[j-nsp] M10i Version 7.0 R1.5 Per-packet Load Balancing
Thomas, Steven
SThomas at birch.com
Mon Jun 13 16:34:38 EDT 2005
Ok, then how many flows do I need to determine whether a given strategy
is working? I was originally trying to set up some COS based forwarding
but I couldn't seem to get that working either so I dropped back to
simple load-balancing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Reynolds [mailto:harry at juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:26 PM
To: Thomas, Steven; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] M10i Version 7.0 R1.5 Per-packet Load Balancing
Note that per-packet is really per flow, and that a hack algorithm is
used to select the next hop. I suspect that the presence of option when
performing a source-route is affecting the hash, and therefore altering
the next hop. Put another way, it is not uncommon to see per flow
balancing not select all possible next-hops when there are only a few
flows because not every bit in the IP and transport headers is hashed
against.
HTHs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Thomas, Steven
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 1:22 PM
> To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [j-nsp] M10i Version 7.0 R1.5 Per-packet Load Balancing
>
> I have been through the documentation and the archives of
> this mailing list and I'm at wit's end. I believe I've set
> this up so it should work but it doesn't seem to EXCEPT when
> I ping with the route-record option on. Then it works
> perfectly. Other traffic, such as plain pings, ftp and
> telnet always take the same route.
>
> This is the Junos config:
>
> interfaces {
> fe-0/0/0 {
> unit 0 {
> family inet {
> address 10.10.152.253/24;
> }
> }
> }
> fe-0/0/1 {
> unit 0 {
> family inet {
> address 10.10.153.253/24;
> }
> }
> }
> at-0/2/0 {
> mtu 9192;
> clocking internal;
> atm-options {
> vpi 15;
> }
> unit 15102 {
> point-to-point;
> vci 15.102;
> family inet {
> address 172.16.1.5/30;
> }
> }
> }
> routing-options {
> static {
> route 192.168.168.0/24 {
> next-hop [ 10.10.153.1 172.16.1.6 ];
> metric 1;
> preference 150;
> }
> }
> forwarding-table {
> export load-balance;
> }
> }
> policy-options {
> policy-statement load-balance {
> from {
> route-filter 192.168.168.0/24 exact;
> }
> then {
> load-balance per-packet;
> }
> }
> }
>
> FE-0/0/0,10.10.152.0/24 is connected to a Linux box which is
> my traffic source. Fe-0/0/1,10.10.153.0/24 connects to
> virtual router A on an ERX and at-0/2/0.15102 connects to
> virtual router B on the same ERX.
> 192.168.168.0/24 is an ethernet containing two Sun boxes
> which are my traffic destinations and resides on virtual
> router B. Virtual router A and B are directly connected with
> another ethernet.
>
> This is the output of show route 192.168.168.0/24 extensive:
>
> 192.168.168.0/24 (1 entry, 1 announced)
> TSI:
> KRT in-kernel 192.168.168.0/24 -> {10.10.153.1, 172.16.1.6}
> *Static Preference: 150
> Next-hop reference count: 2
> Next hop: 10.10.153.1 via fe-0/0/1.0
> Next hop: 172.16.1.6 via at-0/2/0.15102, selected
> State: <Active Int Ext>
> Age: 4:33:55 Metric: 1 Tag: 0
> Task: RT
> Announcement bits (1): 0-KRT
> AS path: I
>
> {master}
>
> Is there something wrong with my config or is there a bug in
> this version or what? Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Steve Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
More information about the juniper-nsp
mailing list