Re: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311]
I don't know how Motorola implements OSPF, but with Cisco's implementation you can not do unequal cost load balancing with OSPF. This is not to say that you can't manually change the metrics on the links to appear to be equal cost. Keep in mind that this load balancing is *equal* then. Your slow link will get as much traffic as your fast one, which could cause a bottleneck. See if there is some command to set a default cost on the link, then set them both the same. Hope this helps ""Cisco Breaker"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I implemented OSPF load balancing but never done unequal load balancing. My > customer wants Unequal loadbalancing on Motorola routers. As I know Unequal > load balancing cant be implemented on Cisco without policy-map? Any > suggestions or any info? > > Best regards, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27315&t=27311 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311]
As I said before I implemented equal load balancing on Motorola and Cisco what I want to know is, Is it possible to configure OSPF unequal load balancing ? You are saying that OSPF unequal load balancing can not be done on cisco I know that. The reason why I asked the question is cause I know that cisco can not do but is it the OSPF behaviour not to implement unequal load balancing or is it belong to Cisco's OSPF implementation? My guess is OSPF. Best regards, ""Ralph Fudamak"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I don't know how Motorola implements OSPF, but with Cisco's > implementation you can not do unequal cost load balancing with OSPF. This > is not to say that you can't manually change the metrics on the links to > appear to be equal cost. Keep in mind that this load balancing is *equal* > then. Your slow link will get as much traffic as your fast one, which could > cause a bottleneck. See if there is some command to set a default cost on > the link, then set them both the same. > > Hope this helps > > ""Cisco Breaker"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I implemented OSPF load balancing but never done unequal load balancing. > My > > customer wants Unequal loadbalancing on Motorola routers. As I know > Unequal > > load balancing cant be implemented on Cisco without policy-map? Any > > suggestions or any info? > > > > Best regards, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27322&t=27311 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311]
I just took a quick look at RFC's 1583 and 1247. OSPFv2 does not support unequal-cost load balancing. > -Original Message- > From: Cisco Breaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311] > > > As I said before I implemented equal load balancing on > Motorola and Cisco > what I want to know is, Is it possible to configure OSPF unequal load > balancing ? You are saying that OSPF unequal load balancing > can not be done > on cisco I know that. The reason why I asked the question is > cause I know > that cisco can not do but is it the OSPF behaviour not to > implement unequal > load balancing or is it belong to Cisco's OSPF implementation? > My guess is OSPF. > > Best regards, > > > ""Ralph Fudamak"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I don't know how Motorola implements OSPF, but with Cisco's > > implementation you can not do unequal cost load balancing > with OSPF. This > > is not to say that you can't manually change the metrics on > the links to > > appear to be equal cost. Keep in mind that this load > balancing is *equal* > > then. Your slow link will get as much traffic as your fast > one, which > could > > cause a bottleneck. See if there is some command to set a > default cost on > > the link, then set them both the same. > > > > Hope this helps > > > > ""Cisco Breaker"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I implemented OSPF load balancing but never done unequal > load balancing. > > My > > > customer wants Unequal loadbalancing on Motorola routers. > As I know > > Unequal > > > load balancing cant be implemented on Cisco without > policy-map? Any > > > suggestions or any info? > > > > > > Best regards, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27329&t=27311 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311]
You can read RFC 2328 or John T Moy's OSPF Anatomy of a Routing Protocol to find that answer. I'll dig through them and see if I can find you an answer if no one else comes up with one sooner. HTH, Chris -Original Message- From: Cisco Breaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311] As I said before I implemented equal load balancing on Motorola and Cisco what I want to know is, Is it possible to configure OSPF unequal load balancing ? You are saying that OSPF unequal load balancing can not be done on cisco I know that. The reason why I asked the question is cause I know that cisco can not do but is it the OSPF behaviour not to implement unequal load balancing or is it belong to Cisco's OSPF implementation? My guess is OSPF. Best regards, ""Ralph Fudamak"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I don't know how Motorola implements OSPF, but with Cisco's > implementation you can not do unequal cost load balancing with OSPF. This > is not to say that you can't manually change the metrics on the links to > appear to be equal cost. Keep in mind that this load balancing is *equal* > then. Your slow link will get as much traffic as your fast one, which could > cause a bottleneck. See if there is some command to set a default cost on > the link, then set them both the same. > > Hope this helps > > ""Cisco Breaker"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I implemented OSPF load balancing but never done unequal load balancing. > My > > customer wants Unequal loadbalancing on Motorola routers. As I know > Unequal > > load balancing cant be implemented on Cisco without policy-map? Any > > suggestions or any info? > > > > Best regards, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27337&t=27311 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311]
This is kind of an off-the-wall question, is there a non-proprietary IGP that supports unequal-cost load balancing? Granted, you could tune the OSPF metrics so that two paths would appear equal (as others have pointed out) or you could use RIP, assuming that the hop count to reach the destination on both links is the same. In either case you still have equal cost load balancing on two unequal links, which will result in wasted bandwidth at best and a bottleneck at worst. It seems to me that if this link is important enough that you need traffic going over both connections, then it's important enough for Ciscobreaker's organization to either purchase a second Cisco router to run EIGRP and redistribute if necessary, or it needs to upgrade or downgrade one of the WAN links to make them equal. Hal Logan Network Specialist / Adjunct Faculty Computing and Engineering Technology Manatee Community College > -Original Message- > From: Kane, Christopher A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 11:29 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: FW: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311] > > > I've scanned through John T. Moy's book but haven't found any > reference to > unequal load balancing. He only mentions equal-cost load > balancing. I'll > scan the RFC next. > > But, having thought about this for a minute. Wouldn't unequal > load balancing > break the idea behind OSPF? Isn't Dijkstra's Shortest Path > First algorithm > intended to find just that, the shortest path? I would think > that asking for > unequal load balancing would be in direct conflict behind the > algorithm that > is utilized for OSPF. > > Just some thoughts. > Chris > > -Original Message- > From: Kane, Christopher A. > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 11:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311] > > > You can read RFC 2328 or John T Moy's OSPF Anatomy of a > Routing Protocol to > find that answer. I'll dig through them and see if I can find > you an answer > if no one else comes up with one sooner. > > HTH, > Chris > > -----Original Message- > From: Cisco Breaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311] > > > As I said before I implemented equal load balancing on > Motorola and Cisco > what I want to know is, Is it possible to configure OSPF unequal load > balancing ? You are saying that OSPF unequal load balancing > can not be done > on cisco I know that. The reason why I asked the question is > cause I know > that cisco can not do but is it the OSPF behaviour not to > implement unequal > load balancing or is it belong to Cisco's OSPF implementation? > My guess is OSPF. > > Best regards, > > > ""Ralph Fudamak"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I don't know how Motorola implements OSPF, but with Cisco's > > implementation you can not do unequal cost load balancing > with OSPF. This > > is not to say that you can't manually change the metrics on > the links to > > appear to be equal cost. Keep in mind that this load > balancing is *equal* > > then. Your slow link will get as much traffic as your fast > one, which > could > > cause a bottleneck. See if there is some command to set a > default cost on > > the link, then set them both the same. > > > > Hope this helps > > > > ""Cisco Breaker"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I implemented OSPF load balancing but never done unequal > load balancing. > > My > > > customer wants Unequal loadbalancing on Motorola routers. > As I know > > Unequal > > > load balancing cant be implemented on Cisco without > policy-map? Any > > > suggestions or any info? > > > > > > Best regards, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27344&t=27311 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311]
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. >You can read RFC 2328 or John T Moy's OSPF Anatomy of a Routing Protocol to >find that answer. I'll dig through them and see if I can find you an answer >if no one else comes up with one sooner. > >HTH, >Chris > >-Original Message- >From: Cisco Breaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:08 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311] > > >As I said before I implemented equal load balancing on Motorola and Cisco >what I want to know is, Is it possible to configure OSPF unequal load >balancing ? You are saying that OSPF unequal load balancing can not be done >on cisco I know that. The reason why I asked the question is cause I know >that cisco can not do but is it the OSPF behaviour not to implement unequal >load balancing or is it belong to Cisco's OSPF implementation? >My guess is OSPF. > >Best regards, > > >""Ralph Fudamak"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> I don't know how Motorola implements OSPF, but with Cisco's >> implementation you can not do unequal cost load balancing with OSPF. This >> is not to say that you can't manually change the metrics on the links to >> appear to be equal cost. Keep in mind that this load balancing is *equal* >> then. Your slow link will get as much traffic as your fast one, which >could >> cause a bottleneck. See if there is some command to set a default cost on >> the link, then set them both the same. >> >> Hope this helps >> >> ""Cisco Breaker"" wrote in message >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> > I implemented OSPF load balancing but never done unequal load balancing. >> My >> > customer wants Unequal loadbalancing on Motorola routers. As I know >> Unequal >> > load balancing cant be implemented on Cisco without policy-map? Any >> > suggestions or any info? >> > >> > Best regards, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27347&t=27311 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311]
"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? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27356&t=27311 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311]
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]
RE: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311]
Cisco Breaker wrote: > > I implemented OSPF load balancing but never done unequal load > balancing. My > customer wants Unequal loadbalancing on Motorola routers. As I > know Unequal > load balancing cant be implemented on Cisco without policy-map? > Any > suggestions or any info? > > Best regards, > > One of the disadvantages of OSPF is that it can only support even load balancing. I do not think you can solve the problem with Motorola routers without the help of policy routing. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27425&t=27311 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF Unequal load balancing? [7:27311]
>Cisco Breaker wrote: >> >> I implemented OSPF load balancing but never done unequal load >> balancing. My >> customer wants Unequal loadbalancing on Motorola routers. As I >> know Unequal >> load balancing cant be implemented on Cisco without policy-map? >> Any >> suggestions or any info? >> >> Best regards, >> >> > >One of the disadvantages of OSPF is that it can only support even load >balancing. I do not think you can solve the problem with Motorola routers >without the help of policy routing. > Load balancing is a generally local (in the sense of one hop, or one routing domain) solution. I have seen a great many problems where people got load balancing and it got them in deeper trouble. Traffic engineering is the real problem to solve. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27463&t=27311 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
