Changed back to CEF and it is balanced on packets sent and received
withing 20 or so. Seem good to me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 5:31 PM
To: Steve Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CEF or round robin
So what was the problem you found that was effecting traffic negatively?
CEF does not necessarily "load share" equally across two paths. It can
be
set up to do "per source/destination" or "per packet"
Per source/destination has the usual problems - all traffic can end up
going
across one link. Per packet will indeed share traffic more or less
equally
across two links.
My reading indicates that CEF per packet is actually the way to go if
one
wants to balance traffic equally across two paths.
( Cisco press book Network Design and Case Studies )
( BTW anyone else think this book is not all that good? )
HTH
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of
Steve Smith
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 2:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CEF or round robin
OK gang I need to opinions.
We set up 2 point-to-point Ts to a client running CEF. Everything seemed
to work fine, speed was good, packets per T was about equal. Then we had
a switch go bad. We replaced it but still had a sluggish network. Some
of our techs came in from another office and together we found the
problem.
While looking around they saw CEF per-packet was set on the 2 Ts. They
informed our CEO that was really wrong and should not be ran that way.
They said "round robin is the only real way to utilize 2 Ts". I say #
*!
Any opinions?
Thanks in advance,
Steve
_________________________________
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]
