If you are sending to multiple destinations, then by default per prefix lb kicks in. If we are talking PE router then I believe its choice of p-facing NH is based on ce facing hash (!mpls), but for p-router yes, it will be a mpls label stack hash, but for a single vrf with a single pe-ce facing interface I'd expect the same label stack for all routes.
Regards > -----Original Message----- > From: Marlon Duksa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:43 AM > To: Harry Reynolds > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP and OSPF ECMP > > I'm sending traffic to 50K IP destinations. All this is in > VPN (2547). So I should have 50K flows if destination IP is > taken into account during hashing. Please keep in mind that > this IP is encapsulated in two MPLS headers as the traffic is > going through MPLS tunnel (LDP based) and then the second > label is the vrf label. The next hop (PE) router is > advertised through OSPF. > Thanks, > Marlon > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Harry Reynolds > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hmm. Normally for LB we expect to see a ulst next hop, > which in turn contains two or more ucst NHs. The FT display > indicates that a single NH is installed for that prefix. > > Can you describe the nature of the test traffic? If its > all one flow I'd expect all to take the same NH even when LB > is in effect. AFAIK, MX behavior is no different here. > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marlon Duksa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:57 PM > > To: Harry Reynolds; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP and OSPF ECMP > > > > I tried this on MX960 and it seams that load balancing is on > > by default. How do I turn load balancing off? > > In the RT I can see both next hops: > > 2.2.2.2/32 *[OSPF/10] 02:21:29, metric 1 > > to 10.0.2.2 via ge-8/0/5.0 > > > to 10.0.3.2 via ge-5/1/0.0 > > > > > > In the FT I can see only one path: > > 2.2.2.2/32 user 1 10.0.3.2 ucst 572 > > 5 ge-5/1/0.0 > > > > But when I actually send traffic and run 'monitor interface > > traffic', I see that traffic is going out over both links. > > This 2.2.2.2 next hop is actually a PE router in VPN. > > > > Is load balancing on by default on MX? I didn't configure > > anything special to turn it on. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Boyd, Benjamin R > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > You can further control the flow with: > > > > [edit forwarding-options hash-key] > > > > family inet { > > layer-3; > > layer-4; > > } > > family mpls { > > label-1; > > label-2; > > } > > > > If you're load balancing over a decent amount of hops I > > wouldn't hash > > both layer-3/layer-4 and label-1/label-2 on every > > router because then > > your per-flow becomes quite segregated and you might > > find issues where > > your load balancing on many routers will break the > > seemingly load > > balancing of another router since the hashing algorithm > > will produce the > > same result on each router. > > > > -Ben > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Harry Reynolds > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 6:18 PM > > To: Marlon Duksa; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP and OSPF ECMP > > > > Do you have a per-packet (really per flow) LB policy > > applied to the > > forwarding table? > > > > This is needed to install two or more forwarding paths > > in the pfe. BGP > > multipath is a control plane tie breaker, but by > > default only one of the > > winners is installed as active in the FT. > > > > HTHs > > > > > > [edit] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] show policy-options > > policy-statement lb { > > then { > > load-balance per-packet; > > } > > } > > > > [edit] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] show routing-options forwarding-table > > traceoptions { > > file forwarding_table; > > flag route detail; > > } > > export lb; > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Marlon Duksa > > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:22 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [j-nsp] BGP and OSPF ECMP > > > > > > Does anyone know how to enable ecmp in Junos > (I'm on M320 > > > with Junos 9.0)? > > > > > > I have a vrf with BGP configured for multipath. In the > > > forwarding table I see only one path > installed even though I > > > have two equal cost physical links to the NH. > > > My IGP is OSPF and in the routing table OSPF > is showing two > > > paths (only one active >) and in the fwd > table only one path > > > is selected. How do I force Junos to select > both links. > > > > > > Similar with LDP which is used for the > transport (tunnel) in > > > this VPN environment. > > > > > > So it looks to me that multipath in BGP is > not taking effect > > > because underlying protocols (OSPF and LDP) > is not utilizing > > > both links?? > > > Thanks, > > > Marlon > > > _______________________________________________ > > > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > > ************************* > > > > The information contained in this message, including > > attachments, may contain > > privileged or confidential information that is intended > > to be delivered only to the > > person identified above. If you are not the intended > > recipient, or the person > > responsible for delivering this message to the intended > > recipient, Windstream requests > > that you immediately notify the sender and asks that > > you do not read the message or its > > attachments, and that you delete them without copying > > or sending them to anyone else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
