[c-nsp] per-packet load sharing.

[Ibrahim Abo Zaid]

Hi Rode

i believe that according for GRE order of operation , GRE encapsulation
occurs first then routing decesion will be taken based on destination
address of GRE-Encapsualted headers
means that you will need 2 equal-cost routes for the GRE-tunnel destination
192.168.2.1

so check your router routing table for network 192.168.2.1 route and ensure
it has 2 routes

also , CEF has a default load-sharing per-destination enabled so make sure
to change it under interfaces to load-sharing per-packet


best regards
--Abo Zaid


On Dec 10, 2007 1:42 PM, Joe Provo <jzp-cnsp at rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 05:39:07PM -0800, virendra rode // wrote:
> [snip]
> > In order to distribute traffic (load-sharing) across two links I'm
> > looking at enabling equal cost traffic (per-packet load sharing) going
> > out both serial links as their data processing is overloading one link.
> > The equal cost routes with CEF default load sharing is not distributing
> > the load over the 2 links as expected.  MLPPP is not an option for
> > budget reasons hence I'm looking at doing per-packet.
> [snip]
> > Any recommendation and /or feedback will be appreciated.
>
> ECMP in routing protocols good, per-packet bad.  If you care at all
> about TCP performance or have jitter-sensitive traffic then don't do
> it.  Your best bet is to suss out how much BGP you can eat on the
> platform, get that data and (backfill with 0/0 if you are on a limited
> platform), then slice and dice your load at that level.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joe
> --
>             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/
>