07-17-2013 01:26 PM - edited 03-04-2019 08:28 PM
Hello Friends,
Can i configur a static route for prefix x.x.x.x/y to different destinations a.a.a.a & b.b.b.b ?
Router 1 -------- Router 2 directly connected.
I want to do this thing because i have port-chanel between R1 - R1 with two interfaces, one of them is carrying 990 Mb but 2nd one is only carrying 60 Mb.
Config is identical on bundle members.
Please advice.
Regards,
Ahmed
07-17-2013 01:37 PM
That is possible, the traffic will load balance across the routers, I believe per packet is the default but I could be wrong.
07-17-2013 02:14 PM
Hi,
I believe per packet is the default but I could be wrong.
If CEF or Fast Switching (route-cache) is in use, per-destination load balancing is the default. Per-packet load balancing can be accomplished only by reverting to process switching (deactivating both CEF and the route-cache), or by using CEF and configuring the ip load-sharing per-packet command on egress interfaces.
Best regards,
Peter
07-17-2013 02:24 PM
Thanks for reminding me Peter.
Ahmed this link should be helpful,
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094820.shtml
07-17-2013 02:28 PM
Thanks Guys.
You may find below config:
at R1 ( 7606 )
description To-ASR
ip address 192.168.70.17 255.255.255.252
ip tcp adjust-mss 1400
speed nonegotiate
end
interface GigabitEthernet1/20
description To-ASR-MEMBER-1
no ip address
speed nonegotiate
no cdp enable
channel-group 10 mode on
end
!
interface GigabitEthernet1/21
description To-ASR-MEMBER-2
no ip address
speed nonegotiate
channel-group 10 mode on
end
At R2 ( ASR1002 )
description Bundle
ip address 192.168.70.18 255.255.255.252
negotiation auto
end
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0
description To-7606-MEMBER-1
no ip address
no negotiation auto
channel-group 10
end
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/1
description To-7606-MEMBER-2
no ip address
no negotiation auto
channel-group 10
end
Please advice.
I dont know what i am missing.
07-17-2013 02:45 PM
Not sure what your issue is. I thought you were looking to load balance across two routers for a particular destination? Is the issue you are having with the port channel configuration?
07-18-2013 05:36 AM
Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
A port-channel is seen by the device as one logical link. I.e. route entries do not influence port-channel load balancing.
What you might want to do, is examine your port-channel hashing algorithms. Another might better balance your traffic.
You could split your port-channel into logical links, then routing load balancing would come into play.
PS:
BTW, any per flow load balancing might result in unequal link utilization because of the nature of your traffic.
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