[j-nsp] traffic load balancing between Juniper and Cisco equipment
tom at snnap.net
Mon Aug 22 17:59:33 EDT 2011
Or where MLPPP is not possible (since some ISPs dont allow it for various
reason), some sort of E/IGP and an appropriate multipath/equal cost routing
Perhaps not as seamless as MLPPP as you'll need to wait for the protocol to
realise the other end is no longer there, but on the way down I think even
MLPPP wont be entirely seamless either (it also needs to work out that the
other end isnt there), causing perhaps minimal p/l, but I think everything
will be like that anyway.
Theres is also this thing called "qualified-next-hop" in JunOS which you
might be able to use in conjunction with object tracking on the Cisco side
to create static routes that load balance across available links using equal
cost routing. Not 100% sure if it will allow multiple routes/paths to exist
though, have not looked at it in that way yet...
I used qualified-next-hop to configure a failover solution for a friends
business. User LAN traffic was policy routed out of a cheapie ADSL
connection while servers take a default route via an SHDSL circuit. But
should ADSL fail, user LAN traffic would roll over to the SHDSL circuit. It
works pretty well, but getting a bit O/T.
On 22 August 2011 14:36, Gabriel Blanchard <gabe at teksavvy.ca> wrote:
> On 08/21/2011 08:11 PM, Martin T wrote:
>> Is it possible to load-balance traffic between a Juniper M10i and
>> Cisco 1812 using two different last-mile(ADSL2+) providers? Topology
>> should be like this:
>> Idea is to use both ADSL2+ links simultaneously in order to achieve
>> better speed. In case on of the link fails, the traffic should use the
>> available ADSL2+ path. Is such load-balancing doable using the Juniper
>> PE router and Cisco CPE? If yes, what are the optimal/easiest
>> technologies to achieve the goals I described?
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
More information about the juniper-nsp