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

[Jonathan Tse]

thanks for all the replies!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Regonini" <regonini@juniper.net>
To: "Jonathan Tse" <jonathantse@pacific.net.sg>; "Ben Buxton"
<b.buxton@planettechnologies.nl>; <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:45 AM
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
>