I can give you a good example of utilizing EIGRP unequal cost load balancing I had done. A customer had three T1's to a remote site. Two were p-t-p and the other was a channel off of a T3. When the T3 was added EIGRP choose it, ignoring the other two T1's. Using the variance command I forced EIGRP to utilize all three T1's via CEF per packet load balancing.
Not typical but it's the real world. Dave Jonathan Hays wrote: > > "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > > It is an OSPF design principle. Essentially, current-generation > > routing protocols (i.e., without traffic engineering) are incapable > > of doing other than hop-by-hop load sharing, which may lead to > > extremely poor end-to-end utilization. > > > > The IETF consensus is that when you need to optimize utilization, > > conserve resources, etc., you need traffic engineering. Routing is > > intended for topology discovery rather than traffic optimization. > > > > In other words, I consider, and I think most routing authorities > > would agree, that the unequal cost load balancing of IGRP and EIGRP > > really is a blind alley in protocol development. > > Interesting. Thanks for that insight, Howard. And it makes sense because > although I've > played with it in the lab, I have never needed to configure EIGRP/IGRP > unequal cost load > balancing in the real world, nor even seen it configured. (Not that my > experience is > that wide.) > > I wonder if anyone can comment regarding how widespread is the use of EIGRP > or IGRP > unequal cost load balancing? -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27372&t=27311 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
