Re: Internet Traffic load balancing

I'd love to, but that, once again, requires packet generator, which I
don't have readily available. Someone else needs to volunteer for this
one :-). I'll keep on slamming the CEF solution, as I'm curious about
it. PBR... nah, never scales - it's a band-aid.

--
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 18:39, ALL From_NJ <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.B  The CEF
> load balancing idea is fine if all flows are equal ... but ... as we know,
> no all flows are equal.B  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?B  What if a voice and or video etc ... also happen to also go
> out the slow link?B  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.B  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?B B  You will need to monitor the interfaces / queues for
> drops etc ...
>
> I am learning from you all!B  Nice to see this thread!!!B B  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" .B  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 {
>> > B 101.100.100.100
>> > B 102.100.100.100
>> > B 103.100.100.100
>> > B 104.100.100.100
>> > B 105.100.100.100
>> > B 106.100.100.100
>> > B 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
>> > B  B  B 4 packets output, 456 bytes, 0 underruns
>> > R2#sh int gi0/1 | i packets out
>> > B  B  B 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 B <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> B LW7 EQI B 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