[j-nsp] per packet/flow load balancing.

[Stephen Gill]

Load balancing per destination will also accomplish this.  Per flow load
balancing is just a more fine-grained way of doing so.  

-- steve

-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-admin@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-admin@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Todd Regonini
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:45 AM
To: Jonathan Tse; Ben Buxton; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] per packet/flow load balancing.

"load-balance per-packet" will allow you to load balance traffic across
multiple equal-cost paths.  However, this is not done on a per packet
basis.  It is done on a per flow basis.  Keeping the flows together is a
good thing.  You will need to setup multiple streams in your scenario
below to accomplish what you want.  Thanks.

T
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Tse [mailto:jonathantse@pacific.net.sg]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:28 AM
To: Ben Buxton; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] per packet/flow load balancing.


So that means the "load-balance per-packet" is useless?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Buxton" <b.buxton@planettechnologies.nl>
To: "'Jonathan Tse'" <jonathantse@pacific.net.sg>;
<juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] per packet/flow load balancing.


>
> Since the IP2 processor, load balancing per packet is a bit of
> a misnomer. A modern Juniper will load balance per *flow*,
> even though the config says per-packet.
>
> You cannot do true per packet load balancing on a Juniper. Which
> is a good thing at the datarates they're designed for.
>
> So if you're measuring with a single flow, this might explain it.
>
> BB
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Tse [mailto:jonathantse@pacific.net.sg]
> Sent: maandag 25 november 2002 16:59
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [j-nsp] per packet/flow load balancing.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This has been discussed many times here. Apologize if someone think
this
is
> too simple. But only now I give it a try and without luck.
>
> I have setup this in the test lab:
>
>            /-- IBGP -- router A -- EBGP --\
> router C <                                 > router D
>            \-- IBGP -- router B -- EBGP --/
>
> I believe there are equal cost paths but the router C doesn't seem to
be
> able the load balance per packet.
>
> Below is a snapshot from router C:
>
> 192.168.44.0/22    *[BGP/170] 19:07:50, MED 90, localpref 350, from
> 192.168.9.2
>                       AS path: 64665 64665 I
>                       to 192.168.4.1 via ge-0/1/0.0
>                     > to 192.168.4.2 via ge-0/1/0.0
> 192.168.48.0/22    *[BGP/170] 19:07:50, MED 90, localpref 350, from
> 192.168.9.2
>                       AS path: 64665 64665 I
>                     > to 192.168.4.1 via ge-0/1/0.0
>                       to 192.168.4.2 via ge-0/1/0.0
>
> router C# show policy-options policy-statement load-balancing-policy
> from as-path TEST-AS;
> then {
>     load-balance per-packet;
> }
>
> router C# show policy-options as-path TEST-AS
> "64665 .*";
>
> router C# show routing-options forwarding-table
> export load-balancing-policy;
>
> I have even configured "multipath" at BGP but doesn't help still.
>
> I wonder how do I verify whether the per packet load balancing is
being
> enabled other than traceroute.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jonathan.
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp