[j-nsp] Cant load share in Agregated sonet

Tommy Perniciaro TPerniciaro at accuvant.com
Thu Feb 19 01:42:40 EST 2009


Fortinet!

----- Original Message -----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net <juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net>
To: As ad Arafat <asad.arafat at gmail.com>
Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wed Feb 18 21:12:11 2009
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Cant load share in Agregated sonet

Activate "indexed-next-hop" and try this as hash key

hash-key {
     family mpls {
         label-1;
         payload {
             ip {
                 port-data;
             }
         }
     }
}

Thanks,
Nilesh.


As ad Arafat wrote:
> Hello Nilesh,
> 
> Thank you very much for your suggestion.
> I had try It out but the bandwidth same as before :(
> 
> load-balance {
>     no-next-hop-cloning;
>     inactive: equal-weighted-mode;
>     inactive: indexed-next-hop;
> }
> hash-key {
>     family inet {
>         layer-3;
>         layer-4;
>     }
>     family mpls {
>         label-1;
>         label-2;
>         payload {
>             ip;
>         }
>     }
> }
> 
> Logical interface as1.0 (Index 72) (SNMP ifIndex 133) (Generation 248)
>     Flags: Point-To-Point SNMP-Traps 0x4000 Encapsulation: PPP
>     Statistics        Packets        pps         Bytes          bps
>     Bundle:
>         Input :    1574238316      27467  549195500508     70996288
>         Output:    1585499563      27551  822963970038    121087264
>     Link:
>       so-0/1/1.0
>         Input :    1542528979      26723  531046561900     67867536
>         Output:     593617855       9115  130919023851     15468328
>       so-0/1/0.0
>         Input :      31709337        744   18148938608      3128752
>         Output:     991881708      18436  692044946187    105618936
> 
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Nilesh Khambal <nkhambal at juniper.net> wrote:
>> try, these things in the same order one at time and see if one of them makes
>> any difference.
>>
>> 1. Remove "equal-weighted-mode". Check load-balancing
>>
>> 2. Remove "indexed-next-hop" and add "no-next-hop-cloning" Check
>> load-balancing.
>>
>> load-balance {
>>    no-next-hop-cloning;
>> }
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nilesh.
>>
>> As ad Arafat wrote:
>>> Nilesh,
>>>
>>> Sorry to bothering you again, as JTAC suggestion, i had apply the
>>> forwarding-option configuration at the both side of PE:
>>>
>>> load-balance {
>>>    equal-weighted-mode;
>>>    indexed-next-hop;
>>> }
>>> hash-key {
>>>    family inet {
>>>        layer-3;
>>>        layer-4;
>>>    }
>>>    family mpls {
>>>        label-1;
>>>        label-2;
>>>        payload {
>>>            ip;
>>>        }
>>>    }
>>> }
>>>
>>> But it still cant load-share in the bandwith,  :(
>>> PE1.batam "sh int as1 detail"
>>>
>>> Logical interface as1.0 (Index 72) (SNMP ifIndex 133) (Generation 248)
>>>    Flags: Point-To-Point SNMP-Traps 0x4000 Encapsulation: PPP
>>>    Statistics        Packets        pps         Bytes          bps
>>>    Bundle:
>>>        Input :    1469518591      26072  515087563009     66790808
>>>        Output:    1479039012      25262  764318666407    106322328
>>>    Link:
>>>      so-0/1/1.0
>>>        Input :    1440546432      25294  498347148297     63414280
>>>        Output:     560001305       8109  123610734671     13742872
>>>      so-0/1/0.0
>>>        Input :      28972159        778   16740414712      3376528
>>>        Output:     919037707      17153  640707931736     92579456
>>>
>>> With this this bandwidth it seem 2 x stm-1 underutilized and the
>>> traffic over this interface experiencing heavy congestion.
>>> Do you have any suggestion to workaround this?
>>> If we remove the sonet links from aggregated sonet and created two
>>> independent sonet interface  do we have 2 x stm-1 bandwidth?
>>>
>>> Thanks before
>>>
>>> Best Regads
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:34 PM, As ad Arafat <asad.arafat at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> hehehe :D
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Nilesh
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Nilesh Khambal <nkhambal at juniper.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I see that you have a JTAC case opened. So I will shut up now :) and let
>>>>> JTAC drive it forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as a note, load balancing in JUNOS, largely depends on what kind of
>>>>> traffic you are trying to load balace. I am sure JTAC will ask you about
>>>>> it
>>>>> during the progress of the case. Unfortunately, there is no one solution
>>>>> that fits all the traffic patterns. It needs to be fine tuned as per
>>>>> your
>>>>> your requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Nilesh.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 17, 2009, at 9:49 PM, "As ad Arafat" <asad.arafat at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nilesh,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already  add "family inet" as hash-key on both PE, but it still cant
>>>>>> achieve load sharing in as1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Regards
>>>>>> As'ad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Nilesh Khambal <nkhambal at juniper.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Is it the traffic coming in from "pacnet" vrf that you are trying to
>>>>>>> load
>>>>>>> balance when going over as1 towards MPLS cloud? If so, I think you
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> configure "family inet" hashing as well on the PE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Nilesh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As ad Arafat wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Nilesh,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I attached  "show route a.b.c.d extensive" and "show route
>>>>>>>> forwarding-table destination a.b.c.d extensive"
>>>>>>>> i use hash like this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hash-key {
>>>>>>>>  family mpls {
>>>>>>>>     label-1;
>>>>>>>>     payload {
>>>>>>>>         ip;
>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Nilesh Khambal
>>>>>>>> <nkhambal at juniper.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Can you please send the output of below 2 commands for the
>>>>>>>>> destination
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> you want to load balance?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "show route a.b.c.d extensive"
>>>>>>>>> "show route forwarding-table destination a.b.c.d extensive"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What kind of hashing have you configured under "edit
>>>>>>>>> forwarding-options"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Nilesh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As ad Arafat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi list,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I got m7i and m10i linked aggregated sonet interface with 2 sonet
>>>>>>>>>> interface inside it.
>>>>>>>>>> I already add load-balancing per-packet policy and
>>>>>>>>>> forwarding-option
>>>>>>>>>> cinfiguration
>>>>>>>>>> But one of sonet interface seem underutilized.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any workaround for this issue?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best Regads
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Asad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>>>>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>>>> <PE1.Equinix6>
>>>>>> <PE1.Batam6>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list