Re: Load Balancing with EIGRP
Provided these paths are equal metrics in the routing table you will have load balancing. However, if you have fast switching on the load balancing will be on a destination by destination basis. To achieve load balancing on a packet by packet basis you need to turn fast switching off. Jim "Rizzo Damian" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 49C181ACF35ED311A7DC00508B5AF61102E52516@NAEXCHANGE">news:49C181ACF35ED311A7DC00508B5AF61102E52516@NAEXCHANGE... Were currently using EIGRP as our routing protocol and we now have two separate T1 connections that were running Frame-relay on. If my understanding of EIGRP is correct, then I shouldn't have to make any modifications to the router in order for load balancing to take effect correct? Thanks! -Rizzo _ 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: Load Balancing with EIGRP
Correct. However, make sure that your bandwidth and delay perameters are equal for the paths over which you want to load share or else it will not load share by DEFAULT. However, with EIGRP, you can force it to unequal-cost load share with the variance command. Heather Buri CSC Technology Services - Houston Phone: (713)-961-8592 Fax:(713)-961-8249 Mobile: Alpha Page: Mailing:1360 Post Oak Blvd Suite 500 Houston, TX 77056 -Original Message- From: Rizzo Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 2:54 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Load Balancing with EIGRP Were currently using EIGRP as our routing protocol and we now have two separate T1 connections that were running Frame-relay on. If my understanding of EIGRP is correct, then I shouldn't have to make any modifications to the router in order for load balancing to take effect correct? Thanks! -Rizzo _ 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: Load Balancing with EIGRP
That is correct assuming that the Port Speed and CIR for both T-1s it the same. If it is not, you will have to use the "variance" command to compensate for this. Chris Lemagie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rizzo Damian Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 12:54 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Load Balancing with EIGRP Were currently using EIGRP as our routing protocol and we now have two separate T1 connections that were running Frame-relay on. If my understanding of EIGRP is correct, then I shouldn't have to make any modifications to the router in order for load balancing to take effect correct? Thanks! -Rizzo _ 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: Load Balancing with EIGRP
At 04:18 PM 3/21/01, James Haynes wrote: Provided these paths are equal metrics in the routing table you will have load balancing. However, if you have fast switching on the load balancing will be on a destination by destination basis. True. This is especially bad news if all the traffic is destined to a corporate server, for example. You think you're sharing the load across the two links, when actually you aren't. The router learns which interface to use for the destination IP address of the server, puts this info in its fast cache and continues to use that interface indefinitely. On the other hand, if the traffic is going to a diverse set of IP addresses, then the load sharing is more fair. To achieve load balancing on a packet by packet basis you need to turn fast switching off. Turning fast switching off might not be a good idea, though, since the packets-per-second for process switching is much slower. You would probably go ahead and make this tradeoff if you saw that the destination-by-destination load "balancing" was not creating any balance whatsoever. Also, you could look into CEF which is smarter about the load sharing. Priscilla Jim "Rizzo Damian" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 49C181ACF35ED311A7DC00508B5AF61102E52516@NAEXCHANGE">news:49C181ACF35ED311A7DC00508B5AF61102E52516@NAEXCHANGE... Were currently using EIGRP as our routing protocol and we now have two separate T1 connections that were running Frame-relay on. If my understanding of EIGRP is correct, then I shouldn't have to make any modifications to the router in order for load balancing to take effect correct? Thanks! -Rizzo _ 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] Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
