Performance Routing on cisco Catalyst 4507R+E switch

[Saurabh K verma]

Hi,

I was working on conditional load balancing between our Primary link MPLS and backup link Point to Point. Assume that, we have 100 Mb of bandwidth with Primary MPLS and backup Point to Point is functional with 60 Mb bandwidth. Now let me elaborate our concern below:

1. a)      If any bandwidth flap happening with MPLS, I mean the graph of MPLS goes down on 50 -60 Mb or any variation less than 80 Mb, the flow of traffic should be automatically shifted onto Secondary P2P link.
2. b)      Apart from the variation in bandwidth graph, if any bottleneck observed or LAN users utilized the full threshold at peak working hours, in that case the flow of traffic should go from both of the link (Load balancing of traffic) some certain priority traffic should flow from Primary remaining from backup.

I was expecting a QOS based policy based routing using object tracking, wherein if any bottleneck observed with our primary MPLS link (having 100 Mb bandwidth), assuming if traffic reaches down to 50 Mb, in that case the flow of traffic should go via our secondary link (Having 60 Mb bandwidth)

Basically i want to redirect only some of the traffic when one interface reaches certain bandwidth utilization.

Devices I have: - cisco 6509-E and 4507R+E.

Anyone have ever worked before similar kind of scenario, your suggestions are welcome.

BR

Saurabh

 

[Joseph W. Doherty]

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 wha2tsoever (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

It does sound like what your describing is something that might be handled by PfR.  Unfortunately, I haven't worked with that Cisco technology since OER.  Back then, 6500 only had some very basic support, don't recall 4500s having any.  I think I also recall the master controller had to be on a (software based) router.  Don't know if any or all of that's still true, but suspect it might be.