.100.100
> > 102.100.100.100
> > 103.100.100.100
> > 104.100.100.100
> > 105.100.100.100
> > 106.100.100.100
> > 107.100.100.100
> > } { ping $ip repe 1 }
> >
> > What I should be seeing is 5:2 ratio in packets. This is what I got:
> >
> > R2#sh int gi0/0 | i packets out
> > 4 packets output, 456 bytes, 0 underruns
> > R2#sh int gi0/1 | i packets out
> > 3 packets output, 342 bytes, 0 underruns
> >
> > Which leads me to my original assumption of 1:1 ratio.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew Lee Lissitz
all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net