Load balancing in ospf

Hi,
We are having two links 4 mbps and 2 mbps, and we are running OSPF on these lines. How do we load balance on these lines ? As per bandwidth . That is 75 % of data should flow on 4 mb line and 25 5 should flow on 2 mb line. Is such balancing possible on OSPF process.
Thanks in advance
Subodh

Hi Subodh
I don't think you will be able to do that (75% & 25% load on the links) with normal ospf config.
But you can try out configuring Multilink by bundling both the links so that you can expect even load balancing on the bundled links.
If you are having ethernet drop on your 4 Mbps then you wont be able to bundle the links..
Also if you are having 4 Mbps as ethernet drop then you can try doing backup interface and backup load command which will point your 2 Mbps link as your secondary and also forward traffic onto the secondary link once you have 75% utilizations on the primary link..
regds

Similar Messages

Load Balancing with OSPF and maximum-paths command

Hello,
Just a quick query really, we have a disribution layer 3 switch, in its routing table it has 3 default routes all with the same metric from the core router, this is because the core router is setup with the comamnd "default-information originate always metric 50" which obviously proagates the default route around the area and the metric never changes from 50.
So i have a routing table that looks like this:
O*E2 0.0.0.0/0 [110/50] via 77.95.176.9, 06:44:51, GigabitEthernet4/9
[110/50] via 77.95.176.17, 06:44:51, Vlan903
[110/50] via 91.203.72.5, 06:44:51, Vlan262
Three default routes with the same metric, does this mean that the router IOS will load balance traffic over all three routes evenly? I mean i have been reading up on it and appartemtly i dont have the command "maximum-paths 3" under my ospf process?
I have been doing some traceroutes from this switch to the internet (various sites) and all the traffic seems to be going out over the first route in the table that next hop is 77.95.176.9
My question is how can i verify that load balancing is taking place, or if its not then i need to add this "maximum-paths 3" command to the ospf on the local switch? I would say load balancing is not taking place but im sure i have seen traffic from one customer being routes over all 3 paths due to matching spikes on the SNMP sensors?
Many Thanks.
Matt

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Yes, your traffic should use all three paths, as Rick notes, OSPF, on Cisco, normally defaults to using up to 4 equal cost paths.
As Rick also notes mentioning CEF, how actual traffic is forwarded across ECMP can vary. Often, the device will keep all traffic for the same flow on the same egress port, and attributes selected for actual egress port selection might be deterministic. I.e. it's possible same traffic flow will always be sent to the same egress port. (This means even with ECMP, you may not see an equal load distribution.)

OSPF load balancing across multiple port channels

I have googled/searched for this everywhere but haven't been able to find a solution. Forgive me if I leave something out but I will try to convey all relevant information. Hopefully someone can provide some insight and many thanks in advance.
I have three switches (A, B, and C) that are all running OSPF and LACP port channelling among themselves on a production network. Each port channel interface contains two physical interfaces and trunks a single vlan (so a vlan connecting each switch over a port channel). OSPF is running on each vlan interface.
Switch A - ME3600
Switch B - 3550
Switch C - 3560G
This is just a small part of a much larger topology. This part forms a triangle, if you will, where A is the source and C is the destination. A and C connect directly via a port channel and are OSPF neighbors. A and B connect directly via a port channel and are OSPF neighbors. B and C connect directly via a port channel and are OSPF neighbors. Currently, all traffic from A to C traverses B. I would like to load balance traffic sourced from A with a destination of C on the direct link and on the links through B. If all traffic is passed through B, traffic is evenly split on the two interfaces on the port channel. If all traffic is pushed onto the direct A-C link, traffic is evenly balanced on the two interfaces on that port channel. If OSPF load balancing is configured on the two vlans from A (so A-C and A-B), the traffic is divided to each port channel but only one port on each port channel is utilized while the other one passes nothing. So half of each port channel remains unused. The port channel on B-C continues to load balance, evenly splitting the traffic received from half of the port channel from A.
A and C port channel load balancing is configured for src-dst-ip. B is a 3550 and does not have this option, so it is set to src-mac.
Relevant configuration:
Switch A:
interface Port-channel1
description Link to B
port-type nni
switchport trunk allowed vlan 11
switchport mode trunk
interface Vlan11
ip address x.x.x.134 255.255.255.254
interface Port-channel3
description Link to C
port-type nni
switchport trunk allowed vlan 10
switchport mode trunk
interface Vlan10
ip address x.x.x.152 255.255.255.254
Switch B:
interface Port-channel1
description Link to A
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 11
switchport mode trunk
interface Vlan11
ip address x.x.x.135 255.255.255.254
interface Port-channel2
description Link to C
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 12
switchport mode trunk
interface Vlan12
ip address x.x.x.186 255.255.255.254
Switch C:
interface Port-channel1
description Link to B
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 12
switchport mode trunk
interface Vlan12
ip address x.x.x.187 255.255.255.254
interface Port-channel3
description Link to A
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 10
switchport mode trunk
interface Vlan10
ip address x.x.x.153 255.255.255.254

This is more FYI. 10.82.4.0/24 is a subnet on switch C. The path to it is split across vlans 10 and 11 but once it hits the port channel interfaces only one side of each is chosen. I'd like to avoid creating more vlan interfaces but right now that appears to be the only way to load balance equally across the four interfaces out of switch A.
ME3600#sh ip route 10.82.4.0
Routing entry for 10.82.4.0/24
Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 154, type extern 1
Last update from x.x.x.153 on Vlan10, 01:20:46 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
x.x.x.153, from 10.82.15.1, 01:20:46 ago, via Vlan10
Route metric is 154, traffic share count is 1
* x.x.x.135, from 10.82.15.1, 01:20:46 ago, via Vlan11
Route metric is 154, traffic share count is 1
ME3600#sh ip cef 10.82.4.0
10.82.4.0/24
nexthop x.x.x.135 Vlan11
nexthop x.x.x.153 Vlan10
ME3600#sh ip cef 10.82.4.0 internal
10.82.4.0/24, epoch 0, RIB[I], refcount 5, per-destination sharing
sources: RIB
ifnums:
Vlan10(1157): x.x.x.153
Vlan11(1192): x.x.x.135
path 093DBC20, path list 0937412C, share 1/1, type attached nexthop, for IPv4
nexthop x.x.x.135 Vlan11, adjacency IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
path 093DC204, path list 0937412C, share 1/1, type attached nexthop, for IPv4
nexthop x.x.x.153 Vlan10, adjacency IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
output chain:
loadinfo 088225C0, per-session, 2 choices, flags 0003, 88 locks
flags: Per-session, for-rx-IPv4
16 hash buckets
< 0 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
< 1 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
< 2 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
< 3 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
< 4 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
< 5 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
< 6 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
< 7 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
< 8 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
< 9 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
<10 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
<11 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
<12 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
<13 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
<14 > IP adj out of Vlan11, addr x.x.x.135 08EE7560
<15 > IP adj out of Vlan10, addr x.x.x.153 093A4E60
Subblocks:
None

Pix OSPF load balancing question

I have a pix 515e with two default routes, learned via OSPF from two routers on the "outside" interface.
Currently router#2 is being preferred way much more than router#1. There are many thousands of destinations for the traffic. These two routers are further doing NAT to nat rfc1918 ip's to the internet (the pix is NOT doing nat)
Can someone please let me know how the PIX does load balancing? is it by IP address destination? is it something else?
thanks,
Joe

Per TAC:
"the PIX will do per-destination Load Balancing instead of per packet
load balancing. The algorithm will look at the source and destination
addresses. It does not do 1:1 load balancing. Given enough different
source and destination addresses, the packets will more or less reach a
50/50 spit between the two next-hops. However, in real world testing
with the same source and destination addresses, it may not reach an even
load balancing."

If equal cost routes exist, OSPF uses CEF load balancing?

Hi All,
Can anyone explain about:
. If equal cost routes exist, OSPF uses CEF load balancing?

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Rick is correct, but if his response, with mine, causes any confusion. . .
To OP's original question:
If equal cost routes exist, OSPF uses CEF load balancing?
The answer is technically no, for the reason Rick describes.
But if we rephrase, such as:
Does CEF load balance across multiple equal cost routes generated by OSPF?
The answer would be yes.
I suspect the latter question is what the OP really had in mind, but again, Rick is correct to distinguish that OSPF doesn't use CEF.

Server load balancing for application access using multiple servers

1.what are the methods supported by cisco switches for load balancing
2. I want to achive users to access 1 particular ip from different locations but phsically few servers which handle the application and data

well some servers allow you to install routing protocols on them. you could OSPF some links together.
or you could NLB if it is a microsoft server. this uses a heartbeat network, a virtual mac and an IP address bound to the vmac.
you could use NIC teaming. broadcom nics on dell servers allow you to configure them for loadbalancing, failover and a few other options.
or if the servers are mirrored using MSCS or something similar (i.e configured the same but independant) you could just load balance using DNS.
hope this helps. jsut some ideas quickly off the top of my head

Multiple WAN connections all through one router with load balancing?

I am setting up a network in my dormatory for myself and about 20 friends. about half of us have DSL connections at the moment. Is there a way to have all the DSL connections (possibly run through cheap home DSL routers) all connect into a cisco router that then acts as the gateway for our entire network? woudl it be possible for each internet request to go out over the connection that has the least load AND also be able to use some sort of load balancing, so one user cant use all of the outgoing/incoming bandwidth?
If you have any ideas please let me know

Hi Ian,
To get this working, you would either need to use something like PPP to bundle your links together or use a dynamic protocol.
In bundling the links, you could make them appear as one link, with a single IP address each end and the router takes care of distributing the load. To implement this though, you would need control of both sides of the link, or be terminating with one carrier who is happy to implement this for you.
The second is to use a dynamic protocol (such as eigrp, ospf, etc), which can build up a map of the network to router from point a to point b. For this you also need control of the link.
I can't think of another method, unless you can control the link from both sides. Your other option it to pool your money and buy a larger link or a leased line. If you bought a leased line or two, your carrier would be more than happy to talk to you about routing over that, but generally you're looking at mega bucks for that.
HTH,
Mark

Load-balancing in MPLS Core

How is load-balancing achieved in MPLS L3 vpns and equal cost multiple links exist to reach egress PE along with per-destination load-balancing enabled on interfaces.
I have tried to simulate the network below
Ingress PE--->P1--->>P2--->Egress PE
Multiple equal cost links exist between P1 and P2, cisco platform,LDP, IGP-ospf being used.

Hi,
Destination based load balancing in MPLS L3VPNs can be categorized into two scenarios:
1) multiple pathes between two PE routers
2) multiple access links to a single CE or site
Your question as I understand it was about the first scenario. So let me first quickly review how customer traffic is forwarded between VRFs on two different PE routers.
The VRF routing table will have BGP entries for the routes learned from the remote PE usually with next hop addresses being the remote PE loopback IP used for PE-to-PE BGP peering.
The traffic will be forwarded across P routers using the label for the BGP next hop.
Thus the load balancing accross the MPLS core in a first step is decided by the IGP, which has to insert several equal cost pathes into the global routing table for the BGP next hop networks (PE loopbacks).
Side note: MPLS traffic engineering in the core would allow for unequal cost load balancing.
The decision, which labeled packet to send across which path in the core is done by CEF using a hash algorithm. To achieve the same load balancing as with unlabeled IP traffic, a Cisco MPLS enabled router will look for the bottom label - the one with bottom-of-stack bit set to 1 - and try to determine, if the transported packet behind the bottom label is IP. If so, the hash is calculated for the customer IP header like for normal IP traffic. This ensures all traffic for a certain customer destination will always go through the same path. No unwanted packet reordering will occur.
Be aware, that the customer IP packet header will only be used for CEF hash calculation, no IP lookup will be performed, as core routers in MPLS L3VPNs do not have any knowledge about customer addresses.
As a side note: if the traffic transported is not IP (e.g. Ethernet over MPLS), the bottom label will be used for the CEF load balancing (e.g. the VC label).
For the second scenario - CE load balancing with multihomed CE/sites - it is first required to have two equal cost entries in the VRF routing tables. The difference will be the two different PE BGP next hop addresses. The first load balancing decision is the performed by CEF based on the IP packet received by the CE and the VRF routing table entries. Once CEF decided, which VRF entry to use, the required BGP next hop label (and the VPN label) is applied and the packet is transported across the MPLS core. load balancing there is done as described above.
Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.
Regards, Martin

Unequal Load Balancing with EIGRP over 4 Wireless networks

We are trying to load-balance on 4 interfaces that have unequal bandwidths. The setup looks like this
8 Computers -> Empty Config Switch -> 3560 Router\Switch -> 4x Wireless Radios on different frequencies - networks -> 3560 Router\Switch->Empty Config Switch -> 8 Computers
We have EIGRP setup and the bandwidths defined, and the routes are showing proper share counts, but once we start adding traffic to the network, they all jump on one of the links. The config and everything looks right, its just not working. I have tried switching to different cef algorithms. Removed the vlans . I made them equal cost and they did the same thing. Its like EIGRP does not want to load balance.
When i did this config with static routes or as OSPF, it actually load balanced them, but I'm stuck with a 1:1 share ratio. If i could control the ratio, then that would be an acceptable solution.
Any ideas on what could be causing this?
Code:
Routing entry for 192.168.104.0/24
Known via "eigrp 10", distance 90, metric 13312, type internal
Redistributing via eigrp 10
Last update from 192.168.2.4 on Vlan2, 00:04:25 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 192.168.9.4, from 192.168.9.4, 00:04:25 ago, via Vlan9
      Route metric is 51712, traffic share count is 31
      Total delay is 20 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 50000 Kbit
      Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes
      Loading 1/255, Hops 1
    192.168.5.4, from 192.168.5.4, 00:04:25 ago, via Vlan5
      Route metric is 13312, traffic share count is 120
      Total delay is 20 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 200000 Kbit
      Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes
      Loading 1/255, Hops 1
    192.168.3.4, from 192.168.3.4, 00:04:25 ago, via Vlan3
      Route metric is 26112, traffic share count is 61
      Total delay is 20 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 100000 Kbit
      Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes
      Loading 1/255, Hops 1
    192.168.2.4, from 192.168.2.4, 00:04:25 ago, via Vlan2
      Route metric is 13312, traffic share count is 120
      Total delay is 20 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 200000 Kbit
      Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes
      Loading 1/255, Hops 1
3560_Switch_1#show int Fa 0/1 | inc packets/sec
5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
3560_Switch_1#show int Fa 0/2 | inc packets/sec
5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
3560_Switch_1#show int Fa 0/3 | inc packets/sec
5 minute input rate 17111000 bits/sec, 2545 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 13872000 bits/sec, 2251 packets/sec
3560_Switch_1#show int Fa 0/4 | inc packets/sec
5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
3560_Switch_1#show ip cef exact-route 192.168.101.57 192.168.104.57
192.168.101.57 -> 192.168.104.57 => IP adj out of Vlan5, addr 192.168.5.4
Here is the config.
Code:
ip cef load-sharing algorithm universal 00123456
interface FastEthernet0/1
switchport access vlan 2
bandwidth 200000
delay 1
spanning-tree portfast
interface FastEthernet0/2
switchport access vlan 3
bandwidth 200000
delay 1
spanning-tree portfast
interface FastEthernet0/3
switchport access vlan 5
bandwidth 200000
delay 1
spanning-tree portfast
interface FastEthernet0/4
switchport access vlan 9
bandwidth 200000
delay 1
spanning-tree portfast
interface GigabitEthernet0/1
description USER PORT
switchport access vlan 100
spanning-tree portfast
interface Vlan2
bandwidth 200000
ip address 192.168.2.1 255.255.255.0
delay 1
interface Vlan3
bandwidth 100000
ip address 192.168.3.1 255.255.255.0
delay 1
interface Vlan5
bandwidth 200000
ip address 192.168.5.1 255.255.255.0
delay 1
interface Vlan9
bandwidth 50000
ip address 192.168.9.1 255.255.255.0
delay 1
interface Vlan100
description User Data
ip address 192.168.101.1 255.255.255.0
router eigrp 10
maximum-paths 8
variance 15
network 192.168.2.0
network 192.168.3.0
network 192.168.5.0
network 192.168.9.0
network 192.168.101.0

Yup, that was the first cef algorithm I had tried.   ip cef load-sharing algorithm include-ports source destination
I tried all of the different types.
Also, I was sending data trough iperf from 4 computers + 1 comp steaming video on one network to 5 computers on another network. In any case of source or destination, it should have switched over. The odds of it all going on Vlan 5 is ~ 0.6%   Restarting the router sometimes places it all on a different vlan, but in any case its all or nothing.

Load Balance & redundancy for internet from 2 different sites?

Hi,
we have 2 core sites where our servers are situated. Both sites are connected via a ptp link.
All of our clients/sites reach these two sites via our MPLS network and they never route via the ptp link which is solely used between the two core sites.
One of the sites has an ASA which goes out to our internet. We are thinking of replicating this on our other site.
How would we go about load balancing the internet connection ie 50% go out on site A & 50% go out on site B?
And if site A goes down, everything goes out via site B and vice versa?
Diagram attached....
Thank you,
Louis

Hi Louis, you could set default routes on the ASA's with tracking, and use ospf downstream to inject the default route in to the network with default information originate - this will only advertise out a default route if it has it in the routing table. With SLA you can track internet reachability by IP SLA echo to something like 8.8.8.8. Both sides can advertise this in to the network, if one goes then there is one left. Just be mindful of the policies and NAT required, you will have to duplicate the rules on the ASA's. With the NAT you have to ensure, that outgoing traffic comes back in the same path it left so it doesn't break connections.

MPLS/VPN network load balancing in the core

Hi,
I've an issue about cef based load-balancing in the MPLS core in MPLS/VPN environment. If you consider flow-based load balancing, the path (out interface) will be chosen based on source-destination IP address. What about in MPLS/VPN environment? The hash will be based on PE router src-dst loopback addresses, or vrf packet src-dst in P and PE router? The topology would be:
CE---PE===P===PE---CE
I'm interested in load balancing efficiency if I duplicate the link between P and PE routers.
Thank you for your help!
Gabor

Hi,
On the PE router you could set different types and 2 levels of load-balancing.
For instance, in case of a DUAL-homed site, subnet A prefix for VPN A could be advertised in the VPN by PE1 or PE2.
PE1 receives this prefix via eBGP session from CE1 and keep this route as best due to external state.
PE2 receives this prefix via eBGP session from CE2 and keep this route as best due to external state.
                             eBGP
                     PE1 ---------CE1
PE3----------P1                          Subnet A
                     PE2----------CE2 /
                            eBGP
Therefore from PE3 point of view, 2 routes are available assuming that IGP metric for PE3/PE1 is equal to PE3/PE2.
The a 1rst level of load-sharing can be achieve thanks to the maximum-paths ibgp number command.
2 MP-BGP routes are received on PE3:
PE3->PE1->CE1->subnet A
PE3->PE2->CE2->subnet A
To use both routes you must set the number at 2 at least : maximum-paths ibgp 2
But gess what, in the real world an MPLS backbone hardly garantee an equal IGP cost between 2 Egress PE for a given prefix.
So it is often necessary to ignore the IGP metric by adding the "unequal-cost" keyword: maximum-paths unequal-cost ibgp 2
By default the load-balancing is called "per-session": source and destination addresses are considered to choose the path and the outgoing interface avoiding reordering the packets on the target site. Overwise it is possible to use "per-packet" load-balancing.
Then a 2nd load-sharing level can occur.
For instance:
         __P1__PE1__CE1
PE3           \/                   Subnet A
        \ __P2__PE2__CE2
There is still 2 MP-BGP paths :
PE3->P1->PE1->CE1->subnet A
PE3->P1->PE2->CE2->subnet A
But this time for 2 MP-BGP paths 4 IGP path are available:
PE3->P1->PE1->CE1->subnet A
PE3->P1->PE2->CE2->subnet A
PE3->P2->PE1->CE1->subnet A
PE3->P2->PE2->CE2->subnet A
For a load-balancing to be active between those 4 paths, they must exist in the routing table thanks to the "maximum-path 4 "command in the IGP (ex OSPF) process.
Therefore if those 4 paths are equal-cost IGP paths then a 2nd level load-balancing is achieved. the default behabior is the same source destination mechanism to selected the "per-session" path as mentionned before.
On an LSP each LSR could use this feature.
BR

FR-MPLS load balancing

Hi All,
i hv 3 Fr circuits and 1 mpls circuits from india to Usa. is it possible that i will go fro load balancing? pls give me the solution
Thanks

Yes it possible depending on your routing protocol being used,
1) With BGP,Static being used on your PE-CE and as well as other FR links you can control the routing, and install four paths towards your other end destinations.
2) If you have OSPF then you will need help form your MPLS service provider to give you intra-area routes of the other side, as over MPLS VPN you will see the other side routes as Inter-Area routes and hence only your FR links would be preferred for load balancing exlcuding the MPLS VPN circuit.
HTH-Cheers,
Swaroop

LOAD BALANCE BEHAVIOR FOR 7600 ON ETHERCHANNELS

Hi Everyone,
Currently I'm planning to implement ether-channels on 7600 routers, but there's something that's still not clear to me, regarding the load balancing behavior, for L2VPN and L3VPN.
I've read that 7600 in MPLS default load balance behavior is to take the SIP and DIP if present and the bottom of the stack label or the 5th label depending upon the number of labels on the stack. In l2VPN scenarios when ether-channel is used, if no IP traffic is present what is the default behavior of the etherchannel to calculate the load balancing hash function to select a given link on the bundle.
I'll appreciate any feedback regarding this.

Hi Louis, you could set default routes on the ASA's with tracking, and use ospf downstream to inject the default route in to the network with default information originate - this will only advertise out a default route if it has it in the routing table. With SLA you can track internet reachability by IP SLA echo to something like 8.8.8.8. Both sides can advertise this in to the network, if one goes then there is one left. Just be mindful of the policies and NAT required, you will have to duplicate the rules on the ASA's. With the NAT you have to ensure, that outgoing traffic comes back in the same path it left so it doesn't break connections.

Load Balance with MPLS on a network with several links paralels

I have a question,...
Can you load balance on a network with mpls throght of several links with the same cost/metric?
Thanks!
Saul Barragan

O.k.
I dont know very well MPLS, neither VPN, but I know very well other type of protocols of IGP (like RIP,IGRP, EIGRP, OSPF) or EGP (like BGP), and I know how to balance the load by packets or by session, but I have this doubt and I want to know if its dificult or is the same but with something near/close-looks like it.
Can you tell me what does CE/TE Mean please.
Note: I know, I have to read a good book of MPLS.
Thanks a lot by your answer.
Saul Barragan

CLAW load balance

Hi
I have a 7505 with two CIP cards in and a 4port token ring card (amongst other things). The 7505 will have 2 escon connections to the mainframe.
I wish to implement CLAW load balancing across the 2 CIP cards, although the clients will use one IP address to access the mainframe. Is this possible with CLAW or should I consider another method.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Regards

Hi Karl,
Sure, there are several ways to do this. It's likely that you want to use a virtual IP address (VIPA), and run a routing daemon (OSPF or RIP) on the mainframe. With that in place you can use equal cost routing to take advantage of the multiple paths. The mainframe stack also allows you to do the same for outbound traffic. The usual recommendation is to use per-flow/session allocation rather than per-packet for traffic in both directions.
For more functionality, things like server health probing, deep packet inspection, various session allocation algorithims, geographic balancing, etc you can add the appropriate load balancing technology.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/contnetw/index.html
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2706/ps780/index.html
There is also a Cisco load balancing solution designed primarily for the mainframe, as shown in this IBM Redbook.
http://publib-b.boulder.ibm.com/Redbooks.nsf/RedpieceAbstracts/sg246297.html
Rgds, Dan

Load balancing in ospf

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for