The other downfall of using static routes to load balance is that you are
process switching the packets and not fast switching.
Here's Cisco's definations on the two...
Fast Switching
Cisco feature whereby a route cache is used to expedite packet switching
through a router
Process switching
Operation that provides full route evaluation and per-packet load balancing
across parallel WAN links. Involves the transmission of entire frames to the
router CPU, where they are repackaged for delivery to or from a WAN
interface, with the router making a route selection for each packet. Process
switching is the most resource-intensive switching operation that the CPU
can perform.
Here is a white paper on load balancing:
Alternatives for High Bandwidth Connections Using Parallel T1/E1 Links
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ifaa/pa/much/tech/althb_wp.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
SAM Meng Wai
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 7:13 PM
To: 'Phillip Heller'; Brian
Cc: Hussam Adili; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Static Routes
Yes. I agree with Philip static route will not support load uneven balancing
but
EIGRP will. Static route will send out the packet in rotating basis and
ignore
the BW define.
Q 1. Up to 6 static routes can be supported by Cisco IOS.
Rgds,
Sam
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Heller [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:47 AM
> To: Brian
> Cc: Hussam Adili; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Static Routes
>
> > 2) how Can traffic be load shared between two redundant links on 1
> to 3
> > ratio using static routing (i.e. 1 packet on one interface and 3
> > packets on the other.)
>
> I don't believe you can do this.........not "balancing" like that. Do
> you
> have something against running EIGRP on those links?
>
> How about 2 secondary addresses on the interface that you wish to send 3/4
> of the traffic over?
>
> ex:
>
> int s0
> ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.252
>
> int s0
> ip address 10.0.0.5 255.255.255.252
> ip address 10.0.0.9 255.255.255.252 sec
> ip address 10.0.0.13 255.255.255.252 sec
>
> ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.2
> ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.6
> ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.10
> ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.14
>
> Don't know if this'll work; never tried it.
>
> Regards,
>
> --phil
>
> _________________________________
> 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]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
