04-26-2006 01:09 AM - edited 03-03-2019 12:31 PM
Hello, I've set a static mapping between 2 routers connected each other by 2 serial link.
Everything seems to work well, but how can I verify if they are load balancing traffic among the 2 serial links?
Regards
04-26-2006 01:18 AM
Hi,
Well, if you do a 'sh interface', you should see traffic flowing over both links. That will indicate that load-sharing is happening.
Also, the output of 'sh ip cef' will show that you have routes with multiple next-hops.
Paresh
04-26-2006 02:47 AM
Thanks for the quick answer.
It seems like thay are not load balancing.
Do the serial link need to have the same encapsulation?
04-26-2006 03:02 AM
Not at all - they can be heterogenous.
Would you be able to post the output of 'sh ip route' so that we can see what is happening ?
Paresh
04-26-2006 03:31 AM
Sure, on r1 this is the routing table:
1.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 1.1.1.1 is directly connected, Loopback0
50.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
S 50.0.0.0 [1/0] via 147.200.200.2
[1/0] via 148.200.200.2
147.200.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 147.200.200.0 is directly connected, Serial0
148.200.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 148.200.200.0 is directly connected, Serial1
C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0
S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 192.168.1.1, Ethernet0
where on r2 I've got:
50.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 50.0.0.0 is directly connected, Loopback1
147.200.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 147.200.200.0 is directly connected, Serial0
148.200.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 148.200.200.0 is directly connected, Serial3
S 192.168.1.0/24 [1/0] via 147.200.200.1
[1/0] via 148.200.200.1
################################################
Pinging from r2 to 192.168.1.200 (ethernet 0 on r1) works fine
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pinging from r1 to 50.0.0.1 (loopback int on r2) I get:
!U!.!U!.!U!.!U!.!U!.!U!.!U!.!U
04-26-2006 03:39 AM
Can you try the following from R1:
ping 147.200.200.2
and
ping 148.200.200.2
On another note, unless you have enabled per-packet load-sharing, you will not get any load-sharing when you are sending a single stream of packets to a single IP address on the other side. The load-sharing is per-destination by default.
One other thing you might want to ensure is that you have configured the 'ip cef' command on both routers.
I would appreciate you rating posts that you find helpful.
Paresh
04-26-2006 04:03 AM
R1#ping 147.200.200.2
!!!!!
R1#ping 148.200.200.2
!!!!!
I've enable ip cef on both sides adding the
ip load-share per-packet
on all 4 interfaces.
Now r2 to r1 communication still successful, where
the ping from r1 to r2 (loopback int) becomed:
r1#ping 50.0.0.1
....................
04-26-2006 03:47 AM
1. Check whether you have configured per packet load balancing. (ip load-sharing per-packet)
2. Check whether cef is enabled ( show cef interface command)
3. if possible, paste the static routes pointed to both the interfaces.
04-26-2006 05:38 AM
As you can see ip load-aharing per-packet has been enabled an all the interfaces. You can;t see from this post, but also ip cef is properly set.
R1:
interface Serial0
bandwidth 64
ip address 147.200.200.1 255.255.255.0
ip load-sharing per-packet
encapsulation frame-relay
no arp frame-relay
frame-relay map ip 147.200.200.2 501 broadcast
frame-relay map ip 147.200.200.3 502 broadcast
no frame-relay inverse-arp
!
interface Serial1
bandwidth 64
ip address 148.200.200.1 255.255.255.0
ip load-sharing per-packet
encapsulation ppp
clock rate 64000
!
ip default-gateway 192.168.1.1
no ip http server
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Ethernet0 192.168.1.1 permanent
ip route 50.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 148.200.200.2
ip route 50.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 147.200.200.2
###################################################
R2:
interface Serial0
bandwidth 64
ip address 147.200.200.3 255.255.255.0
ip load-sharing per-packet
encapsulation frame-relay
fair-queue
no arp frame-relay
frame-relay map ip 147.200.200.1 205 broadcast
no frame-relay inverse-arp
!
interface Serial1
bandwidth 64
ip address 148.200.200.2 255.255.255.0
ip load-sharing per-packet
encapsulation ppp
!
ip classless
ip route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 148.200.200.1
ip route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 147.200.200.1
####################################################
From my prev post (see above), I also don't unserstand why r2 has got this entry in the routing table:
C 148.200.200.1/32 is directly connected, Serial3
04-26-2006 06:42 AM
Stefano
The last part of your question is easy to answer: r2 has the entry for 148.200.200.1/32 because the serial interface is using ppp and the ppp negotiation puts that route into the routing table.
I note that the routing table shows it as interface serial3 where the config you posted shows it as serial1. Would I assume that you have changed some parts of the config to prepare them for posting to the forum?
I am also a little uncertain about the routing logic that you are implementing. r1 is only routing network 50.0.0.0 on the two linnks? and r2 is only routing 192.168.1.0 on the two links?
Also I think there is some inconsistency in the way that you have your network set up. On r1 you have this static route:
ip route 50.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 147.200.200.2
the next hop address relates to this frame relay map:
frame-relay map ip 147.200.200.2 501 broadcast
which I would assume should be r2. However on r2 the frame relay serial interface has this:
ip address 147.200.200.3 255.255.255.0
but the .3 address should be r3 not r2.
That inconsistency would explain some of the connectivity problems in your earlier posts like this:
Pinging from r1 to 50.0.0.1 (loopback int on r2) I get:
!U!.!U!.!U!.!U!.!U!.!U!.!U!.!U
HTH
Rick
04-26-2006 09:20 AM
Rick, you're right, I've manually modified the serial number before the post just to simplify.
Thanks for the PPP clarification, I was not aware of it.
About the static routing on r1 an r2, spot on.
What I want to do is load-share a connection between 2 routers using 2 connections and only static routes.
On r1 I'm using an Ethernet connection, where on r2 just a loopback interface.
About the frame-relay map thing...
Basically one link connects with a back to back cable the 2 router directly (ppp), where the other link passes through a frame-relay switch.
The interface on r1 is a multipoint, and you're right, working on the frame-relay map I get some results.
I've now removed the map to 147.200.200.2 and now I get a "better" result, but still not perfect
r1#ping 50.0.0.1
.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!
Not perfect, but I'm getting there :-)
Bottom line, I get your point, as you must have picked up by now, this is a test lab, and jumping between configs/scenarios I often forget to remove completely the old (unwanted) config.
I will pay more attentions to this in the future.
03-12-2021 06:27 AM
exactly
show ip cef
it worked with me showing two port as next hop for the same destination
thanks
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