RE: CEF or round robin
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]
Re: CEF or round robin
Two T1's going to the same ISP? Why not use PPP and make one big pipe? I like simple answers. Check your port/speed/duplex settings on the new switch. Many times ISPs won't do PPP multilink due to the overhead it introduces. I've found CEF per-packet to meet my company's needs. We have two T1s to UUNet, and get ~350KB/sec upstream if the other end can take it. That's pretty close to capacity, and across the "public Internet", not too shabby. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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]
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]
Re: CEF or round robin
Two T1's going to the same ISP? Why not use PPP and make one big pipe? I like simple answers. Check your port/speed/duplex settings on the new switch. ""Chuck Larrieu"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 002601c0826f$f0c1fe40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:002601c0826f$f0c1fe40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 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] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
