- Community Home
- >
- Networking
- >
- Legacy
- >
- Switches, Hubs, Modems
- >
- Re: OSPF Load sharing
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-14-2008 04:38 AM
тАО10-14-2008 04:38 AM
OSPF Load sharing
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-14-2008 04:59 AM
тАО10-14-2008 04:59 AM
Re: OSPF Load sharing
The only option that can be configured is how many ECMP paths it can choose from (1-4).
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-14-2008 05:36 AM
тАО10-14-2008 05:36 AM
Re: OSPF Load sharing
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-14-2008 06:40 AM
тАО10-14-2008 06:40 AM
Re: OSPF Load sharing
With host-based ECMP (ProCurve), all IP conversations between two hosts on different networks, should take the same outgoing path. A basic Layer-3 type load-balancing
Session based to me sounds more like something Layer-4, where if you had two different TCP conversations happening between the same two hosts, it could potentially put different sessions over different paths.
Packet based load-sharing, could put different packets from the same outgoing conversation over different paths.
The problem with Packet based and Host based is that there is no garauntee that the return traffic will use the same path, creating a problem if you've got any stateful firewalls. Actually if Host based ECMP uses the router-ID in its path selection algorithm it could potentially avoid this situation.
Likewise, session-based is only good if all ECMP routers support it.
There seems to be suprisingly little information about all this on the web... hoping to hear about others experience on this one.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-14-2008 11:09 AM
тАО10-14-2008 11:09 AM
Re: OSPF Load sharing
AFAIK the ECMP in yl/zl 13.x code is finally comparable to what others call "per destination", which isn't the same thing as "session based" (that's what others call "per flow"). I wouldn't expect anything "per packet" in the L3 switching arena, the most widespread way to load balance on ECMP here seems to be per-destination. It might be a src-dst-hash instead of just a dst-hash (I don't know for sure, either) but that doesn't make it per-flow. That would require either some L4 fields going into the hash (typically on L3 switches) or a full fledged flow cache (typically on software routers), but FIB architectures are ever changing and hybridizing these days and ProCurve doesn't seem to publish much about how they do it (same with the QoS architecture).
HTH anyway,
Andre.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-17-2008 08:06 AM
тАО10-17-2008 08:06 AM
Re: OSPF Load sharing
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-17-2008 09:33 AM
тАО10-17-2008 09:33 AM
Re: OSPF Load sharing
Hej Stefan!
I also think it would be interesting to know how the OSPF load sharing actually works and I agree that the Procurve manuals somethings is very un-specific about technical details like this.
Do you have any possibility to run a packet sniffer at one or both of your next-hop addresses while you have some known session going on? That would likely show if the sharing is by packet or session.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-23-2008 01:46 AM
тАО10-23-2008 01:46 AM
Re: OSPF Load sharing
> Just to clarify "session based": I mean L3
> session.
That's either a dst-hash or a src-dst-hash. And it's what most L3 switches are doing.
> I don't think OSPF supports L4 session
> balancing. As far as I know OSPF supports
> per IP packet balancing or per IP session
> balancing.
OSPF doesn't "support certain kinds of load balancing" at all. OSPF just establishes routes in the RIB, and when it supports ECMP, that just means it can establish more than a single route in the RIB given the routes are all equal (destination and cost) and just differ in the path (egress interface/next hop). Typically (and default on ProCurves) it will establish up to four equal cost routes.
How exactly those ECMP routes in the RIB are later used to load balance is a question of forwarding, thus the FIB implementation. OSPF is long out of the game when it comes to the actual forwarding, and load balancing works exactly the same regardless of which routing protocol (or static, or even connected if that would be possible) once established the routes. If they are ECMP, the FIB/forwarding implementation will have to load balance them.
> I have read the 5400 manual but it doesn't
> say anything on which method 5400 are
> using.
IMO you can be sure that it's not per-packet as long as we speak of L3 switches and LAN interfaces.
> I have problem with voice traffic (SIP)
> over OSPF balanced network. My feelings
> was that it might be a problem if the 5400
> switches uses IP packet balancing and the
> packets are reciving to destination router
> in different order.
That could indeed kill RTP (not SIP) with some terminal implementations that cannot deal with out of order voice packets, but that could be easily debugged (just use the function on the IP phone that displays stream statistics [on Cisco IP phones that's a fast double-? touch] or if nothing like that is available, loop in a sniffer).
> I presume that they are using per IP
> session balancing but it would be nice to
> have this commited.
Looking at the traffic graphs of some 6200yl core switches doing ECMP to a handful of distributions, the loads on the interfaces are too different for this to be per-packet. Given that per-packet is an implementation nightmare even on software routers and much worse on hardware supported FIBs, and given the track record of HP ProCurve boxes in implementing ECMP at all, I think it's a pretty safe bet that there's no per-packet load balancing happening on the yl/zl product line. Ever.
HTH,
Andre.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-23-2008 03:16 AM
тАО10-23-2008 03:16 AM
Re: OSPF Load sharing
Thank you very much for your help and your description of load balancing in Procurve switchies, this will clearify everything for me.
Kind regards, Stefan