Thanks Raymond - Ive adjusted the ospf cost on the "backup" link from 202 to 215 on both ends, and now traffic is behaving as wanted....i.e no more load-balancing
Cheers for all the replies. ________________________________________ From: cisco-nsp <[email protected]> on behalf of Raymond Burkholder <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 18 September 2015 6:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Unintentional load balancing of traffic > Link 1 (primary) has ip ospf cost 201 > > Link 2 (secondary has ip ospf cost 202 > > But traffic egressing from this PE is load balancing(per session) across the > 2 links? > > If I do a sh ip route foo, it displays both paths, known via OSPF and route > metric of 205? Hazarding a guess: you have explicit costs assigned to the local links of 201 and 202. But as OSPF is a link vector protocol, all costs between local interface and destination interface are added together. So when you add the cost of all links between source and destination, they must add up to 205 on each of two paths. And thus get load balanced. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
