03-26-2010 06:49 AM - edited 03-04-2019 07:56 AM
Hello
Got an issue with a surestream (2*SDSL: 2ATM, 2 DIalers tunning static routes). I am using load sharing as I would like to get the traffic using both line at the same time.
I am using ip cef and the cmd ip load-sharing per-packet on each dialer. In my CEF table I am able to see both virtuall-accesses.
All is working fine ***but**** if one line bounced and comes up, dialer comes up, virtual access come up too, can see the session in my sh users but in the CEF table this virtuall access is not appearing anymore
Need your brain guys
Tata
Mel
03-26-2010 06:52 AM
You should not use load sharing per packet.
It cause out of order packet arrival, consequently is very detrimental for most applications.
03-26-2010 07:34 AM
Hello
Thanks for your answer.
I was thinking it was only for voice over ip, in my case we are not using VOIP, will be still an issue?
As if it's not good to use it, I am not sure waht to use to get the both line used at the same time.
Tata
03-26-2010 01:40 PM
Hi Melanie,
As p.bevilacqua pointed out, it is not recommended to use per-packet load sharing unless we are sure both the links have similar latency and converge on the same device at the next-hop. This is almost impossible for internet links; even if the links are from the same ISP.
You can use per-destination load sharing (default) which would get you better results (though not perfectly equal bandwidth distribution)
Hope this helps
03-29-2010 12:52 AM
Thank you all Will put back the load sharing per destination to improve the BW share. But even with that I still have the bug after bouncing one of the line, once the line comes back up, and i can see the virtual access up under my sh users, I still cannot see it from the CEF table. Could it be an IOS issue?
Thanks in advance for your help.
03-29-2010 04:09 AM
Hi Melanie,
Please send a capture of the cef table during normal operation and during the issue along with a "show ver" from the router.
Also, once one of the links has bounced (and come back UP) and is missing from the CEF table, what do you do to restore normal operation?
Ronit
03-29-2010 06:20 AM
Hello
To get it working fine I have to clear the CEF I know that's not good.
In The CEF table below we can see allis working fine, but if Virtual-Access2 bounced and comes up again, it won't appear anymore in teh CEF table.
sh ip cef
Prefix Next Hop Interface
0.0.0.0/0 X.X.X.C Virtual-Access2
X.X.X.C Virtual-Access3
0.0.0.0/32 receive
X.X.X.C/32 attached Virtual-Access2
attached Virtual-Access3
Y.Y.Y.Y/32 receive
S.S.S.S/32 receive
........./29 attached FastEthernet0/0
........./32 receive
.........32 receive
........./32 ......... FastEthernet0/0
........./32 receive
........./4 drop
........./24 receive
........./32 receive
#sh ver
Cisco IOS Software, 1841 Software (C1841-ADVIPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.4(5b), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2)
Copyright (c) 1986-2006 by Cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Tue 18-Apr-06 18:41 by ssearch
ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.4(13r)T, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
System returned to ROM by Reload Command
System image file is "flash:c1841-advipservicesk9-mz.124-5b.bin"
Cisco 1841 (revision 7.0) with 97280K/33792K bytes of memory.
2 DSL controllers
2 FastEthernet interfaces
2 ATM interfaces
1 Virtual Private Network (VPN) Module
DRAM configuration is 64 bits wide with parity disabled.
191K bytes of NVRAM.
31488K bytes of ATA CompactFlash (Read/Write)
Configuration register is 0x2102
Tata
03-29-2010 07:10 AM
Hi Melanie,
Are these ATM interfaces? Please also send me a "show run".
Ronit
03-29-2010 07:16 AM
Hi Melanie,
The symptoms you’re seeing are most probably being caused by bug CSCsh71247. See more details for this bug here (you'll need a cco account)
http://tools.cisco.com/Support/BugToolKit/search/getBugDetails.do?method=fetchBugDetails&bugId=CSCsh71247&from=summary
This bug is fixed in 12.4(13) and above. To confirm whether this is the bug, when the problem occurs again, get a "show adjacency", it should show something like this
Protocol Interface Address
IP Virtual-Access3 point2point(8) (incomplete)
Hope this helps!!!
03-29-2010 08:28 AM
Hi Ronit,
Thanks for that
I will test the router with this new IOS version
Thanks
Mel
04-14-2010 12:59 AM
Thanks, it did fix the bug
03-26-2010 01:53 PM
Correct, even if no VoIP, you must not use per-packet load sharing.
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