Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > basic load-sharing question?

Reply
Thread Tools

basic load-sharing question?

 
 
Captain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2004
I'm trying to load share on a Cisco3640.

I tried the following, but all the packets
want to use the z.z.z.z connection only.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
!
ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 z.z.z.z
ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 y.y.y.y
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Is there not an easy way of telling the
packets to use BOTH gateways?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2004

I don't think you can do load-sharing with static routes. You need to
use a routing protocol that support load sharing.

Doan

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Captain wrote:

> I'm trying to load share on a Cisco3640.
>
> I tried the following, but all the packets
> want to use the z.z.z.z connection only.
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
> !
> ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 z.z.z.z
> ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 y.y.y.y
> !
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Is there not an easy way of telling the
> packets to use BOTH gateways?
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
M.C. van den Bovenkamp
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2004
Captain wrote:

> I'm trying to load share on a Cisco3640.
>
> I tried the following, but all the packets
> want to use the z.z.z.z connection only.
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
> !
> ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 z.z.z.z
> ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 y.y.y.y
> !
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Is there not an easy way of telling the
> packets to use BOTH gateways?


It should do so by default, unless all your packets have the *exact*
same destination. IOS does per-destination loadsharing by default when
fast switching is enabled, so all packets for the same host will always
take the same path.

Two ways around this:

Disable fast switching ('no ip route-cache'). And watch your router go
into meltdown if you have serious traffic...

Run CEF ('ip cef') and run with 'ip load-sharing per-packet'.

But the answer might be simpler than that. is the y.y.y.y route *in the
routing table*? I.e. does it show up in 'show ip route'? Perhaps y.y.y.y
isn't reachable for some reason, and the z.z.z.z route is the only one
that actually works.

Regards,

Marco.

 
Reply With Quote
 
M.C. van den Bovenkamp
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2004
Doan wrote:

> I don't think you can do load-sharing with static routes. You need to
> use a routing protocol that support load sharing.


Nope. Statics will load-share just fine.

Regards,

Marco.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2004
Also many people forget this will only result in OUTBOUND traffic being
load-shared, unless you have same setup on the connected routers.


"M.C. van den Bovenkamp" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:41424195$0$92786$(E-Mail Removed)4a ll.nl...
> Captain wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to load share on a Cisco3640.
> >
> > I tried the following, but all the packets
> > want to use the z.z.z.z connection only.
> >
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
> > !
> > ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 z.z.z.z
> > ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 y.y.y.y
> > !
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Is there not an easy way of telling the
> > packets to use BOTH gateways?

>
> It should do so by default, unless all your packets have the *exact*
> same destination. IOS does per-destination loadsharing by default when
> fast switching is enabled, so all packets for the same host will always
> take the same path.
>
> Two ways around this:
>
> Disable fast switching ('no ip route-cache'). And watch your router go
> into meltdown if you have serious traffic...
>
> Run CEF ('ip cef') and run with 'ip load-sharing per-packet'.
>
> But the answer might be simpler than that. is the y.y.y.y route *in the
> routing table*? I.e. does it show up in 'show ip route'? Perhaps y.y.y.y
> isn't reachable for some reason, and the z.z.z.z route is the only one
> that actually works.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marco.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
M.C. van den Bovenkamp
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2004
Ben wrote:

> Also many people forget this will only result in OUTBOUND traffic being
> load-shared, unless you have same setup on the connected routers.


Very true. But that wasn't how I read his problem, although it might be;
depends on what he means by 'all the packets want to use the z.z.z.z
connection only'.

Regards,

Marco.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Captain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2004
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:06:42 +0200, "M.C. van den Bovenkamp"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Captain wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to load share on a Cisco3640.
>>
>> I tried the following, but all the packets
>> want to use the z.z.z.z connection only.
>>
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>> !
>> ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 z.z.z.z
>> ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 y.y.y.y
>> !
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Is there not an easy way of telling the
>> packets to use BOTH gateways?

>
>It should do so by default, unless all your packets have the *exact*
>same destination. IOS does per-destination loadsharing by default when
>fast switching is enabled, so all packets for the same host will always
>take the same path.
>

==================================================

Yes, the exact same destination.

==================================================
>
>Two ways around this:
>
>Disable fast switching ('no ip route-cache'). And watch your router go
>into meltdown if you have serious traffic...
>

==================================================

I'm not sure what "serious traffic" is, but I would say YES, this
production router has a LOT of traffic on it!!

==================================================
>
>Run CEF ('ip cef') and run with 'ip load-sharing per-packet'.
>

==================================================

Do to the other configuration on this router,(which I'm trying not
to mess up), I can't seem to get 'ip load-sharing per-packet' to
do anything?

==================================================
>
>But the answer might be simpler than that. is the y.y.y.y route *in the
>routing table*? I.e. does it show up in 'show ip route'? Perhaps y.y.y.y
>isn't reachable for some reason, and the z.z.z.z route is the only one
>that actually works.
>

==================================================

Yes, both the yyyy and zzzz are there,(and working fine when
left on their own)....

==================================================
>
> Regards,
>
> Marco.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Captain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2004
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:11:27 GMT, "Ben" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Also many people forget this will only result in OUTBOUND traffic being
>load-shared, unless you have same setup on the connected routers.
>

================================================== =====

Yes, I have the load-sharing working from the other end...

================================================== =====
>
>"M.C. van den Bovenkamp" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:41424195$0$92786$(E-Mail Removed)4 all.nl...
>> Captain wrote:
>>
>> > I'm trying to load share on a Cisco3640.
>> >
>> > I tried the following, but all the packets
>> > want to use the z.z.z.z connection only.
>> >
>> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>> > !
>> > ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 z.z.z.z
>> > ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 y.y.y.y
>> > !
>> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
>> >
>> > Is there not an easy way of telling the
>> > packets to use BOTH gateways?

>>
>> It should do so by default, unless all your packets have the *exact*
>> same destination. IOS does per-destination loadsharing by default when
>> fast switching is enabled, so all packets for the same host will always
>> take the same path.
>>
>> Two ways around this:
>>
>> Disable fast switching ('no ip route-cache'). And watch your router go
>> into meltdown if you have serious traffic...
>>
>> Run CEF ('ip cef') and run with 'ip load-sharing per-packet'.
>>
>> But the answer might be simpler than that. is the y.y.y.y route *in the
>> routing table*? I.e. does it show up in 'show ip route'? Perhaps y.y.y.y
>> isn't reachable for some reason, and the z.z.z.z route is the only one
>> that actually works.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Marco.
>>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Captain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2004
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:10:04 +0200, "M.C. van den Bovenkamp"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Ben wrote:
>
>> Also many people forget this will only result in OUTBOUND traffic being
>> load-shared, unless you have same setup on the connected routers.

>
>Very true. But that wasn't how I read his problem, although it might be;
>depends on what he means by 'all the packets want to use the z.z.z.z
>connection only'.
>



Load-sharing seems to work from the other end, because when I
do a traceroute, packets go route1 the first time, route2 the second
time, route1 the third time,...., etc.....

But when I do a traceroute from the problem end, the first hop is
always the z.z.z.z route.

Also, every second ping,(on the traceroute after the z.z.z.z hop),
times out?!?!?! I assume it's because having load-sharing working
on one end and not on the other is causing this,(if that makes sense)?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2004
Hmmm...I am not aware of any configuration that will not work with CEF.
Usually CEF is a requirement to get a lot of features to work.
Maybe you could provide a config so we can look at this closer?

By the way since per-destination load-sharing is the default, why not
configure four /25 static routes instead of two /24s? That might give the
desired effect...


"Captain" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:06:42 +0200, "M.C. van den Bovenkamp"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Captain wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to load share on a Cisco3640.
> >>
> >> I tried the following, but all the packets
> >> want to use the z.z.z.z connection only.
> >>
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !
> >> ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 z.z.z.z
> >> ip route x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0 y.y.y.y
> >> !
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> Is there not an easy way of telling the
> >> packets to use BOTH gateways?

> >
> >It should do so by default, unless all your packets have the *exact*
> >same destination. IOS does per-destination loadsharing by default when
> >fast switching is enabled, so all packets for the same host will always
> >take the same path.
> >

> ==================================================
>
> Yes, the exact same destination.
>
> ==================================================
> >
> >Two ways around this:
> >
> >Disable fast switching ('no ip route-cache'). And watch your router go
> >into meltdown if you have serious traffic...
> >

> ==================================================
>
> I'm not sure what "serious traffic" is, but I would say YES, this
> production router has a LOT of traffic on it!!
>
> ==================================================
> >
> >Run CEF ('ip cef') and run with 'ip load-sharing per-packet'.
> >

> ==================================================
>
> Do to the other configuration on this router,(which I'm trying not
> to mess up), I can't seem to get 'ip load-sharing per-packet' to
> do anything?
>
> ==================================================
> >
> >But the answer might be simpler than that. is the y.y.y.y route *in the
> >routing table*? I.e. does it show up in 'show ip route'? Perhaps y.y.y.y
> >isn't reachable for some reason, and the z.z.z.z route is the only one
> >that actually works.
> >

> ==================================================
>
> Yes, both the yyyy and zzzz are there,(and working fine when
> left on their own)....
>
> ==================================================
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Marco.

>



 
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
TurboTax Basic vs. Taxcut Basic? Sharp Dressed Man Computer Support 1 01-12-2009 12:52 PM
What is the difference between Visual Basic.NET and Visual Basic 6? Jimmy Dean Computer Support 3 07-25-2005 07:05 AM
Re: Python interpreter in Basic or a Python-2-Basic translator. rrr@ronadam.com Python 0 05-02-2005 01:48 PM
Python interpreter in Basic or a Python-2-Basic translator. Engineer Python 6 05-01-2005 10:16 PM
Upgrading Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 to Microsoft Visual Basic .NET Jaime MCSD 2 09-20-2003 05:16 AM



Advertisments