MP-BGP and MPLS multipath load sharing

Hi,
I am trying to PoC MPLS multi path load sharing by using per-PE-per-VRF RDs in the network.
I have a simple lab setup with AS65000 which consists of SITE1 PE1&PE2 routers (10.250.0.101 and 10.250.0.102), route reflector RR in the middle (10.250.0.55) and SITE2 PE1&PE2 routers (10.250.0.201 and 10.250.0.202). PE routers only do iBGP peering with centralized route reflector and passing route to 10.1.1.0/24 prefix (learned from single CE router) with 100:1 and 100:2 RDs for specific VRF.
Route reflector gets routes with multiple RDs, makes copies of these routes in order to make local comparison to RD 55:55 configured, uses these routes and install multiple paths into its routing table (all PE routers and RR have "maximum-paths eibgp 4" configured):
RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all
BGP table version is 7, local router ID is 10.250.0.55
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
              r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
   Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
Route Distinguisher: 55:55 (default for vrf VRF-A) VRF Router ID 10.250.0.55
* i10.1.1.0/24      10.250.0.102             0    100      0 65001 i
*>i                 10.250.0.101             0    100      0 65001 i
Route Distinguisher: 100:1
*>i10.1.1.0/24      10.250.0.101             0    100      0 65001 i
Route Distinguisher: 100:2
*>i10.1.1.0/24      10.250.0.102             0    100      0 65001 i
RR#sh ip route vrf VRF-A
<output omitted>
     10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
B       10.1.1.0/24 [200/0] via 10.250.0.102, 00:45:52
                          [200/0] via 10.250.0.101, 00:46:22
BUT, for some reason RR doest reflects routes with multiple RDs down to SITE2 PE1&PE2 - its own clients:
RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.201 advertised-routes
Total number of prefixes 0
RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.202 advertised-routes
Total number of prefixes 0
Here comes RR BGP configuration:
router bgp 65000
no synchronization
bgp router-id 10.250.0.55
bgp cluster-id 1.1.1.1
bgp log-neighbor-changes
neighbor 10.250.0.101 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.250.0.101 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 10.250.0.101 route-reflector-client
neighbor 10.250.0.101 soft-reconfiguration inbound
neighbor 10.250.0.102 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.250.0.102 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 10.250.0.102 route-reflector-client
neighbor 10.250.0.102 soft-reconfiguration inbound
neighbor 10.250.0.201 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.250.0.201 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 10.250.0.201 route-reflector-client
neighbor 10.250.0.201 soft-reconfiguration inbound
neighbor 10.250.0.202 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.250.0.202 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 10.250.0.202 route-reflector-client
neighbor 10.250.0.202 soft-reconfiguration inbound
no auto-summary
address-family vpnv4
  neighbor 10.250.0.101 activate
  neighbor 10.250.0.101 send-community both
  neighbor 10.250.0.102 activate
  neighbor 10.250.0.102 send-community both
  neighbor 10.250.0.201 activate
  neighbor 10.250.0.201 send-community both
  neighbor 10.250.0.202 activate
  neighbor 10.250.0.202 send-community both
exit-address-family
address-family ipv4 vrf VRF-A
  maximum-paths eibgp 4
  no synchronization
  bgp router-id 10.250.0.55
  network 10.255.1.1 mask 255.255.255.255
exit-address-family
SITE1 PE1 configuration:
router bgp 65000
no synchronization
bgp router-id 10.250.0.101
bgp log-neighbor-changes
neighbor 10.250.0.55 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.250.0.55 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 10.250.0.55 soft-reconfiguration inbound
no auto-summary
address-family vpnv4
  neighbor 10.250.0.55 activate
  neighbor 10.250.0.55 send-community both
exit-address-family
address-family ipv4 vrf VRF-A
  neighbor 10.1.101.2 remote-as 65001
  neighbor 10.1.101.2 activate
  neighbor 10.1.101.2 soft-reconfiguration inbound
  maximum-paths eibgp 4
  no synchronization
  bgp router-id 10.250.0.101
exit-address-family
SITE1 PE2 configuration is similar to SITE1 PE1. They both do eBGP peering with dualhomed CE router in AS65001 which announces 10.1.1.0/24 prefix into VRF-A table.
My question is: clearly, the issue is that RR doesn't reflect any routes to its clients (SITE2 PE1&PE2) for 10.1.1.0/24 prefix with 100:1 and 100:2 RDs that dont match it's locally configured RD 55:55 for VRF-A, although they are present in its BGP/RIB tables and used for multipathing. Is this an expected behavior or some feature limitation for specific platform or IOS version? Currently, in this test lab setup I run IOS 12.4(24)T8 on all the devices.
Please, let me know if any further details are needed to get an idea of why this well known and widely used feature is not working correctly in my case. Thanks a lot!
Regards,
Sergey

Hi Ashish,
I tried to remove VRF and address family configurations completely from RR.
router bgp 65000
no synchronization
bgp router-id 10.250.0.55
bgp cluster-id 1.1.1.1
bgp log-neighbor-changes
neighbor 10.250.0.101 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.250.0.101 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 10.250.0.101 route-reflector-client
neighbor 10.250.0.101 soft-reconfiguration inbound
neighbor 10.250.0.102 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.250.0.102 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 10.250.0.102 route-reflector-client
neighbor 10.250.0.102 soft-reconfiguration inbound
neighbor 10.250.0.201 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.250.0.201 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 10.250.0.201 route-reflector-client
neighbor 10.250.0.201 soft-reconfiguration inbound
neighbor 10.250.0.202 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.250.0.202 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 10.250.0.202 route-reflector-client
neighbor 10.250.0.202 soft-reconfiguration inbound
no auto-summary
address-family vpnv4
  neighbor 10.250.0.101 activate
  neighbor 10.250.0.101 send-community both
  neighbor 10.250.0.102 activate
  neighbor 10.250.0.102 send-community both
  neighbor 10.250.0.201 activate
  neighbor 10.250.0.201 send-community both
  neighbor 10.250.0.202 activate
  neighbor 10.250.0.202 send-community both
exit-address-family
After this, RR doesn't accept any routes at all from S1PE1&S1PE2 routers, thus not reflecting any routes down to its clients S2PE1&S2PE2 as well:
S1PE1#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all
BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 10.250.0.101
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
              r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
   Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
Route Distinguisher: 100:1 (default for vrf VRF-A) VRF Router ID 10.250.0.101
*> 10.1.1.0/24      10.1.101.2               0             0 65001 i
S1PE1#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.55 advertised-routes
BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 10.250.0.101
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
              r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
   Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
Route Distinguisher: 100:1 (default for vrf VRF-A) VRF Router ID 10.250.0.101
*> 10.1.1.0/24      10.1.101.2               0             0 65001 i
Total number of prefixes 1
S1PE2#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all
BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 10.250.0.102
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
              r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
   Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
Route Distinguisher: 100:2 (default for vrf VRF-A) VRF Router ID 10.250.0.102
*> 10.1.1.0/24      10.1.201.2               0             0 65001 i
S1PE2#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.55 advertised-routes
BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 10.250.0.102
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
              r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
   Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
Route Distinguisher: 100:2 (default for vrf VRF-A) VRF Router ID 10.250.0.102
*> 10.1.1.0/24      10.1.201.2               0             0 65001 i
Total number of prefixes 1
RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all
RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.101 routes
Total number of prefixes 0
RR#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all neighbors 10.250.0.102 routes
Total number of prefixes 0
Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.
Regards,
Sergey

Similar Messages

  • MP-BGP and MPLS

    Hello all,
    I've been experimenting recently with MP-BGP and MPLS. I have no issues with how it works and how to implement and have a fully working lab however I am wondering whether there is a solution that exists in order to create a full mesh without on every PE router having to specify the IP address of every other PE router in the VPNv4 configuration. So the ideal scenario would be that i could add another site to my MPLS which will receive all routes from every other site without updating any configuration at any other site.
    Thanks

    Hi Mathew,
    You can choose P1 or P2 as RR and configure a single MP-BGP session from PE devices to RR. Any new PE that you want to include will need configuraion changes on RR and the new PE alone. You dont need to add configuration on other exisitng PEs.
    You can also play around with bgp dynamic neighbor to further reduce the configuration. But I ahvent used it myself and not sure if VPNv4 is supported.
    -Nagendra

  • MPLS VPN load sharing when multihoming

    Any one know of best practices for outbound load balancing when multihoming to 2 different service providers in an mpls vpn.
    I have referred to this document (http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/40.html) which states the only way to do this is by assigning metrics/weights to a certain range of prefixes learned from one provider, hence load sharing.
    Turning up bgp multipath on the CE would be optimal but since AS PATHs are different the best path selection will be different. Could we possibly turn of best path selection for AS paths (bgp bestpath as-path ignore) and make multipath work? Would that install 2 routes for the same prefix in the RIB?
    Thanks
    Ariful Huq

    Yes you can turn off best path selection for AS path and have multipath work. For a route to be populated in routing table BGP has various metrics for its selection. AS path is one of the metrics it uses for best route selection, so I dont think there should be any problem with it.

  • MPLS Traffic Load Sharing

    What is the best way to configure a load sharing policy from multiple CE "remotes" to two CE "hosts" in a MPLS network? Currently, all incoming traffic goes to only one host from the PE.

    Hi,
    you need to have a look at the complete routing architecture to understand possibilities/responsibilities.
    Mainly load distribution for a single prefix can only occur, if more than one path to a destination is known. This however might not be given in the MPLS network. The underlying reason is that BGP will only send the best path in an update - but not all pathes a BGP speaker knows of (RFC mandates this).
    As practically all larger BGP implementations use Route Reflectors, which are (RFC conforming) BGP speakers, they will only forward the best path to a destination. The result is:
    IF more than one path to a destination network exists and is sent to the RR through different PE routers (with same RD) then only one path will be distributed to all other PE routers.
    In this scenario load sharing for a single prefix can not occur, because only one routing table entry exists for this prefix in most if not all PE routers. All you can do is to try to load share by selecting different pathes for different destination prefixes by influencing routing metric. This way part of your traffic will go one way and part will take another path.
    IF the SP however uses different RD values for every VRF and the proper "maximum-path" statements in MP-BGP, then load sharing per prefix can be achieved in the MPLS network. The customer however can not influence the SP setup.
    Hope this Helps! Please rate all posts.
    Regards, Martin

  • Error 0(Native: listNetInterfaces:[3]) and error while loading shared libraries: libpthread.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

    Hi Gurus,
    I'm trying to upgrade my test 9.2.0.8 rac to 10.1 rac. I cannot upgrade to 10.2 because of RAM limitations on my test RAC. 10.1 Clusterware software was successfully installed and the daemons are up with OCR and voting disk created. Then during the installation of RAC software at the end, root.sh needs to be run. When I run root.sh, it gave the error: while loading shared libraries: libpthread.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory. I have libpthread.so.0 in /lib. I looked up on metalink and found Doc ID: 414163.1 . I unset the LD_ASSUME_KERNEL in vipca (unsetting of LD_ASSUME_KERNEL was not required in srvctl because there was no LD_ASSUME_KERNEL in srvctl). Then I tried to run vipca manually. I receive the following error: Error 0(Native: listNetInterfaces:[3]). I'm able to see xclock and xeyes. So its not a problem with x.
    OS: OEL5 32 bit
    oifcfg iflist
    eth0 192.168.2.0
    eth1 10.0.0.0
    oifcfg getif
    eth1 10.0.0.0 global cluster_interconnect
    eth1 10.1.1.0 global cluster_interconnect
    eth0 192.168.2.0 global public
    cat /etc/hosts
    192.168.2.3 sunny1pub.ezhome.com sunny1pub
    192.168.2.4 sunny2pub.ezhome.com sunny2pub
    192.168.2.33 sunny1vip.ezhome.com sunny1vip
    192.168.2.44 sunny2vip.ezhome.com sunny2vip
    10.1.1.1 sunny1prv.ezhome.com sunny1prv
    10.1.1.2 sunny2prv.ezhome.com sunny2prv
    My questions are:
    should ping on sunny1vip and sunny2vip be already working? As of now they dont work.
    if you look at oifcfg getif, I initially had eth1 10.0.0.0 global cluster_interconnect,eth0 192.168.2.0 global public then I created eth1 10.1.1.0 global cluster_interconnect with setif. Should it be 10.1.1.0 or 10.0.0.0. I looked at the subnet calculator and it says for 10.1.1.1, 10.0.0.0 is the subnet. In metalink they had used 10.10.10.0 and hence I used 10.1.1.0
    Any ideas on resolving this issue would be very much appreciated. I had been searching on oracle forums, google, metalink but all of them refer to DOC Id 414163.1 but it does n't seem to work. Please help. Thanks in advance.
    Edited by: ayyappa on Aug 20, 2009 10:13 AM
    Edited by: ayyappa on Aug 20, 2009 10:14 AM
    Edited by: ayyappa on Aug 20, 2009 10:15 AM

    a step forward towards resolution but i need some help from the gurus.
    root# cat /etc/hosts
    127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost
    ::1 localhost6.localdomain6 localhost6
    192.168.2.3 sunny1pub.ezhome.com sunny1pub
    192.168.2.4 sunny2pub.ezhome.com sunny2pub
    10.1.1.1 sunny1prv.ezhome.com sunny1prv
    10.1.1.2 sunny2prv.ezhome.com sunny2prv
    192.168.2.33 sunny1vip.ezhome.com sunny1vip
    192.168.2.44 sunny2vip.ezhome.com sunny2vip
    root# /u01/app/oracle/product/crs/bin/oifcfg iflist
    eth1 10.0.0.0
    eth0 192.168.2.0
    root# /u01/app/oracle/product/crs/bin/oifcfg getif
    eth1 10.0.0.0 global cluster_interconnect
    eth0 191.168.2.0 global public
    root# /u01/app/oracle/product/10.1.0/Db_1/bin/srvctl config nodeapps -n sunny1pub -a
    ****ORACLE_HOME environment variable not set!
    ORACLE_HOME should be set to the main directory that contain oracle products. set and export ORACLE_HOME, then re-run.
    root# export ORACLE_BASE=/u01/app/oracle
    root# export ORACLE_HOME=/u01/app/oracle/product/10.1.0/Db_1
    root# export ORA_CRS_HOME=/u01/app/oracle/product/crs
    root# export PATH=$PATH:$ORACLE_HOME/bin
    root# /u01/app/oracle/product/10.1.0/Db_1/bin/srvctl config nodeapps -n sunny1pub -a
    VIP does not exist.
    root# /u01/app/oracle/product/10.1.0/Db_1/bin/srvctl add nodeapps -n sunny1pub -o $ORACLE_HOME -A 192.168.2.33/255.255.255.0
    root# /u01/app/oracle/product/10.1.0/Db_1/bin/srvctl add nodeapps -n sunny2pub -o $ORACLE_HOME -A 192.168.2.44/255.255.255.0
    root# /u01/app/oracle/product/10.1.0/Db_1/bin/srvctl config nodeapps -n sunny1pub -a
    VIP exists.: sunny1vip.ezhome.com/192.168.2.33/255.255.255.0
    root# /u01/app/oracle/product/10.1.0/Db_1/bin/srvctl config nodeapps -n sunny2pub -a
    VIP exists.: sunny2vip.ezhome.com/192.168.2.44/255.255.255.0
    Once I execute the add nodeapps command as root on node 1, I was able to get vip exists for config nodeapps on node 2. The above 2 statements resulted me with same values on both nodes. After this I executed root.sh on both nodes, I did not receive any errors. It said CRS resources are already configured.
    My questions to the gurus are as follows:
    Should ping on vip work? It does not work now.
    srvctl status nodeapps -n sunny1pub(same result for sunny2pub)
    VIP is not running on node: sunny1pub
    GSD is not running on node: sunny1pub
    PRKO-2016 : Error in checking condition of listener on node: sunny1pub
    ONS daemon is not running on node: sunny1pub
    [root@sunny1pub ~]# /u01/app/oracle/product/crs/bin/crs_stat -t
    Name Type Target State Host
    ora....pub.gsd application OFFLINE OFFLINE
    ora....pub.ons application OFFLINE OFFLINE
    ora....pub.vip application OFFLINE OFFLINE
    ora....pub.gsd application OFFLINE OFFLINE
    ora....pub.ons application OFFLINE OFFLINE
    ora....pub.vip application OFFLINE OFFLINE
    Will crs_stat and srvctl status nodeapps -n sunny1pub work after I upgrade my database or should they be working now already? I just choose to install 10.1.0.3 software and after running root.sh on both nodes, I clicked ok and then the End of installation screen appeared. Under installed products, I see 9i home, 10g home, crs home. Under 10g home and crs home, I see cluster nodes(sunny1pub and sunny2pub) So it looks like the 10g software is installed.

  • Issue with multipath load-sharing of VPNv4 routes

    Hi Sir,
    Below is output of "show ip bgp vpnv4 all 10.1.36.0/24" on a PE router in an MPLS VPN environment:
    KP1#sh ip bgp vpnv4 all 10.1.36.0/24
    BGP routing table entry for 65001:202:10.1.36.0/24, version 1732
    Paths: (2 available, best #1, no table)
    Not advertised to any peer
    Local
    172.18.254.56 (metric 31) from 172.18.254.54 (172.18.254.54)
    Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
    Extended Community: RT:65001:1200
    Originator: 172.18.254.56, Cluster list: 172.18.254.54
    Local
    172.18.254.56 (metric 31) from 172.18.255.254 (172.18.255.254)
    Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal
    Extended Community: RT:65001:1200
    Originator: 172.18.254.56, Cluster list: 172.18.255.254
    BGP routing table entry for 65001:203:10.1.36.0/24, version 2439
    Paths: (2 available, best #2, no table)
    Not advertised to any peer
    Local
    172.18.255.4 (metric 21) from 172.18.255.254 (172.18.255.254)
    Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal
    Extended Community: RT:65001:1200
    Originator: 172.18.255.4, Cluster list: 172.18.255.254
    Local
    172.18.255.4 (metric 21) from 172.18.254.54 (172.18.254.54)
    Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
    Extended Community: RT:65001:1200
    Originator: 172.18.255.4, Cluster list: 172.18.254.54
    BGP routing table entry for 65001:204:10.1.36.0/24, version 2441
    Paths: (2 available, best #2, table V1:TEST)
    Multipath: iBGP
    Not advertised to any peer
    Local, imported path from 65001:202:10.1.36.0/24
    172.18.254.56 (metric 31) from 172.18.254.54 (172.18.254.54)
    Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal
    Extended Community: RT:65001:1200
    Originator: 172.18.254.56, Cluster list: 172.18.254.54
    Local, imported path from 65001:203:10.1.36.0/24
    172.18.255.4 (metric 21) from 172.18.254.54 (172.18.254.54)
    Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
    Extended Community: RT:65001:1200
    Originator: 172.18.255.4, Cluster list: 172.18.254.54
    KP1#
    There are two RRs on the network: RR1 (172.18.254.54) and RR2 (172.18.255.254). All PE routers peer with these two RRs.
    The VPNv4 prefix 10.1.36.0/24 is advertised by two PE routers; the first is 172.18.254.56 (hostname: SK1) using RD 65001:202, another is 172.18.255.4 (hostname: SK2) using RD 65001:203. This is an Intranet VPN with RT value of 65001:1200.
    I understand why KP1 selects the path via SK2 as the best because it matches the BGP best-path selection criteria: "Prefer the path with the lowest IGP metric to the BGP next hop".
    I want to load-balance traffic destined to 10.1.36.0/24 across SK1 and SK2. Thus, I modified the config on KP1 as follows:
    router bgp 65001
    address-family ipv4 vrf V1:TEST
    maximum-paths ibgp 2
    But still only one best path is selected and installed into the VRF routing tables, as follows:
    KP1#sh ip route vrf V1:TEST
    Routing Table: V1:TEST
    10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 6 subnets
    B 10.1.36.0 [200/0] via 172.18.255.4, 20:53:01
    KP1#sh ip bgp vpnv4 vrf V1:TEST
    Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
    Route Distinguisher: 10081:204 (default for vrf V1:TEST)
    * i10.1.36.0/24 172.18.254.56 0 100 0 ?
    *>i 172.18.255.4 0 100 0 ?
    KP1 only installs the two paths when I configured the following:
    router bgp 65001
    address-family ipv4 vrf V1:TEST
    maximum-paths ibgp unequal-cost 2 (I can't exactly remember the command. It should be this one.)
    Please advise if this is the correct way to install both routes.
    Thank you.
    B.Rgds,
    Lim TS

    Hi,
    "maximum-path ... unequal-cost" means install two pathes EVEN IF paths have unequal IGP metric. If the metric is identical then the BGP path selection is identical to not configuring "unequal-cost".
    This option is used to skip the normal BGP path selection step "closest IGP neighbor" when it comes to decide what to insert into the IP routing table.
    So typically you would use "unequal-cost" as for the VPN customer your core network is not interesting (not even visible). So routing decisions based on your core network metrics are (often) not in the customers interest. The customer is usually interested in loading the redundant access lines. This would potentially not be possible because of the SP BGP selection mechanism.
    Hope this helps!
    Regards, Martin

  • Load sharing/balancing between 2 Service Providers

    Hi,
    I have a scenario where I have the following and this is repeated at different sites globally.
    CE1-----------PE1_SP1---MPLS cloud
    |
    CE1---standby--PE2_SP1---MPLS cloud
    CE2-----------PE1_SP2----MPLS Cloud
    |
    CE2---standby--PE2_SP2---MPLS Cloud
    2 different service providers and we require load sharing/balancing to both SP1 and SP2.
    If either of the SP's PE router is down it should bring up the standby link.
    2 ASN, not sure if I can load share different prefixes in this scenario.
    Will the applications fail?
    Will the traffic flow be symmetric ?
    Any help is very much appreciated.
    Thanks,
    Paul

    Hello Paul,
    if you are using a single CE router on each site.
    to get load-balancing on your CEx:
    router bgp X
    maximum-paths 2
    eBGP load-balancing is easier so 2 ISP ASN is fine
    Verify that you have flow based load-balancing and everything should be fine.
    Notice that you have a failure on site N of provider1 you can be able to detect it in all remote sites only if they are receiving the routes of all the sites. If receiving a default route there's no way for other sites to detect the failure.
    If receiving all the prefixes after MP-BGP convergence in ISP1 site N's prefixes will be withdrawn and will be reachable only via ISP2.
    To use an active/standby
    on all Cex
    router bgp x
    neighbor PE-ISP1 weigth 500
    neighbor PE-ISP1 fast-external-fallover
    in this way until a prefix is present in ISP1 MP-BGP traffic is sent via ISP1
    If using two CE in each site things are a little more complex and you need an iBGP session between them.
    Hope to help
    Giuseppe

  • BGP requirements and load sharing

    Hi !
    I have been reading memory requirements for running BGP. But, for a tipical scenario with dual ISP for load sharing which are the requirements for the router ?
    Could we use a 1841 or thinking about 37x5 or higher router ? I know that it depends on size for routing table, AS, and so on but what is the rule of thumb for choosing the correct router ?
    Thanks
    Rafa
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_configuration_example09186a00800945bf.shtml#conf2
    Load Sharing When Dual-Homed to One Internet Service Provider (ISP) Through a Single Local Router
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094a83.shtml
    Achieve Optimal Routing and Reduce BGP Memory Consumption

    Routes is one constraint and traffic is one more and the kind of policies i apply would be another. If i took a default from my upstream with about 1 MB of traffic, i would definitely look at 1841. If received routes ( atleast 20,000) and about 1 MB or 2 MB and 2 or more upstreams, I may even settle for a 3850.

  • MPLS-TE and Load sharing?

    Hi,
    I have been reading and searching for a long time,
    I have an issue with MPLS-TE, ok, let me explain..
    We have
    PE(7600) -> MPLS-network <- PE(7300)
    We have EoMPLS connection between these points
    over 2x STM-1, and we want to lets say,
    STM1(tunnel0) take 155Mbit of link1, and
    STM1(tunnel1) take 155Mbit of link2, so
    we could get full use of both links,
    I use exact path option, and everythings
    works, but, the traffic seems to choose only
    the one of the tunnels..
    Then the question is, with the tag-switching,
    does the traffic tunnels go with the CEF switching
    so, src->dst flows occurs?
    Because if i did like,
    show ip cef dstip internal
    I saw the load sharing all fine..

    Solved,
    Sorry, I found another conversation that pointed
    my conclusion out,
    http://forum.cisco.com/eforum/servlet/NetProf?page=netprof&CommCmd=MB%3Fcmd%3Ddisplay_location%26location%3D.1dd62298
    Best Regards,
    Kjarri.

  • Discussion on load-balance and load-sharing

    Hi, I found a article, which discuss the difference between load-balance and load-sharing. I think the explanation is pretty good, please see below. But I still have a question: how can we decide to choose one the both balance in the production environment ?  Thank you
    "In short, load balancing tries to distribute traffic evenly over multiple paths, whereas, load sharing intends to do it (for the lack of a better term) equally.  True load balancing is difficult to achieve.  For example, let's say there were two links (100 mbps and 300 mpbs) and a router needed to send out 600 mbps of traffic.  Load balancing would distribute the traffic evenly, sending 300 mbps on each link.  On the contrary, load sharing would divide the traffic equally based on the available resources, sending 200 mbps on the slower link and 400 mbps on the faster one. "

    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
    That's not how Cisco uses the terms, and generically they are often used almost interchangeably.
    Cisco uses load balancing as the catch all for how a single L3 device routes across multiple paths to the same destination.  Equal metrics or equal actual load distribution are not required.  Most often, load balancing will be discussed with ECMP, but unequal path loading balancing will include Cisco's proprietary IGPs, such as EIGRP.
    Cisco uses load sharing when using multiple paths when a single L3 devices doesn't normally route across multiple paths or multiple L3 devices are involved.  Cisco load sharing discussions usually revolve around BGP.
    Generically, I would say load balancing has more of a dynamic aspect to it, i.e. something is trying to actively balance traffic across multiple paths, while load sharing might mean multiple paths are utilized but not actively dynamically balanced.
    I'm unsure what's your question with a production environment.

  • BGP load sharing with bandwidth

    We are running eBGP between two routers. We had a 250 M PVC between the two routers on OSM STM4 ATM interface. We need to increase the B/W between the two routers to 350M, but because there's a limitation on the PVC size for the OSM STM4 ATM card (Max. size of the PVC is 300M), so we created new PVC between the two routers on the same circuits (and of course the same interfaces). Now I need to enable the load sharing between the two routers taking the PVC B/W in consideration.. So I prepared this config, is it right and full? Or Am I missing anything here..
    RouterA:
    Router bgp 100
    Neighbor 10.1.1.1 remote-as 200 (10.1.1.1 is loop back address fro Router B)
    Neighbor 10.1.1.1 ebgp-multihop
    bgp dmzlink-bw
    neighbor 10.1.1.1 dmzlink-bw
    neighbor 10.1.1.1 send-community both
    maximum-paths ebgp 2
    RouterB:
    Router bgp 100
    Neighbor 10.10.1.1 remote-as 200 (10.10.1.1 is loop back address fro Router A)
    Neighbor 10.10.1.1 ebgp-multihop
    neighbor 10.10.1.1 send-community both
    bgp dmzlink-bw
    neighbor 10.10.1.1 dmzlink-bw
    maximum-paths ebgp 2

    I implmented these changes but did not work, becuase the command neighbor 10.10.1.1 dmzlink-bw is not supported with multihop (Neighbor 10.10.1.1 ebgp-multihop).
    I removed the loopback BGP neighbor and created 2 BGP neighbors with the directly connected interfaces IP's and applied same configuration and now it works fine.. Here's show Ip route (Ip's and AS numbers have been chnaged)
    R1#sh ip ro 10.10.0.1
    Routing entry for 10.10.0.0/20
    Known via "bgp xxxxx", distance 20, metric 10
    Tag xxxx, type external
    Last update from x.x.x.x 00:00:24 ago
    Routing Descriptor Blocks:
    * x.x.x.x, from x.x.x.x, 00:00:24 ago
    Route metric is 10, traffic share count is 240
    AS Hops 1
    Route tag xxxxx
    y.y.y.y, from y.y.y.y, 00:00:24 ago
    Route metric is 10, traffic share count is 83
    AS Hops 1
    Route tag xxxx
    notice the traffic share count
    traffic share count is 240 (for peer #1)
    traffic share count is 83 (for peer # 2)
    It's almost 3:1

  • BGP load sharing ?

    Hi,
    got a customers who's connected to one of our PE using 2 links.
    2 BGP sessions have been set (we can't peer on loopbacks), the ebgp multipath option is set, I seen the same routes twice with equal cost on my PE, but customers report that one link is at 80% of usage whereas the other rarely goes up to 20%.
    Cef is configue "per destination".
    Can't see why I have this behaviour except that someone on customer routeur is running heavy traffic TCP soft like P2P.
    Are there some caveheats on "loadsharing" with BGP on MPLS VPN architectures ?
    Thanks

    Hi,
    did you see 2 IP routes on remote PEs as well?
    You might run into one problem coming from BGP maximum path for iBGP being 1 by default.
    So you could try
    router bgp 65000
    addressfamily ipv4 vrf MyVRF
    maximum-path ibgp 2
    on all REMOTE PE, as they are learning the redundant CE routes through iMBGP and will not install both into the VRF routing table.
    If you have route reflectors in place, then you will need to have different RD on the two VRFs the redundant CE interfaces are bound to.
    Additionally on all remote PEs:
    router bgp 65000
    addressfamily ipv4 vrf MyVRF
    maximum-path ibgp 2 import 2
    egards
    Martin

  • Configure bgp with load sharing

    Hi,
    We have 2 Lines to sprint on the same AS,
    on our side we have 2 routers that running ebgp to sprint and ibgp between them.
    now all the traffic go through one line only and if the primary line fail the traffic go through the backup.
    we run eigrp on all our routers in all the sites and we have redestribute between bgp and eigrp also on the 2 routers that run ebgp to sprint.
    we want to move to load sharing between those line base on sites , i mean some local soureces address will go through the backup line and the other go through the primary , same with the inbound traffic to those site&address .
    what is the best way to do it, and how ?
    Regards
    Ronen.

    you can only do load sharing. You cannot do load balancing because BGP selects only a single best
    path to a destination among the BGP routes that are learned from the different ASs
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_configuration_example09186a00800945bf.shtml

  • Ace 4710 - same context routed and load-sharing

    Hi All
    Can an ACE 4710 have , in the same context - servers which are
    a. just being routed to
    b. a set of load-shared servers
    I have been told you may not be able to do this on this version
    Does anyone know if this is correct
    Thanks
    Steve

    Hi Boris
    I have been on the ACE course and before we install the 4700 box i have been
    asked to set up a test setup.
    This would involve have a context which would have one ip address range and
    a few pcs (pretending to be servers ) and one which would be just routed.
    A colleague of mine seemed to think that something had been said on the course
    to the effect that if the ACE was deployed  in line the you couldnt have some
    of your servers in load-sharing and some just routed on the same subnet and
    in the same context.
    Steve

  • Itunes won't load shared library just loads and closes

    Enabled home sharing, shows "John Doe's Library". When I click on it, it says "Loading John Doe's Library" after about 10 seconds it jumps back to my main library and won't load John Doe's library. Help!!!
    *Itunes is updated, tried restarting, John Doe can open my library on his computer.

    Thanks for the tip but holding the option key didn't seem to do anything at all. I'm not sure how to navigate to my library file (is this all done in iTunes or the Finder?) It just launched iTunes with no mp3's listed, all the preferences remain and there is no welcome screen as if it's the first time I've run iTunes and no mention of a corrupt file.
    This is really bizarre to me. My music library is far too large to drag and drop all the files into iTunes every time I want to update my iPod.

Maybe you are looking for