FastEtherchannel balencing between Cat5500 and C7513 router?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Howard Leadmon, Feb 28, 2004.

  1. 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
     
    Howard Leadmon, Feb 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <Xns949DA3CFD1D7CVorlon5@207.114.4.10>,
    Howard Leadmon <> 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
    :eek: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
    :eek: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)
     
    Walter Roberson, Feb 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in
    news:c1r3sf$qes$:

    > In article <Xns949DA3CFD1D7CVorlon5@207.114.4.10>,
    > Howard Leadmon <> 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
     
    Howard Leadmon, Feb 28, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <Xns949DBAA7188BDVorlon5@207.114.4.10>,
    Howard Leadmon <> wrote:
    :-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.
     
    Walter Roberson, Feb 29, 2004
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    635
  2. Ned Trilby
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    846
    Ned Trilby
    Nov 7, 2003
  3. Ned Trilby

    Router on a stick - Cat5500

    Ned Trilby, Dec 4, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    580
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 4, 2003
  4. Yves
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    570
    Andrey Tarasov
    Oct 21, 2004
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    498
Loading...

Share This Page