Howard,
I am afraid to read your book, I'm afraid my brain might explode. I
thought I knew something for a minute there. You sound like you should be
creating routing protocols and writing RFC's. Wow, Howard you know your
stuff. I hope one day to be like you. Can I get your autograph?
>>>Brian
>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: bandwidth statement on Frame Relay interface
>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:40:32 -0400
>
>>To get the DUAL algorithm to operate more accurately you can enable
>>the other metrics. The only metrics enabled by default are bandwidth
>>and delay. Reliability, Load, MTU, and Hop count, can be added into
>>the Composite Metric for path determination. I have heard you should
>>really know what you are doing when you try this. I would think that
>>doing something like this would need to be done on all the routers
>>in this EIGRP AS. Jeff Doyle's book is pretty good for EIGRP.
>>
>>>>>Brian
>
>Well, if I can assume the role of someone who really knows what he's
>doing, several comments.
>
>First, while (E)IGRP is aware of MTU and hop count, they are never
>part of the metric calculation, although they are used for other
>purposes.
>
>Second, I have NEVER found a good reason to touch load. The
>consensus among routing protocol architects is that considering load
>on the next hop medium is a bad optimization that often leads to
>route oscillation. Current thinking in traffic-aware routing is that
>load can reasonably be considered only in terms of (loosely speaking)
>end to end path.
>
>I have used reliability, but it was an old application with IGRP and
>there are better ways today to solve the specific problem with which
>I was working.
>
>Even there, traffic engineering is often a matter of preallocating
>resources for the favored traffic, not trying to respond dynamically
>to load. There's been work on OSPF load-sensitive routing in the IETF
>OSPF working group archives and probably some experimental RFCs.
>Look for QOSPF (don't remember the authors, although I seem to recall
>they were at AT&T and some universities), and the OSPF (and ISIS)
>Optimized Multipath work by Curtis Villamizor.
>
>The more networks I design or review, the less I tend to think in
>terms of tweaking metrics and the more I think of getting the correct
>topology (including restricting the scope of route updates with
>OSPF/ISIS areas, BGP route reflectors and confederations, etc.).
>
>I'm not suggesting that metrics don't have an important role. But
>many introductions to routing tend to overemphasize them, because the
>introductions are focusing in on how the routing protocols select
>routes among the potential routes offered to them. In other words,
>the routing protocols make the best of what they know, but they don't
>necessarily have all information.
>
>In my Designing Routing and Switching Architectures book, you'll find
>that I give far more emphasis to topology than metrics.
>
>>n
>>
>>>From: "Ejay Hire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Reply-To: "Ejay Hire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Subject: Re: bandwidth statement on Frame Relay interface
>>>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:11:49 CDT
>>>
>>>The idea is to have EIGRP accurately select the best path based on the
>>>actual traffic that the interface can pass. If you have multiple PVC's
>>>that
>>>have different CIR's, then a single setting will cause it not to reflect
>>>accurate path metrics. It becomes even more complicated if the sum of
>>>the
>>>CIR's exceedsthe actual bandwidth of the frame-relay delivery mechanism.
>>>(t-1...)
>>>
>>>
>>>----Original Message Follows----
>>>From: "info" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Reply-To: "info" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Subject: bandwidth statement on Frame Relay interface
>>>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:59:39 -0400
>>>
>>>I've read a couple books that recommend setting the
>>>bandwidth equal to the CIR on a Frame subinterface.
>>>....as opposed to the port size....in an EIGRP environment.
>>>
>>>Anyone out there do it differently? Any recommendations
>>>or rules of thumb to apply to this issue?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________
>>>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>>>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>>>
>>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>>>http://profiles.msn.com.
>>>
>>>_________________________________
>>>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>>>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>>
>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>>http://profiles.msn.com.
>>
>>_________________________________
>>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
