[c-nsp] ip load-sharing per-packet and RPF

[Marr, Joe]

I believe the inbound is identical. This setup was done before my time
(I've only been here for a few months). They statically point the routes
to their serial for me. I'm told that the T1's are on the same router on
their side, and based on the way they addressed the IPs for them
(sequential /30s) it appears so.

Inbound and outbound traffic stats are identical.

I guess that I didn't ask the question right, what I wanted to know is,
can the two commands work together, and if so is this a routing issue.

I agree that on the surface it could be an asymmetric routing issue, but
I had that that this type of configuration was suppose to overcome that.

Joe Marr

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rey Martin
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:39 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ip load-sharing per-packet and RPF

Yep, you have full control for outbound traffic, how about inbound?

the inbound traffic could be from any of them right?


rey


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marr, Joe" <jmarr at brodart.com>
To: "Rey Martin" <rey.martin at qalacom.com>; <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:12 AM
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ip load-sharing per-packet and RPF


> Sure,
> 
> I'm a little dense today.
> 
> I have 2 AT&T T1s going to the same pop router; they have static's
> pointing to the serial interfaces (which are on the same router on my
> side)and I have 2 defaults pointing to my serials back to them. 
> 
> Based on the util. graphs, the look almost mirrored (and yes, they are
> reading different snmp interface IDs).
> 
> I've never used CEF to control my traffic in this manner before, so
> maybe it's my lack of understanding.
> 
> So it could be asymmetrical, but I had thought that that using the "ip
> load-sharing per-packet" resolved some if not all of that.
> 
> Is the load sharing doing roundrobin or something. If that's the case
> then why does several Cisco resources say that RPF supports per-packet
> load sharing.
> 
> Joe Marr
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rey Martin
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 12:44 PM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ip load-sharing per-packet and RPF
> 
> I think it's because your network  has asymmetrical routing (2T1 and
> load 
> balanced?)
> 
> rey
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Marr, Joe" <jmarr at brodart.com>
> To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:32 PM
> Subject: [c-nsp] ip load-sharing per-packet and RPF
> 
> 
>> Is it possible to run "ip load-sharing per-packet" and "ip verify
>> unicast reverse-path" on the same interfaces?
>>
>>
>>
>> I have 2 T1s that are load-balanced with my provider using "ip
>> load-sharing per-packet". When I set "ip verify unicast reverse-path"
> I
>> begin to lose every other packet. I had thought Unicast RPF was
>> compatible with CEF's per-packet and per-destination load sharing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe Marr
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/