[c-nsp] CEF-based per-packet load-sharing under MPLS VPN

[Everton da Silva Marques]

Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
> 
> I assume you are talking about static PE-CE routing?

Yes.

> Have you considered a recursive load-sharing?

No, we haven't. I'm testing your suggestion
right now, but no luck yet.

In my test scenario, interfaces Serial6/0/0:0 and
Serial6/0/1:0 are attached to vrf 5500000001-99.
5500000001-98 is the other test vrf on the same
PE. I have added these recursive routes for the
test network 10.14.62.0/32:

ip route vrf 5500000001-99 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255 Serial6/0/0:0 10.4.62.2
ip route vrf 5500000001-99 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255 Serial6/0/1:0 10.6.3.130
ip route vrf 5500000001-99 10.14.62.0 255.255.255.255 1.1.1.1

This is what I see:

#sh ip bgp vpnv4 vrf 5500000001-98 10.14.62.0
BGP routing table entry for 15180:4829:10.14.62.0/32, version 358152
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table 5500000001-98)
  Not advertised to any peer
  Local, imported path from 15180:4824:10.14.62.0/32
    0.0.0.0 (via 5500000001-99) from 0.0.0.0 (200.202.113.165)
      Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, weight 32768, valid, external, best
      Extended Community: RT:15180:1 RT:15180:4701 RT:15180:5001
        RT:15180:5009

#sh ip cef vrf 5500000001-98 10.14.62.0
0.0.0.0/0, version 0, epoch 0, attached, default route handler
0 packets, 0 bytes
  Flow: AS 0, mask 0
  via 0.0.0.0, 0 dependencies
    valid null adjacency

Was this the expected behavior?

> For dynamic PE-CE routing, iBGP/eiBGP multipath
> should give you the knobs to import multiple
> paths into your BGP table(s).

We'll consider dynamic PE-CE routing.
 
> I assume if you have scenario 1 working, you
> don't need the 2nd setup (load-shared interfaces
> in multiple vrfs) anymore?

Yes.

Thank you, Oliver.

Regards,
Everton