I don't disagree. It was a good theory though.
Rodney
David Hughes wrote:
Hi
But seeing as the OP indicated that one of the circuits was 2GB
*underutilised* you'd be looking for 3 src/dst pairs that were all doing
2GB to get this situation. It's looking pretty unlikely that this is a
hashing issue.
David
...
On 06/08/2009, at 6:23 AM, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Ah...good one. If the sources were not random enough and it's NAT'ed
to one external ip you could really be multiplexing flows with NAT. ;)
Dean Smith wrote:
Would agree that volume is rare between 2xIP addresses but we have
something similair although on not quite the scale.
We NAT a very large organisation to the Internet. They have a large
number of disparate sites that all do their own AV updates. All the
PCs download at the same time in the evening and we generate about
.75 Gb/s of traffic between our external PAT address and the AV
download site for a good couple of hours. If we had a bigger internet
pipe it would be a higher figure. (for less time of course).
Dean
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodney Dunn" <rod...@cisco.com>
To: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swm...@swm.pp.se>
Cc: "Cisco" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] multipath BGP not balancing equally.
For small flow combinations you are right. btw, it would be just L3
src/dst flows by default unless the L4 port option is enabled.
I thought about there being a single flow causing the difference
that would be hashing down one of the paths. But 2G, while not
impossible, typically isn't used between two ip addresses. It's
something to check though for sure.
Rodney
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Rodney Dunn wrote:
That's usually caused by routes not being the same on the paths.
It was my understanding that this usually was caused by not having
enough L4 flows to loadshare on...? Ie if you have 100 TCP flows
and 4 paths, then it's not enough flows to get good load share on,
but if you instead have 10k flows and all of them are low-speed,
then the odds of them being equally load shared is much better?
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
__________ NOD32 4306 (20090804) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
