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

[Marr, Joe]

I'm not receiving any external routes (i.e via bgp). So my router
wouldn't know where loopback was unless I routed that to each serial
port, which won't do me any good.

Joe Marr

-----Original Message-----
From: Amol Sapkal [mailto:amolsapkal at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:04 PM
To: Marr, Joe
Cc: Rey Martin; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ip load-sharing per-packet and RPF

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:12:41 -0400, Marr, Joe <jmarr at brodart.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 

Though I am not sure, if I understood your setup and the problem, I
think the best way to load balance is point the default route to a
loopback on your provider's router and put 2 static routes to that IP,
via your T1s.
I have a similar setup. I have ip cef enabled globally, and ip
load-sharing per-packet enabled on the 3 outgoing interfaces, but I
still do not see equal outgoing load on the interfaces.



> 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/
> 


-- 
Warm Regds,

Amol Sapkal

--------------------------------------------------------------------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind 
- Mahatma Gandhi
--------------------------------------------------------------------