something like pfr[0] may be useful in this instance, assuming the kit can run it. on newer kit, pfr-v2 is much less sucky than the pfr of old.
q. [0] http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/PfR:Solutions:BasicLoadBalancing#PfR_Features_that_Enable_Load_Balancing -= sent via ipad. please excuse brevity, spelling, and grammar =- > On Mar 5, 2014, at 22:14, Alex Pressé <alex.pre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You could create a second EIGRP process with a value for K2 > > router eigrp 2 > metric weights 0 1 1 1 0 0 > > Any identical routes in this second "new" instance of EIGRP will have a > higher metric than the original EIGRP process. And thusly will NOT be > installed in the routing table - provided they are *identical*. > > This would allow you to build out the entire second EIGRP process without > it coming live uncontrolled. > Then you could selectively remove networks from the original EIGRP (or > manually increase them via offset lists). As they get removed from old > EIGRP the new EIGRP routes would automatically take over. > > You're still left with the unfortunate part about the metric never actually > changing unless DUAL is triggered. And in my little bit of labbing this > past hour it appears that just because one side updated the metric; the > other side will *not* under certain circumstances.... So you can have two > routers having different loading values for the same link(s). Resulting in > asymmetric flows. > > I bet somebody has made an EEM script to do "clear ip eigrp neighbors soft" > on an interval or interface loading thresholds. This would at least get it > to work "as intended". > > All in all; fucking ugly. I just use default K values and a variance value > of 2 with some simple offset lists or bandwidth statements. Much easier to > support and troubleshoot at 03:15 during a vacation. > > >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jeff Kell <jeff-k...@utc.edu> wrote: >> >> After a deployment of EIGRP with the intent of providing "link >> utilization based load-sharing" as opposed to round robin, I get the >> rude awakening that the default k-values for EIGRP do NOT include link >> utilization. >> >> Any shortcuts / workarounds / etc to resetting k-values site-wide >> without breaking each individual peering as the values are changed? >> (EIGRP won't peer with mismatched k-values...) >> >> Jeff >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > -- > Alex Presse > "How much net work could a network work if a network could net work?" > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/