Chuck; I don't know what 11,000 are unaccounted for in your study.I believe you had tried adding BW + delay and leftover of 11,000. This is how you could derive at the metric(default using BW and delay) Metric(IGRP) = (10000000/min BW)+ (Total Delay/10) Metric(EIGRP)= Metric(IGRP) x 256 regards; TL Yang -----Original Message----- From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 2:51 PM To: Chuck Larrieu Cc: Priscilla Oppenheimer; Cisco Mail List; James Haynes Subject: RE: Redistribution - some experiments Well if you don't adjust the K values, then BW and delay are all that is suppose to effect the link. Because the default K values reduce the EIGRP metric computation to just "lowest bandwidth and sum of delay". Below is consistant with that as could be expected. Brian On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Chuck Larrieu wrote: > OK, this wasn't as quick and dirty as I had hoped. > > I won't bore everyone with the methodology, but here is a table of my > results. The command under my IGRP process was redistribute RIP metric etc > > Bandwidth Delay Load Reliability MTU resulting route metric > 1000 100 255 255 1500 12,100 > 1000 50,000 255 255 1500 62,000 > 1000 100 255 1 1500 12,100 > 1000 100 1 255 1500 12,100 > 1000 100 1 255 1 12,100 > 2000 100 1 255 1 8,576 > > it would appear, then, that ( as we have been told by Cisco ) that only > bandwidth and delay are the driving force in determining the route metric. > Slattery's book contains a formula for calculating the metric, but I can't > get the numbers to match up. There seems to be a constant of 11,000 that I > can't account for. And while it is intuitively clear that higher bandwidth, > as configured in the last line of the table, should lead to a lower metric, > I would expect that twice the bandwidth would result in half the metric, not > 2/3's of it. > > EIGRP works in a similar manner, so I presume that the calculations are > roughly the same, and that the load, reliability, and MTU factors are of no > import, unless one has manually changed the K values using the metric > weights command. > > Hmmmm..... now that's interesting. I thought these values had to match on al > routers in the AS. Just changed the defaults on one router, and all routes > are still appearing, even after multiple clear ip route * commands. > > Well, I'm not sure this is worth any more effort. Besides, this turkey has a > big day tomorrow. > > Happy holidays, everyone. > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Priscilla Oppenheimer > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 1:38 PM > To: Chuck Larrieu; Cisco Mail List; James Haynes > Subject: RE: Redistribution > > At 12:00 PM 11/22/00, Chuck Larrieu wrote: > >Priscilla, off line I got a reply that show ip protocol reports that the K > >values are what one would expect, even with the settings what they are. In > >other words, according to the original poster, he looked and saw K1 and K3 > = > >1 and K2,4,and 5 =0 > > > >I'm curious myself, now. I can't research it right now, but somewhere I > have > >this idea that the metrics are not effected by the redistribute route > metric > >command. Changes in metric values have to be done another way. > > You would probably have to tinker with the k values using the metric > weights command, eh? > > If you use the default k values, the composite metric is min bandwidth + > the sum of delays, if I remember correctly.. > > Don't work on this tonight! It's almost the holiday! &;-) > > Priscilla > > > >Bandwidth delay load reliability MTU. Gotta remember that. And yes I see > >that in one of the tables that 255 is 100% reliable. Again, it appears from > >what Jim said that these values make no difference in the metric as > reported > >in the show ip protocol output. > > > >In his book Advanced IP routing in Cisco Networks, Slattery uses many > >examples of the redistribution metric. In each case it appears that he > tries > >to match the bandwidth, but uses values of 100, 255,1 and 1500 for all > other > >places > > > >I should have a bit of time tonight, and I will set up a quick&dirty lab > and > >experiment. > > > >Chuck > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 11:33 AM > >To: Chuck Larrieu; Cisco Mail List; James Haynes > >Subject: RE: Redistribution > > > >At 10:14 AM 11/22/00, Chuck Larrieu wrote: > > >Probably the person who did it originally did not understand how the > >metrics > > >should be set up. > > > > > >Reliability goes low to high. Lower is more reliable. > > > >You meant to say load, didn't you? > > > >255 load means a fully-loaded network, which is generally a bad thing. A > >low load is good. > > > >255 reliability means 100% reliability, which is a good thing. A low > >reliability value is bad. > > > >But when redistributing, I could see setting load high to make the > >redistributed route less favorable. What's a bit confusing is that they > >didn't set the reliability low, which would have been logical. So your > >guess that they were confused seems likely! > > > >If my brain is addled by PPP (Pumpkin Pie Preparation), forgive me. Gotta > >get back to it now. > > > >Priscilla > > > > > > > > >Do a show ip protocol and look at the K values that are reported. I'm > > >curious as to what they might show. > > > > > >Chuck > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > > >James Haynes > > >Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 9:34 AM > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: Redistribution > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >I recently took a job at a new company and one of the first tasks I've > been > > >given is to go over the configuration and documentation of one of the > WANs. > > >While going thru the router config's I have found some redistribution > > >commands that are, to me, not making sense. They are: > > > > > >router eigrp 113 > > > redistribute static metric 1544 100 255 255 1500 > > > redistribute rip metric 1544 100 255 255 1500 route-map rip-to-eigrp > > > > > > > > >Now, these are not difficult commands in and of themselves and are > readily > > >understandable. The thing that has me puzzeled is the value of the metric > > >for Load. Here the values for load are equal to 255. This to my > > >understanding represents a fully loaded route. Am I correct? If so, why > > >would one want to do that? If I'm not correct what is the correct > > >interpretation of the above values. > > > > > > > > >_________________________________ > > >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] > > > > > >________________________ > > > >Priscilla Oppenheimer > >http://www.priscilla.com > > > ________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.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] > ----------------------------------------------- Brian Feeny, CCNP, CCDP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Administrator ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881) _________________________________ 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]
