08-08-2012 10:19 PM - edited 03-04-2019 05:13 PM
Hi,
I'm having some difficulty getting the following to work as I need it to. I have a 20Mb WAN link to a customer and a 16Mb ADSL 2+ also to the same customer. The idea is to have the DSL service provide additional bandwidth in times of high load (they would manually turn it on) or perhaps it would be left on all the time and just share load all the time.
I have setup in the lab configs for both the CPE and the core, and I'm seeing the customer's network from both BGP sessions, but when I perform a download from either the same PC on the clients side or another PC, I seem to be only getting data over the 20Mb service. A traceroute from the core indicates that traffic is going via both paths, but I'm just not seeing it on the graphs and it's also not reflected in the download rate.
I've included some config and also some output from various show commands.
Any advise would be much appreciated.
CORE
router bgp 100
neighbor 10.1.1.1 remote-as 65100
neighbor 10.1.1.1 description BGP testing via DSL
neighbor 10.1.1.1 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 10.1.1.1 send-community both
neighbor 10.1.1.1 default-originate
neighbor 10.1.1.1 prefix-list customer in
neighbor 10.1.1.1 distribute-list 1 out
neighbor 10.1.1.1 dmzlink-bw
neighbor 172.16.0.1 remote-as 65100
neighbor 172.16.0.1 description BGP tesing - ethernet
neighbor 172.16.0.1 send-community both
neighbor 172.16.0.1 default-originate
neighbor 172.16.0.1 prefix-list customer_ in
neighbor 172.16.0.1 distribute-list 1 out
neighbor 172.16.0.1 dmzlink-bw
sh ip route 10.99.99.0 (192.168.1.1 is the IP assigned to the DSL session (Vi16) )
Routing entry for 10.99.99.0/29
Known via "bgp 100", distance 20, metric 0
Tag 100, type external
Last update from 192.168.1.1 00:24:15 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 192.168.1.1, from 192.168.1.1, 00:24:15 ago
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 5
AS Hops 1
Route tag 65100
172.16.0.2, from 172.16.0.2, 01:24:25 ago
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 8
AS Hops 1
Route tag 65100
sh ip cef 10.99.99.0
10.99.99.0/29
nexthop 192.168.1.1 Virtual-Access16
nexthop 172.16.0.2 GigabitEthernet0/1.557
sh ip bgp 10.99.99.0
BGP routing table entry for 10.99.99.0/29, version 4757446
Paths: (2 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Multipath: eBGP iBGP
Advertised to update-groups:
5
65100
192.168.1.1 from 192.168.1.1 (10.99.99.2)
Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, external, multipath
DMZ-Link Bw 1500 kbytes
65100
172.16.0.2 from 172.16.0.2 (10.99.99.2)
Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, external, multipath, best
DMZ-Link Bw 2500 kbytes
CPE
router bgp 65100
bgp router-id 10.99.99.2
bgp log-neighbor-changes
neighbor 172.16.0.1 remote-as 100
neighbor 172.16.0.1 description BGP via ethernet
neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 100
neighbor 10.1.1.2 description BGP via xDSL
maximum-paths 4
!
address-family ipv4
neighbor 172.16.0.1 activate
neighbor 172.16.0.1 send-community both
neighbor 172.16.0.1 dmzlink-bw
neighbor 10.1.1.2 activate
neighbor 10.1.1.2 send-community both
neighbor 10.1.1.2 next-hop-self
neighbor 10.1.1.2 dmzlink-bw
maximum-paths 4
no auto-summary
no synchronization
bgp dmzlink-bw
network 10.99.99.0 mask 255.255.255.248
exit-address-family
08-10-2012 05:59 AM
Any ideas? anyone?
08-12-2012 07:58 AM
Hello Luke,
Your output suggests that the CORE router should see the client's network 10.99.99.0/29 via both paths. I guess what you are experiencing is not a problem but rather a symptom of how CEF performs destination-based load balancing.
CEF appears to use some kind of hashing both source and destination IP address when determining the exact route of a packet. You can test the CEF decision using the command
show ip cef exact-route source-address destination-address
Here, the source-address would be the IP address of the server that the clients downloaded data from, and destination-address would be the client's IP address (i.e. the addressing of the return traffic back to the client). Try to find out if both client IP addresses may have resulted in CEF choosing the same path.
What platform is your CORE router, anyway?
Best regards,
Peter
08-12-2012 04:41 PM
Thanks for the reply Peter.
I was starting to suspect it was CEF related and from the output I've been getting it does appear to be the case - as you say, not a problem with CEF but more in which the way it handles the load balancing.
My testing from a single and multiple hosts to various destinations wasn't enough to see the load balancing appear on the graphs - perhaps more traffic with a greater spread of hosts and destinations would better demonstrate the load balancing.
From the various show commands, I agree that it does look to be doing what it is configured to do.
Thanks again for your response.
08-12-2012 04:42 PM
I forgot to add that I'm doing this testing on a 7200 G1
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide