Totally offtopic, but fun ;-)
It could be referring to the lack of default load balancing in Junos, which
can be enabled through policy-options for individual routes.
For example, with the following configuration:
interfaces {
fe-0/0/0 {
vlan-tagging;
unit 1 {
vlan-id 1;
family inet {
address 192.168.1.1/24;
}
}
unit 2 {
vlan-id 2;
family inet {
address 192.168.2.1/24;
}
}
}
}
routing-options {
static {
route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop [ 192.168.1.254 192.168.2.254 ];
}
}
We'll end-up having only one default route in the routing table:
------------------------------8<------------------------------
ipexpert_at_Pod401-R1# run show route 0.0.0.0/0 exact detail
inet.0: 5 destinations, 5 routes (5 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
0.0.0.0/0 (1 entry, 1 announced)
*Static Preference: 5
Next hop type: Router
Address: 0x1695010
Next-hop reference count: 1
Next hop: 192.168.1.254 via fe-0/0/0.1
Next hop: 192.168.2.254 via fe-0/0/0.2, selected <------
see here
State: <Active Int Ext>
Age: 2:59
Task: RT
Announcement bits (1): 0-KRT
AS path: I
ipexpert_at_Pod401-R1# run show route forwarding-table
Routing table: default.inet
Internet:
Destination Type RtRef Next hop Type Index NhRef Netif
default user 0 78:fe:3d:d4:86:80 ucst 553 4
fe-0/0/0.2 <------ see here
[...]
------------------------------8<------------------------------
However, I can add a policy to enable load balancing using policy-options:
policy-options {
policy-statement Enable-ECMP {
from {
protocol static;
route-filter 0.0.0.0/0 exact;
}
then {
load-balance per-packet;
}
}
}
routing-options {
forwarding-table {
export Enable-ECMP;
}
}
I get a little bit different result:
------------------------------8<------------------------------
ipexpert_at_Pod401-R1# ...show route forwarding-table destination 0.0.0.0/0
Routing table: default.inet
Internet:
Destination Type RtRef Next hop Type Index NhRef Netif
default user 0 ulst 262142 2
78:fe:3d:d4:86:80 ucst 552 3 fe-0/0/0.1
78:fe:3d:d4:86:80 ucst 553 3 fe-0/0/0.2
------------------------------8<------------------------------
Strange new world, eh? ;-)
-- Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S) Senior CCIE Instructor - IPexpert On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 07:21, Group Study <gs_at_netengineer.org> wrote: > Ohhh... that terminology is for NIC teaming on the server side... > gotcha.. but I thought this term was used by Juniper as well? > > Yep, LACP and PaGP for Cisco but thought there was some thing specific > to "Dynamic Load Balancing" from Juniper? > > > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Ryan West <rwest_at_zyedge.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 09:36:38, Group Study wrote: > >> Subject: OT: "Dynamic Load balancing or 802.1AX" in Juniper, something > >> similar in Cisco? > >> > >> Hi Guys, > >> > >> Any one know where on Cisco's site I can get more info on "Dynamic > >> Load Balacing" or 802.1AX? I guess the feature in quotes is something > >> related to Juniper and want to find out if Cisco has something > comparable. > >> > >> > > > > Yes, Cisco supports LACP. Dynamic Load Balancing is a terminology that > HP teaming software will use as well, they all basically mean > 802.3AD/802.1AX. > > > > -ryan > > > 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.netReceived on Thu Apr 05 2012 - 10:03:14 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue May 01 2012 - 08:20:45 ART