[c-nsp] Microsoft NLB vs Cisco

[Arie Vayner]

Tim,

May I offer another approach? Maybe you could just drop NLB, and use the IP
SLB feature you have inside your Sup720?

Arie

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Tim Durack <tdurack at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Peter Rathlev <peter at rathlev.dk> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 12:09 -0400, Tim Durack wrote:
> >> Anyone using Microsoft NLB Multicast mode for a cluster?
> >>
> >> It requires a static arp entry on Cisco, as the cluster ip resolves to
> >> a multicast mac, which can't/shouldn't be learned via arp.
> >
> > I find that a very irritating requirement of the MS NLB. :-)
> >
> >> So we do something like: "arp a.b.c.d 0100.5e7f.xxyy arpa"
> >> Apparently this results in software switching the adjacency on a
> >> Sup720, which is painful to say the least.
> >>
> >> Any suggestions?
> >
> > I guess you're referring to CSCee49121 "static ARPs dont create adjs
> > when used with routes pointing at intf". I thought this was only a
> > problem if you used it like this:
> >
> > ip route 10.11.12.13 255.255.255.255 Gi1/1
> > arp 10.11.12.13 030b.adc0.ffee Gi1/1
> >
> > Is the problem also there without the route statement? We use it against
> > two MS NLBs, and we don't see any problems. The traffic doesn't seem to
> > be software switched, but apart from consulting Feature Manager and
> > looking at the CPU interrupt usage, I'm not completely sure how to check
> > it. How do you do it?
>
> No static route - maybe that's the difference.
>
> Educated guess work. CPU is running >90%. Install a CoPP policy
> dropping the traffic, and CPU drops back to a more normal ~30%.
>
> Monday I plan to try a SPAN against the rp, and see what is hitting
> it. I need this to tune CoPP anyway.
>
> > Regards,
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>