- Previous message: Lincoln Dale: "RE: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec"
- Maybe in reply to: dan: "Load balancing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Nicolás Antoniello (no email)
Date: Tue May 08 2007 - 08:04:03 EDT
If you choose etherchannel, also spend some minutes reading about the
balancing algorithm for your platform.
:)
On Mon, 7 May 2007, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
bep >
bep >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
bep >Hash: SHA1
bep >
bep >dan wrote:
bep >> Hello,
bep >> I currently have 2 routers with a single gigabit link (and corresponding
bep >> internal BGP session) between them.
bep >> router1 <---------gigabit------->router2
bep >>
bep >> Simple setup. Now that we have reached the limit on this gigabit link,
bep >> we are adding a second gigabit link between the same 2 routers, and we
bep >> wish to load balance across them. Traffic is about 5:1 ratio of out:in.
bep >> router2 has bgp sessions with several upstreams, and router 1 has bgp
bep >> sessions with further internal routers. What is the best way to balance
bep >> across these 2 links?
bep >>
bep >
bep >Depending on the platforms, etherchannel/port-channel would be a fairly
bep >straightforward solution.
bep >
bep >- --
bep >=========
bep >bep
bep >
bep >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
bep >Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
bep >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
bep >
bep >iD8DBQFGP7FGE1XcgMgrtyYRApnKAKCZgpq4x2jR/Ma0xNWVJBID9KFTVwCfUcqH
bep >yq4Bp01i+Bopv8tu8erN5V8=
bep >=WoFF
bep >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
bep >
|
|
|