03-28-2017 04:23 AM - edited 03-08-2019 09:56 AM
Hello,
I would like to know how OSPF picks a path from two available with the same cost when maximum-paths 1 comand is applied.
An example using GNS3:
Before maximum-paths 1 command
R1#sh ip route 77.77.77.77
Routing entry for 77.77.77.77/32
Known via "ospf 10", distance 110, metric 4, type intra area
Last update from 4.4.4.2 on FastEthernet0/1, 00:32:08 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
4.4.4.2, from 77.77.77.77, 00:32:08 ago, via FastEthernet0/1
Route metric is 4, traffic share count is 1
* 1.1.1.2, from 77.77.77.77, 00:32:08 ago, via FastEthernet0/0
Route metric is 4, traffic share count is 1
After maximum-paths 1 command
R1#sh ip route 77.77.77.77
Routing entry for 77.77.77.77/32
Known via "ospf 10", distance 110, metric 4, type intra area
Last update from 1.1.1.2 on FastEthernet0/0, 00:00:08 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 1.1.1.2, from 77.77.77.77, 00:00:08 ago, via FastEthernet0/0
Route metric is 4, traffic share count is 1
Why 1.1.1.2 and not 4.4.4.2?
Thanks,
Miquel
03-28-2017 05:28 AM
Hi
it depends on the CEF/ FIB tables and ECMP and how its processing traffic and also if the traffic is originating from the router itself or passing through it can alter it , it can depend as well on the type of CEF load sharing per destination / per packet etc that's in place
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/border-gateway-protocol-bgp/5212-46.html
This command as an example may help you see what the path it wil take through CEF will be even when the maximum path is in use at ospf
xxxxxxxx#sh ip cef exact-route 10.1.67.69 1.1.1.1
10.1.67.69 -> 1.1.1.1 =>IP adj out of GigabitEthernet0/0/1.100, addr 10.1.67.69
xxxxxxxxx
03-28-2017 05:45 AM
Although any one platform/IOS combination may be deterministic, it may vary between platforms and IOS versions, I would suggest you treat it as non-deterministic.
03-29-2017 06:21 AM
The thing is that in my real topology (attached) sometimes I'm having asymetric routing issues on R1 after one of the inter-site links (SW 1 or SW 2) fails and comes back.and I suspect that maximum-paths 1 is the responsible.
R2, R3, R4 and R5 are ASA firewalls on the real network so they block asymetric routing.
What fo you guys think?
03-29-2017 06:42 AM
If asymmetrical routing can be an issue, then you shouldn't be using ECMP. Cost your paths to insure traffic is symmetrical.
03-29-2017 07:30 AM
Yeah, I though about it but then all VLANs go through the same link and my costumer wants one specific VLAN running over one inter-site link and all the rest over the other one.
I also though about costs + tracked static route for that specific VLAN but unfortunately my R1 (a 2960CX switch) doesn´t suport IP SLA..
The ideal situation would be to influence OSPF to pick a preferred path when maximum-path 1 is applied but if not possible, what about two OSPF processes?
03-29-2017 11:05 AM
PBR(?)
07-03-2021 11:46 PM
maybe you can change the costs on interface
03-08-2018 08:12 AM
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