No, it isn't exactly packet by packet. Supposedly you can get packet by
packet, but I haven't yet.
After turning CEF we configured the interfaces for "ip route-cache cef" and
"ip load-balancing packet-per-packet"
There are 3 T1s on that guy, and last time a looked the loads were 2/255,
5/255, and 8/255.
I'm thinking maybe if we used the load balancing command with "no ip
route-cache" instead of the "route-cache cef" command it might be a little
more even.
This is a new turn-up so we're still playing. I might try turning off
caching but leave CEF on and see what happens.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Larrieu"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 11:24 AM
Subject: RE: CEF/dCEF [7:7330]
> Idle curiousity - are you getting true "packet by packet" load sharing? Or
> conversation by conversation?
>
> i.e. is your traffic balance 50-50 ( for two lines )? Or some other
figure,
> because traffic for particular destinations is dent out particular links
due
> to the route caching?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Mike
> Fountain
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: CEF/dCEF [7:7330]
>
> We use CEF on some of our 2600s so that we can do Packet-by-Packet
> loadbalancing without having to process-switch every packet and burn up
the
> CPU
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "West, Karl"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 9:38 AM
> Subject: CEF/dCEF [7:7330]
>
>
> > To all:
> >
> > I understand the features that CEF/dCEF provide for high end VIP based
> > routers. I know the 3600's and 2100's has CEF options in their IOS, what
> > would running CEF on these platforms benefit me?
> >
> > Karl
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7425&t=7330
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
