Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > FastEtherchannel balencing between Cat5500 and C7513 router?

Reply
Thread Tools

FastEtherchannel balencing between Cat5500 and C7513 router?

 
 
Howard Leadmon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2004

I have a question maybe some might shed some light on, as I have yet to
figure out what I would have to change to make this work correctly in both
directions.

OK, let me describe this just to make sure people understand what I am
asking here. On my Cat5500 I have two FE ports setup in a FastEtherchannel
config, and they are interconnect back to my 7513 router to two FE ports
also setup in a FastEtherchannel config, where I have the two FE ports as
part of a PortChannel group used to connect with the switch.

On the 7513 where I have about 90 meg of traffic flowing, it seems to work
well, wiht about 50 meg going over one FE port, and 40 meg going over the
other FE port, so it is using both FE's to send traffic to the switch. Now
here is the problem, on the Cat5500, when it is sending data back to the
router, all traffic flows on only one FE port, with the other one sitting
at pretty much 0 in return. If I break the group it will then use the
other channel, but it will never use both to load share. The problem is
that I have 90-95 meg of traffic flowing back to the router, so it's pretty
much pounding the heck out of that single FE port.

Does anyone know how I can make the Cat5500 balence it's return traffic
flow? Is this possible, or do I just need to find some GEIP boards for my
7513 and move to GE? Needless to say I would like this to work, and it
would stop the traffic bottleneck I see at times from the switch to the
router.

FYI, the 5500 is running with a Sup3G, and has the current CatOS 6.4
software in it, and also has the RSFC daughter card installed. If anyone
knows how I can make this work, I would sure appreicate some help, thanks..

-Howard

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Walter Roberson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2004
In article <Xns949DA3CFD1D7CVorlon5@207.114.4.10>,
Howard Leadmon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: OK, let me describe this just to make sure people understand what I am
:asking here. On my Cat5500 I have two FE ports setup in a FastEtherchannel
:config, and they are interconnect back to my 7513 router to two FE ports
:also setup in a FastEtherchannel config, where I have the two FE ports as
art of a PortChannel group used to connect with the switch.

: On the 7513 where I have about 90 meg of traffic flowing, it seems to work
:well, wiht about 50 meg going over one FE port, and 40 meg going over the
ther FE port, so it is using both FE's to send traffic to the switch. Now
:here is the problem, on the Cat5500, when it is sending data back to the
:router, all traffic flows on only one FE port, with the other one sitting
:at pretty much 0 in return. If I break the group it will then use the
ther channel, but it will never use both to load share.

Please see http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/4.html
for the description of how the 5000 series load balances.
--
I don't know if there's destiny,
but there's a decision! -- Wim Wenders (WoD)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Howard Leadmon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in
news:c1r3sf$qes$(E-Mail Removed):

> In article <Xns949DA3CFD1D7CVorlon5@207.114.4.10>,
> Howard Leadmon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: OK, let me describe this just to make sure people understand what I
>: am
>:asking here. On my Cat5500 I have two FE ports setup in a
>:FastEtherchannel config, and they are interconnect back to my 7513
>:router to two FE ports also setup in a FastEtherchannel config, where
>:I have the two FE ports as part of a PortChannel group used to connect
>:with the switch.
>
>: On the 7513 where I have about 90 meg of traffic flowing, it seems to
>: work
>:well, wiht about 50 meg going over one FE port, and 40 meg going over
>:the other FE port, so it is using both FE's to send traffic to the
>:switch. Now here is the problem, on the Cat5500, when it is sending
>:data back to the router, all traffic flows on only one FE port, with
>:the other one sitting at pretty much 0 in return. If I break the
>:group it will then use the other channel, but it will never use both
>:to load share.
>
> Please see http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/4.html
> for the description of how the 5000 series load balances.



OK, I took a look at the document you refrenced above, and see it talks
about it using the mac infomation to determine which channel it uses. Now
correct me if I am wrong, but since the router and switch are
interconnected, there is really only one mac address seen at each side, and
if this is the case, then it will only use one FE port, pretty much making
the FEC group useless. If that is true, then basically putting a GE card
in the router is the only solution.

If I am missing something in that short bit of documentation, then by all
means please point it out to me...

-Howard



 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter Roberson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-29-2004
In article <Xns949DBAA7188BDVorlon5@207.114.4.10>,
Howard Leadmon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:(E-Mail Removed)-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in

:> Please see http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/4.html
:> for the description of how the 5000 series load balances.


:OK, I took a look at the document you refrenced above, and see it talks
:about it using the mac infomation to determine which channel it uses. Now
:correct me if I am wrong, but since the router and switch are
:interconnected, there is really only one mac address seen at each side, and
:if this is the case, then it will only use one FE port, pretty much making
:the FEC group useless.


Not -quite-. On one side the MAC destination is always the router [except
perhaps for some management traffic], which is going to be invariant.
On the other side, the MAC address isn't going to be that of the switch
[unless you are talking about management traffic directed to the switch
itself]: switches pass along the MAC address of the next hop. If, however,
you have an extremely limited range of next hop systems, then especially
if the traffic tends to be concentrated on one particular of them, then
the majority of traffic is going to be from one fixed MAC to another fixed
MAC, and on the 5500 that means it's always going to hit the same
channel of the FastEtherchannel .


: If that is true, then basically putting a GE card
: in the router is the only solution.

Or switching the 5500 over to another device that allows different
load balancing. I haven't read your situation in detail, but perhaps
a 3550 or 4000 series would work for you?

--
Those were borogoves and the momerathsoutgrabe completely mimsy.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
load balencing/sharing Serial and ISDN lines g_dileep@yahoo.com Cisco 0 01-03-2006 02:21 AM
Cat5500 with RSM excluding Vlans from routing Yves Cisco 4 10-21-2004 05:27 PM
Router on a stick - Cat5500 Ned Trilby Cisco 1 12-04-2003 05:00 PM
Cat5500 SEIII-NFFC II - can't "session" Ned Trilby Cisco 3 11-07-2003 09:15 AM
GLBP and Fastetherchannel raphael.delvaux@nrb.be Cisco 0 11-05-2003 10:46 AM



Advertisments