Re: Internet Traffic load balancing

Well ... maybe some tap water ... we shall see. Awww what the heck, you are
a great guy, ok, unflavored water it is ...

.

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Marko Milivojevic <markom_at_ipexpert.com>wrote:

> Can I opt for unflavored water? ;-)
>
>
> --
> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427
> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert
>
> Free CCIE Training: <http://bit.ly/vLecture>http://bit.ly/vLecture
>
> Mailto: <markom_at_ipexpert.com>markom_at_ipexpert.com
> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
> Community: <http://www.ipexpert.com/communities>
> http://www.ipexpert.com/communities
>
> :: Sent from my phone. Apologies for errors and brevity. ::
>
>
> On May 2, 2011, at 18:48, ALL From_NJ <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When we get to Vegas, I will buy / bring you a free Coors or Bud at the
> booth at the solutions center.
>
> LOL
>
>
> .
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Marko Milivojevic < <markom_at_ipexpert.com>
> markom_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:
>
>> 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>http://bit.ly/vLecture
>>
>> Mailto: <markom_at_ipexpert.com>markom_at_ipexpert.com
>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
>> Web: <http://www.ipexpert.com/>http://www.ipexpert.com/
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 18:39, ALL From_NJ < <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com>
>> 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. 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>
>> 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>tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>
>> >> Sender: <nobody_at_groupstudy.com>nobody_at_groupstudy.com
>> >> Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 21:45:14
>> >> To: Marko Milivojevic< <markom_at_ipexpert.com>markom_at_ipexpert.com>
>> >> Reply-To: Carlos G Mendioroz < <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>
>> >> Cc: Brian McGahan< <bmcgahan_at_ine.com>bmcgahan_at_ine.com>; masroor ali<<masror.ali_at_gmail.com>
>> masror.ali_at_gmail.com>;
>> >> Cisco certification< <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>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>http://bit.ly/vLecture
>> >> >
>> >> > Mailto: <markom_at_ipexpert.com>markom_at_ipexpert.com
>> >> > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
>> >> > Web: <http://www.ipexpert.com/>http://www.ipexpert.com/
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Blogs and organic groups at <http://www.ccie.net>http://www.ccie.net
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> >> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> >> > <http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html>
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Carlos G Mendioroz < <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI
>> Argentina
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Blogs and organic groups at <http://www.ccie.net>http://www.ccie.net
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________________________________
>> >> Subscription information may be found at:
>> >> <http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html>
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Blogs and organic groups at <http://www.ccie.net>http://www.ccie.net
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________________________________
>> >> Subscription information may be found at:
>> >> <http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html>
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andrew Lee Lissitz
>> > <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com>all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Lee Lissitz
> <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com>all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
>
>

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