Posted on August 17, 2018 5:11 pm
 |  Asked by Gab77
 |  1376 views
3
0
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

HI all

let’s say we have a similar topology like the one above in which we have 2 arista switches forming a mlag peership between them and on the other side we just have 1 uplink router connected to both switches.

is it possible to configure the router with a portchannel connected to both arista while running 2 different eBGP sessions one of each towards each arista? can this x2 eBGP sessions be runnig over the same vlan? let’s say svi1 on sw1, svi2 on sw2, svi3 on router port-channel sharing the same lan. If so, should that vlan be configured over the peerlink?
[ebgp]
/ \(uplink)
[mlagA]==ibgp +peerlink===[mlagB]
\ /
[server pool]

somehow i could not manage to config it on a simulator. It did work if we use 2 different uplink vlans.
through the eBGP we will announce each switch loopback ip add
iBGP is running on the interlink po over a /30 subnet

Thanks in advance.

0
Posted by Tyler Conrad
Answered on August 17, 2018 5:27 pm

Hi Gab,

The design you’re proposing will work (vEOS-Lab has some limitations around MLAG dataplane last I checked), but may not be ideal in the event of a flow hashing to the ‘wrong’ device, where it will traverse the peer-link. What we generally recommend instead is utilizing two routed links for BGP peering.

Something like below, utilizing /31 routed links instead of an MLAG port-channel.
A: 192.0.2.0/31 - Router[192.0.2.0]; MLAGA[192.0.2.1]
B: 192.0.2.2/31 - Router[192.0.2.2]; MLAGA[192.0.2.3]

This would allow you to have cleaner BGP peering between the MLAG pair and the router.

Depending on traffic load and if any traffic needs to be routed via the MLAG device IP over the port-channel, your idea would probably be fine. I’d still recommend you reach out to your SE to discuss options specific to your design.

HI Tyler,

thanks for your reply. definitively the vEOS behavior with this setup is quite unstable. So if i understand you correctly you mean going to a traditional approach in which each Arista box will peer with through a p2p L3 interface towards the uplink router (Arista1 L3 p2p_#1 to R1 and Arista2 p2p L3 p2p_#2 to R1). If so, this means no MLAG between the Arista switches and the uplink router right, and no portchannel on the uplink router towards the Aristas? doesn’t this configuration restrict the possible future uplink router mlag configuration towards the arista?

Best
Gab

(Gab77 at August 19, 2018 10:00 am)
2
Answered on August 17, 2018 5:39 pm

Hello!

Yes, you need the VLAN allowed on the peer-link. This is because the packets egressing out the port-channel on the upstream router can hash to either MLAG peer. As an example, if it picks SW1 as the next-hop, the DMAC of the packet will be SW1-DMAC. If this traffic hashes to SW2 (on account of LAG hashing), the traffic will get back-holed on SW2 since the VLAN is not allowed on the peer-link. So, you need the VLAN on the peer-link.

Couple of recommendations:

1. When using SVIs for peering, consider using an outbound route-map on the MLAG’ed switches to set next-hop to vIP. This is to avoid sub-optimal forwarding and MLAG peer-link utilization.

2. Using point-to-point routed links would be a better option to run eBGP and avoid using SVIs. You don’t need the route map described by [1] in this case.

Cheers
Naveen

Hi Naveen

thanks for your reply. it’s clear the interlink vlan definition, i guess in the same manner as with traditional switches interlink configurations.
In regards of point 1), could you please elaborate it a nit more?
in regards o point2),and similar to my previous response to Tyler, aren’t we compromising/restricting the possible usage of the uplink router links (one towards each Arista SW) for the coming future if we want to have a MLAG L2 setup through them ¿?

Best
Gab

(Gab77 at August 19, 2018 10:04 am)
0
Posted by Gab77
Answered on August 19, 2018 10:44 am

Hi

thank you both for your replies. So the mlag multi-homed vlans should always be extended through the peerlink in order to avoid a back-hole scenario, right?. well it seems that the best approach for this setup is to set up a traditional interconnection layout in winch each Arista will run an eBGP sessions via a p2p L3 subnet towards the uplink router, ibgp on the interlink. this means the Uplink router has not a port channel towards the arista switches, right? meaning as well no mlag between arista switches and uplink router,right? if so, does this mean we can no longer setup a mlag between both arista and the uplink in the near future? could both setups live together trough the same physical links?

Best

2
Answered on August 20, 2018 6:39 am

Hi Gab,

[1] Along the lines of my previous example, assume both MLAG peers SW1 and SW2 advertise their connected networks to the upstream router. From the router end, these networks will be seen as a two-way ECMP with next hops as SW1 and SW2. For the traffic coming from the upstream router towards the host that lives behind the MLAG pair: If these packets hash to the “wrong” switch, they will end up getting bridged via the peer-link before it gets routed to the destination.

There’s two levels of hashing for all the routed packets – ECMP followed by LAG hash:
(1) ECMP hash to pick the next hop and this determines the DMAC of the packet
(2) LAG hash which determines the physical link that’s chosen to forward the packet

You’ll see an extra hop (sub-optimal) via the peer-link for all the packets whose ECMP and LAG hashes pick different switches. In such cases, the data path will be:

[Upstream Router] (Route) –> [SW1 or SW2] (Bridge) –> [SW2 or SW1] (Route) –> [Host]

You can avoid this by configuring a VARP vIP in the VLAN that’s used for eBGP peering and using an outbound route-map with “set ip next-hop “.

[2] With routed links, you break the port-channel and you can no longer use the links as L2 for passing other VLANs. As Tyler mentioned, we recommend getting in touch with your SE to discuss the design options for your use case.

Cheers
Naveen

Post your Answer

You must be logged in to post an answer.