cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
162447
Views
55
Helpful
149
Comments
xthuijs
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Introduction

In this document it is discussed how the ASR9000 decides how to take multiple paths when it can load-balance. This includes IPv4, IPv6 and both ECMP and Bundle/LAG/Etherchannel scenarios in both L2 and L3 environments

Core Issue

The load-balancing architecture of the ASR9000 might be a bit complex due to the 2 stage forwarding the platform has. In this article the various scenarios should explain how a load-balancing decision is made so you can architect your network around it.

In this document it is assumed that you are running XR 4.1 at minimum (the XR 3.9.X will not be discussed) and where applicable XR42 enhancements are alerted.

Load-balancing Architecture and Characteristics

Characteristics

ASR9000 has the following load-balancing characteristics:

  • ECMP:
  1. Non recursive or IGP paths : 32-way
  2. Recursive or BGP paths:
    1. 8-way for Trident
    2. 32 way for Typhoon
    3. 64 way Typhoon in XR 5.1+
    4. 64 way Tomahawk XR 5.3+ (Tomahawk only supported in XR 5.3.0 onwards)

 

  • Bundle:
  1. 64 members per bundle

The way they tie together is shown in this simplified L3 forwarding model:

Screen Shot 2012-08-28 at 12.12.25 PM.png

NRLDI = Non Recursive Load Distribution Index

RLDI = Recursive Load Distribution Index

ADJ = Adjancency (forwarding information)

LAG = Link Aggregation, eg Etherchannel or Bundle-Ether interface

OIF = Outgoing InterFace, eg a physical interface like G0/0/0/0 or Te0/1/0/3

What this picture shows you is that a Recursive BGP route can have 8 different paths, pointing to 32 potential IGP ways to get to that BGP next hop, and EACH of those 32 IGP paths can be a bundle which could consist of 64 members each!

Architecture

The architecture of the ASR9000 load-balancing implementation surrounds around the fact that the load-balancing decision is made on the INGRESS linecard.

This ensures that we ONLY send the traffic to that LC, path or member that is actually going to forward the traffic.

The following picture shows that:

Screen Shot 2012-08-28 at 1.58.42 PM.png

In this diagram, let's assume there are 2 paths via the PATH-1 on LC2 and a second path via a Bundle with 2 members on different linecards.

(note this is a bit extraordinary considering that equal cost paths can't be mathematically created by a 2 member bundle and a single physical interface)

The Ingress NPU on the LC1 determines based on the hash computation that PATH1 is going to forward the traffic, then traffic is sent to LC2 only.

If the ingress NPU determines that PATH2 is to be chosen, the bundle-ether, then the LAG (link aggregation) selector points directly to the member and traffic is only sent to the NP on that linecard of that member that is going to forward the traffic.

Based on the forwarding achitecture you can see that the adj points to a bundle which can have multiple members.

Allowing this model, when there are lag table udpates (members appearing/disappearing) do NOT require a FIB update at all!!!

What is a HASH and how is it computed

In order to determine which path (ECMP) or member (LAG) to choose, the system computes a hash. Certain bits out of this hash are used to identify member or path to be taken.

  • Pre 4.0.x Trident used a folded XOR methodology resulting in an 8 bit hash from which bits were selected
  • Post 4.0.x Trident uses a checksum based calculation resulting in a 16 bit hash value
  • Post 4.2.x Trident uses a checksum based calculation resulting in a 32 bit hash value
  • Typhoon 4.2.0 uses a CRC based calculation of the L3/L4 info and computes a 32 bit hash

8-way recursive means that we are using 3 bits out of that hash result

32-way non recursive means that we are using 5 bits

64 members means that we are looking at 6 bits out of that hash result

It is system defined, by load-balancing type (recursive, non-recursive or  bundle member selection) which bits we are looking at for the  load-balancing decision.

Fields used in ECMP HASH

What is fed into the HASH depends on the scenario:

Incoming Traffic Type Load-balancing Parameters
IPv4

Source IP, Destination IP, Source port (TCP/UDP only), Destination port (TCP/UDP only), Router ID

   
IPv6

Source IP, Destination IP, Source port (TCP/UDP only), Destination port (TCP/UDP only), Router ID

   
MPLS - IP Payload, with < 4 labels

Source IP, Destination IP, Source port (TCP/UDP only), Destination port (TCP/UDP only), Router ID

From 6.2.3 onwards, for Tomahawk + later ASR9K LCs:

MPLS - IP Payload, with < 8 labels

Source IP, Destination IP, Source port (TCP/UDP only), Destination port (TCP/UDP only), Router ID

Typhoon LCs retain the original behaviour of supporting IP hashing for only up to 4 labels.

 

MPLS - IP Payload, with > 9 labels

If 9 or more labels are present, MPLS hashing will be performed on labels 3, 4, and 5 (labels 7, 8, and 9 from 7.1.2 onwards). Typhoon LCs retain the original behaviour of supporting IP hashing for only up to 4 labels.

- IP Payload, with > 4 labels

4th MPLS Label (or Inner most) and Router ID

- Non-IP Payload

Inner most MPLS Label and Router ID

* Non IP Payload includes an Ethernet interworking, generally seen on Ethernet Attachment Circuits running VPLS/VPWS.

These have a construction of

EtherHeader-Mpls(next hop label)-Mpls(pseudowire label)-etherheader-InnerIP

In those scenarios the system will use the MPLS based case with non ip payload.

IP Payload in MPLS is a common case for IP based MPLS switching on LSR's whereby after the inner label an IP header is found directly.

Router ID

The router ID is a value taken from an interface address in the system in an order to attempt to provide some per node variation

This value is determined at boot time only and what the system is looking for is determined by:

sh arm router-ids

 

Example:

 

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:A9K-BNG#show arm router-id

Tue Aug 28 11:51:50.291 EDT

Router-ID         Interface

 

8.8.8.8           Loopback0      

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:A9K-BNG#

Bundle in L2 vs L3 scenarios

This section is specific to bundles. A bundle can either be an AC or attachment circuit, or it can be used to route over.

Depending on how the bundle ether is used, different hash field calculations may apply.

When the bundle ether interface has an IP address configured, then we follow the ECMP load-balancing scheme provided above.

When the bundle ether is used as an attachment circuit, that means it has the "l2transport" keyword associated with it and is used in an xconnect or bridge-domain configuration, by default L2 based balancing is used. That is Source and Destination MAC with Router ID.

If you have 2 routers on each end of the AC's, then the MAC's are not varying a lot, that is not at all, then you may want to revert to L3 based balancing which can be configured on the l2vpn configuration:

 

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:A9K-BNG#configure

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:A9K-BNG(config)#l2vpn

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:A9K-BNG(config-l2vpn)#load-balancing flow ?

  src-dst-ip   Use source and destination IP addresses for hashing

  src-dst-mac  Use source and destination MAC addresses for hashing

 

Use case scenarios

Screen Shot 2012-08-28 at 1.11.11 PM.png

Case 1 Bundle Ether Attachment circuit (downstream)

In this case the bundle ether has a configuration similar to

 

interface bundle-ether 100.2 l2transport

  encap dot1q 2

  rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric

 

And the associated L2VPN configuration such as:

 

l2vpn

  bridge group BG

  bridge-domain BD

   interface bundle-e100.2

 

In the downstream direction by default we are load-balancing with the L2 information, unless the load-balancing flow src-dest-ip is configured.

Case 2 Pseudowire over Bundle Ether interface (upstream)

The attachment circuit in this case doesn't really matter, whether it is bundle or single interface.

The associated configuration for this in the L2VPN is:

 

l2vpn

  bridge group BG

   bridge-domain BD

    interface bundle-e100.2

    vfi MY_VFI

    neighbor 1.1.1.1 pw-id 2

 

interface bundle-ether 200

  ipv4 add 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0

 

router static

  address-family ipv4 unicast

    1.1.1.1/32 192.168.1.2

 

In this case neighbor 1.1.1.1 is found via routing which appens to be egress out of our bundle Ethernet interface.

This is MPLS encapped (PW) and therefore we will use MPLS based load-balancing.

Case 3 Routing through a Bundle Ether interface

In this scenario we are just routing out the bundle Ethernet interface because our ADJ tells us so (as defined by the routing).

Config:

interface bundle-ether 200

ipv4 add 200.200.1.1 255.255.255.0

 

show route (OSPF inter area route)

O IA 49.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 200.200.1.2, 2w4d, Bundle-Ether200

Even if this bundle-ether is MPLS enabled and we assign a label to get to the next hop or do label swapping, in this case

the Ether header followed by MPLS header has Directly IP Behind it.

We will be able to do L3 load-balancing in that case as per chart above.

(Layer 3) Load-balancing in MPLS scenarios

As attempted to be highlighted throughout this technote the load-balacning in MPLS scenarios, whether that be based on MPLS label or IP is dependent on the inner encapsulation.

Depicted in the diagram below, we have an Ethernet frame with IP going into a pseudo wire switched through the LSR (P router) down to the remote PE.

Screen Shot 2012-08-28 at 1.22.26 PM.png

Pseudowires in this case are encapsulating the complete frame (with ether header) into mpls with an ether header for the next hop from the PE left router to the LSR in the middle.

Although the number of labels is LESS then 4. AND there is IP available, the system can't skip beyond the ether header and read the IP and therefore falls back to MPLS label based load-balancing.

How does system differentiate between an IP header after the inner most label vs non IP is explained here:

Just to recap, the MPLS header looks like this:

Screen Shot 2012-08-28 at 1.28.12 PM.png

Now the important part of this picture is that this shows MPLS-IP. In the VPLS/VPWS case this "GREEN" field is likely start with Ethernet headers.

Because hardware forwarding devices are limited in the number of PPS they can handle, and this is a direct equivalent to the number of instructions that are needed to process a packet, we want to make sure we can work with a packet in the LEAST number of instructions possible.

In order to comply with that thought process, we check the first nibble following the MPLS header and if that starts with a 4 (ipv4) or a 6 (ipv6) we ASSUME that this is an IP header and we'll interpret the data following as an IP header deriving the L3 source and destination.

 

Now this works great in the majority scenarios, because hey let's be honest, MAC addresses for the longest time started with 00-0......

in other words not a 4 or 6 and we'd default to MPLS based balancing, something that we wanted for VPLS/VPWS.

However, these days we see mac addresses that are not starting with zero's anymore and in fact 4's or 6's are seen!

This fools the system to believe that the inner packet is IP, while it is an Ether header in reality.

There is no good way to classify an ip header with a limited number of instruction cycles that would not affect performance.

In an ideal world you'd want to use an MD5 hash and all the checks possible to make the perfect decision.

Reality is different and no one wants to pay the price for it either what it would cost to design ASICS that can do high performance without affecting the PPS rate due to a very very comprehensive check of tests.

Bottom line is that if your DMAC starts with a 4 or 6 you have a situation.

Solution

Use the MPLS control word.

Control word is negotiated end to end and inserts a special 4 bytes with zero's especially to accommodate this purpose.

The system will now read a 0 instead of a 4 or 6 and default to MPLS based balancing.

Configuration

to enable control word use the follow template:

 

l2vpn

pw-class CW

  encapsulation mpls

   control-word

  !

!

xconnect group TEST

  p2p TEST_PW

   interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/0

   neighbor 1.1.1.1 pw-id 100

    pw-class CW

   !

  !

!

!

Alternative solutions: Fat Pseudowire

Since you might have little control over the inner label, the PW label, and you probably want to ensure some sort of load-balancing, especially on P routers that have no knowledge over the offered service or mpls packets it transports another solution is available known as FAT Pseudowire.

FAT PW inserts a "flow label" whereby the label has a value that is computed like a hash to provide some hop by hop variation and more granular load-balancing. Special care is taken into consideration that there is variation (based on the l2vpn command, see below) and that no reserved values are generated and also don't collide with allocated label values.

Fat PW is supported starting XR 4.2.1 on both Trident and Typhoon based linecards. From 6.5.1 onward we support FAT label over PWHE.

Packet transformation with a Flow Label

Screen Shot 2012-08-29 at 1.19.42 PM.png

Configuration of FAT Pseudowire

The following is configuration example :

 

l2vpn

load-balancing flow src-dst-ip

pw-class test

encapsulation mpls

   load-balancing

   flow-label both static

   !

!

 

You can also affect the way that the flow label is computed:

Under L2VPN configuration, use the “load-balancing flow” configuration command to determine how the flow label is generated:

l2vpn

    load-balancing flow src-dst-mac

This is the default configuration, and will cause the NP to build the flow label from the source and destination MAC addresses in each frame.

l2vpn

    load-balancing flow src-dst-ip

 

This is the recommended configuration, and will cause the NP to build the flow label from the source and destination IP addresses in each frame.

• Note that IPv6 hashing is not supported in the first release.
 
FAT Pseudowire TLV

Flow Aware Label (FAT) PW signalled sub-tlv id is currently carrying value 0x11 as specified originally in draft draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw. This value has been recently corrected in the draft and should be 0x17. Value 0x17 is the flow label sub-TLV identifier assigned by IANA.

When Inter operating between XR versions 4.3.1 and earlier, with XR version 4.3.2 and later. All XR releases 4.3.1 and prior that support FAT

PW will default to value 0x11. All XR releases 4.3.2 and later default to value 0x17.

Solution:

Use the following config on XR version 4.3.2 and later to configure the sub-tlv id

pw-class <pw-name>

   encapsulation mpls

   load-balancing

   flow-label both

  flow-label code 17

NOTE: Got a lot of questions regarding the confusion about the statement of 0x11 to 0x17 change (as driven by IANA) and the config requirement for number 17 in this example.

The crux is that the flow label code is configured DECIMAL, and the IANA/DRAFT numbers mentioned are HEX.

So 0x11, the old value is 17 decimal, which indeed is very similar to 0x17 which is the new IANA assigned number. Very annoying, thank IANA

(or we could have made the knob in hex I guess )

 

Loadbalancing and priority configurations

In the case of VPWS or VPLS, at the ingress PE side, it’s possible to change the load-balance upstream to MPLS Core in three different ways:

 

1. At the L2VPN sub-configuration mode with “load-balancing flow” command with the following options:

 

RP/0/RSP1/CPU0:ASR9000(config-l2vpn)# load-balancing flow ?

  src-dst-ip

  src-dst-mac [default]

 

2. At the pw-class sub-configuration mode with “load-balancing” command with the following options:

 

RP/0/RSP1/CPU0:ASR9000(config-l2vpn-pwc-mpls-load-bal)#?

  flow-label [see FAT Pseudowire section]

  pw-label [per-VC load balance]

 

3. At the Bundle interface sub-configuration mode with “bundle load-balancing hash” command with the following options:

 

RP/0/RSP1/CPU0:ASR9000(config-if)#bundle load-balancing hash ? [For default, see previous sections]

  dst-ip 

  src-ip

 

It’s important to not only understand these commands but also that: 1 is weaker than 2 which is weaker than 3.

Example:

 

l2vpn

load-balancing flow src-dst-ip 

pw-class FAT

 

encapsulation mpls

control-word

   

transport-mode ethernet

load-balancing

pw-label

   

flow-label both static

interface Bundle-Ether1

(...)

bundle load-balancing hash dst-ip

 

Because of the priorities, on the egress side of the ingress PE (to the MPLS Core), we will do per-dst-ip load-balance (3).

If the bundle-specific configuration is removed, we will do per-VC load-balance (2).

If the pw-class load-balance configuration is removed, we will do per-src-dst-ip load-balance (1).

with thanks to Bruno Oliveira for this priority section

P2MP MPLS TE Tunnels

Only one bundle member will be selected to forward traffic on the P2MP MPLS TE mid-point node.

Possible alternatives that would achieve better load balancing are: a) increase the number of tunnels or b) switch to mLDP.

IPv6

Pre 4.2.0 releases, for the ipv6 hash calculation we only use the last 64 bits of the address to fold and feed that into the hash, this including the regular routerID and L4 info.

In 4.2.0 we made some further enhancements that the full IPv6 Addr is taken into consideration with L4 and router ID.

Determining load-balancing

You can determine the load-balancing on the router by using the following commands

L3/ECMP

For IP :

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:A9K-BNG#show cef exact-route 1.1.1.1 2.2.2.2 protocol udp ?

  source-port  Set source port

You have the ability to only specify L3 info, or include L4 info by protocol with source and destination ports.

It is important to understand that the 9k does FLOW based hashing, that is, all packets belonging to the same flow will take the same path.

If one flow is more active or requires more bandwidth then another flow, path utilization may not be a perfect equal spread.

UNLESS you provide enough variation in L3/L4 randomness, this problem can't be alleviated and is generally seen in lab tests due the limited number of flows.

For MPLS based hashing :

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:A9K-BNG#sh mpls forwarding exact-route label 1234 bottom-label 16000 ... location 0/1/cpu0

This command gives us the output interface chosen as a result of hashing with mpls label 16000. The bottom-label (in this case '16000') is either the VC label (in case of PW L2 traffic) or the bottom label of mpls stack (in case of mpls encapped L3 traffic with more than 4 labels). Please note that for regular mpls packets (with <= 4 labels) encapsulating an L3 packet, only IP based hashing is performed on the underlying IP packet.

Also note that the mpls hash algorithm is different for trident and typhoon. The varied the label is the better is the distribution. However, in case of trident there is a known behavior of mpls hash on bundle interfaces. If a bundle interface has an even number of member links, the mpls hash would cause only half of these links to be utlized. To get around this, you may have to configure "cef load-balancing adjust 3" command on the router. Or use odd number of member links within the bundle interface. Note that this limitation applies only to trident line cards and not typhoon.

Bundle member selection

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:A9K-BNG#bundle-hash bundle-e 100 loc 0/0/cPU0

Calculate Bundle-Hash for L2 or L3 or sub-int based: 2/3/4 [3]: 3

Enter traffic type (1.IPv4-inbound, 2.MPLS-inbound, 3:IPv6-inbound): [1]: 1

Single SA/DA pair or range: S/R [S]:

Enter source IPv4 address [255.255.255.255]:

Enter destination IPv4 address [255.255.255.255]:

Compute destination address set for all members? [y/n]: y

Enter subnet prefix for destination address set: [32]:

Enter bundle IPv4 address [255.255.255.255]:

Enter L4 protocol ID. (Enter 0 to skip L4 data) [0]:

Invalid protocol. L4 data skipped.

Link hashed [hash_val:1] to is GigabitEthernet0/0/0/19 LON 1 ifh 0x4000580

The hash type L2 or L3 depends on whether you are using the bundle Ethernet interface as an Attachment Circuit in a Bridgedomain or VPWS crossconnect, or whether the bundle ether is used to route over (eg has an IP address configured).

Polarization

Polarization pertains mostly to ECMP scenarios and is the effect of routers in a chain making the same load-balancing decision.

The following picture tries to explain that.

Screen Shot 2012-08-28 at 11.11.32 AM.png

In this scenario we assume 2 bucket, 1 bit on a 7 bit hash result. Let's say that in this case we only look at bit-0. So it becomes an "EVEN" or "ODD" type decision. The routers in the chain have access to the same L3 and L4 fields, the only varying factor between them is the routerID.

In the case that we have RID's that are similar or close (which is not uncommon), the system may not provide enough variation in the hash result which eventually leads to subsequent routers to compute the same hash and therefor polarize to a "Southern" (in this example above) or "Northern" path.

In XR 4.2.1 via a SMU or in XR 4.2.3 in the baseline code, we provide a knob that allows for shifting the hash result. By choosing a different "shift" value per node, we can make the system look at a different bit (for this example), or bits.

Screen Shot 2012-08-28 at 11.57.20 AM.png

In this example the first line shifts the hash by 1, the second one shifts it by 2.

Considering that we have more buckets in the real implementation and more bits that we look at, the member or path selection can alter significantly based on the same hash but with the shifting, which is what we ultimately want.

HASH result Shifting

  • Trident allows for a shift of maximum of 4 (performance reasons)
  • Typhoon allows for a shift of maximum of 32.

Command

cef load-balancing algorithm adjust <value>

The command allows for values larger then 4 on Trident, if you configure values large then 4 for Trident, you will effectively use a modulo, resulting in the fact that shift of 1 is the same as a shift of 5

Fragmentation and Load-balancing

When the system detects fragmented packets, it will no longer use L4 information. The reason for that is that if L4 info were to be used, and subsequent fragments don't contain the L4 info anymore (have L3 header only!) the initial fragment and subsequent fragments produce a different hash result and potentially can take different paths resulting in out of order.

Regardless of release, regardless of hardware (ASR9K or CRS), when fragmentation is detected we only use L3 information for the hash computation.

Hashing updates

- Starting release 6.4.2, when an layer 2 interface (EFP) receives mpls encapped ip packets, the hashing algorithm if configured for src-dest-ip will pick up ip from ingress packet to create a hash. Before 6.4.2 the Hash would be based on MAC.

- Starting XR 6.5, layer 2 interfaces receiving GTP encapsulated packets will automatically pick up the TEID to generate a hash when src-dest-ip is configured.

Related Information

Xander Thuijs, CCIE #6775

Sr Tech Lead ASR9000

Comments
xthuijs
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

hi hendro,

so you only have one or two flows? in that case this is expected, as we always loadbalance on a per flow bases (to maintain order integrity, there is no per packet based balancing).

I also wanted to ask, just to exclude that from being a possible culprit, if you remove the ABF configuration do you see better spread over the members?

cheers

xander

Hendro Marwanto
Level 1
Level 1

Agree with that, i don't expected to load-balance per packet based, our capture before only to show the utilization on both member is different :)

| ingress(In) rasio 50:50 | egress(Out) rasio 100:0 |

Interface             In(bps)      Out(bps)     InBytes/Delta  OutBytes/Delta
BE1                  628.5M/  3%     6.8G/ 34%   210.7T/160.0M    2231T/1.7G  
Te0/1/0/0            310.1M/  3%     6.8G/ 68%   206.1T/79.7M     2230T/1.7G  
Te0/2/0/0            318.3M/  3%     4.6M/  0%     4.6T/79.9M    150.7G/2.0M  
BE2                  690.4M/  3%     6.6G/ 33%   212.0T/172.7M    2231T/1.6G  
Te0/1/1/0            345.6M/  3%     8.9M/  0%   207.3T/87.4M     2140T/3.2M  
Te0/2/1/0            344.9M/  3%     6.6G/ 66%     4.6T/85.5M     91.0T/1.6G  

 

Currently ingress flow and egress flow a little bit different because we using this bundle interface as local Inside port and this router running ABF for CGN service.

I don't thing can remove this ABF in our production for now.
But previously i have perform another bundle in this router also with the same scenario but on the same linecard (NP), the load-balancing just work fine both ingress and egress flows.

BE22 (Te0/1/1/0) & Te0/1/1/1)

Regards,
Hendro

Hello Xander,

One more question about FAT load balancing.

As we previously discussed, we have implemented FAT from ASR9K#1 to ASR9K#2, as in the following topology. The 7600 P router, indeed uses the flow label and is load balancing toward the ASR9K#2

ASR9K#1 ------7600======ASR9K#2

The traffic we are carrying is PPPoE, so the flow label is normally based on the src-dst-mac of the ingress frame on ASR9K#1. Is there a command on ASR9K to test the flow label generation?

For example can we run a test on the CLI, give a src mac and a dst mac and get a result with the expected flow label?

Then, knowing the flow label can we run a test on the 7600 to determine the egress interface of the specific flow?

If you don't support such functionality, would you consider it for a future release?

Best regards,

George

xthuijs
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

hi george,

we have 2 commands bundle-hash and show cef exact route that take some entries and allow you to see which member or path are to be taken under a given scenario, I think they are mostly useful there already. A dedicated command to compute the hash value and show you the label value is not there, but the value on itself is not very useful as it wouldn't derive the actual member or path to be taken. For that reason the 2 cmd's noted are probably more useful?

cheers!

xander

tomek0001
Level 4
Level 4

Do you know if the ASR9K platform will be supporting more of a dynamic load balancing algorithm to account for flowlets and better distribution of traffic over links based on their utilization whiles still minimizing packet reordering? I noticed that the ACI architecture supports it (http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/datacenter/aci/apic/sw/1-x/aci-fundamentals/b_ACI-Fundamentals/b_ACI_Fundamentals_BigBook_chapter_0100.html#concept_F280C079790A451ABA76BC5C6427D746), not sure if that's something that's being looked at for the ASR platform.

 

Thank you,

 

TomK
 

xthuijs
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Hi Tom,

that is indeed part of the plan, but not committed to a release yet.

What we want to do is expose the load of the buckets and provide an api to assign buckets to members, this way we can steer the balancing of say 2 medium flows to member 1 and one heavy flow to member 2 ; i.e. give more control to the user on the bucket to member allocation.

regards

xander

Cisco has a new load-balancing solution called ITD.

Please see ITD (Intelligent Traffic Director) White Paper.

Also, recent blog : Intelligent Traffic Director @ Cisco Live Milan

 

ITD Provides CAPEX and OPEX Savings for Customers

ITD (Intelligent Traffic Director) is a hardware based multi-Tbps Layer 4 load-balancing, traffic steering and clustering solution on Nexus 5K/6K/7K series of switches. It supports IP-stickiness, resiliency, NAT, (EFT), VIP, health monitoring, sophisticated failure handling policies, N+M redundancy, IPv4, IPv6, VRF, weighted load-balancing, bi-directional flow-coherency, and IPSLA probes including DNS.

ITD is much superior than legacy solutions like PBR, WCCP, ECMP, port-channel, layer-4 load-balancer appliances.

 

atif_hafeez
Level 1
Level 1

 Xander,

 

Thank you for this article.

 

Quote:

However, these days we see mac addresses that are not starting with zero's anymore and in fact 4's or 6's are seen!

This fools the system to believe that the inner packet is IP, while it is an Ether header in reality.

Unquote

 

What will happen if we don't use control word and system gets fooled because of the mac addresses starting with 4 or 6 appear in the frames?

Will all such traffic be hashed to a single interface or it will be hashed to multiple paths but the results will be in-deterministic?

 

Best regards!

xthuijs
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

hi atif, what will happen is that the hash computation will assume that what follows is an ip header, so when the offset to an ip address is read in the 4th and 5th longword boundary it is not really an ip address but say an ether payload. So it is likely that a single flow produces different hash values for different packets in teh same flow and that means, especially in ECMP cases that the different packets from that flow follow different paths through the network and can possibly result in out of order reception.

regards

xander

atif_hafeez
Level 1
Level 1

hi Alex,

Thank you for your helpful feedbacks.

To tackle this issue in NCS, another check is added i.e. comparing the length field on IPV4/V6 packet with the packet actual length in case the first octet on the payload packet is 4/6. This will prevents the router form confusing between L2 packets and L3 packets. It seems that this check is not added in ASR9K platform. Can you please advise if there any road map for adding it? I would also like to know the behavior of CRS if it is similar to NCS or ASR.

Best regards!

xthuijs
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Hi Atif,

CRS behaves like ASR9K.

technically that can be done, that is, numerous extra checks can be added to validate the true nature of the packet. All these extra checks burn ucode cycles, and what that does is taking away room for features and slowing down the pipeline. The ncs hw is able to do this, because they dont have to deal with the feature count that an edge device like a9k has to deal with. Its all engineering trade off.

Let me put it this way, if you are running PW's AND you have a tendency of seeing mac's starting with 4 or 6 then you will want to use CW regardless.

(especially if your LSR's are non NCS, that is any other vendor and a9k/crs for that matter). What this means is that EVERY vendor will get fooled by this, just ncs is ahead of the game in this regard, but shouldnt be necessary because CW (just 2 bytes) is the ultimate answer there.

regards

xander

atif_hafeez
Level 1
Level 1

Hi Alex,

Perfect :). This is what we are planning to do i.e. use CW to cover ASR9K and CRS nodes.

Thank you for your usual support.

 

Best regards!

atif_hafeez
Level 1
Level 1

Hi Alex,

We tried to produce this issue in our lab but we couldn't. We constructed two flows used the source and destination mac addresses starting with 4 & 6. Both flows choosed only a single link (out of two paths). Please advise how can we produce it if possible. I have attached a screenshot showing source and destination mac addresses used.

 

Best regards!

Scott Aitken
Level 1
Level 1

Without knowing your topology...

I'm pretty sure this scenario only crops up on P routers.  So you'd need at least three routers (PE---P---PE) to see it.

When behaving as a PE the ASRs build the hash on the unencapsulated traffic and so the issue doesn't apply.

When switching MPLS frames howerver, a P router has no idea what the payload is (MPLS circuits are connection oriented - both ends know the payload type a priori, it is not signalled during set-up).

So to see the issue you'd need a Layer 2 VPN which traverses a P router, with no control-word or flow-label set on label imposition.

Xander correct me if I'm wrong here.

atif_hafeez
Level 1
Level 1

This is exactly what is done in our test. we are trying to produce it for a P router. so we have PE1 -- P == PE2. L2VPN is established between PEs without CW. P router is supposed to be fooled and split flows across multiple paths between P and PE2. But in our test, two flows are sticking with one link only. We need an advise what can be added in the frames to simulate the issue.

regards.

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Quick Links