Hi All,
It is not very clear to me still regarding BGP, Static Routes and Load
Balancing!!
Can any one out there shed some light!! BGP selects only one path, is it
not? But that load-balancing can be achieved through static routes??
Thanks!!
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form
is no other path (according to the mentioned diagram). How r u
planning to acheive redundancy in this situation unless u have link between
the 2 remote offices?
U can run Multi group HSRP to achieve load balancing between the 2 remote
offices.
Hope this helps.
Rgds,
Vamsi
- Original Me
I don't know how current this Product Bulletin is but you'll get the general
idea:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/iosw/iore/prodlit/768_pb.htm
Setting up load splitting/balancing when HSRP is present generally requires
that there be at least two subnets or VLANs. One subnet/VLAN has rou
We have a couple of small but critical networks at remote offices we're
wanting to connect to our man office. We have several 2610 and 2620 routers
not being used right now. We'd like to setup a solution at those two sites
that will load balance across two T1's and be redundant.
I don' think true
PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I have got two internet links from two ISPs boths of which
> > are directly
> > > > connected to the lan .
> > > > I would like to set the default gateway of my clients to
> > the 3660 router
>
> > > I have got two internet links from two ISPs boths of which
> > are directly
> > > > connected to the lan .
> > > > I would like to set the default gateway of my clients to
> > the 3660 router
> > I
> > > > have on my net
gt; > > connected to the lan .
> > > I would like to set the default gateway of my clients to
> the 3660 router
> I
> > > have on my network so that it will load balance the
> outgoing traffic
> > accross
> > > the two seperate internet links.
> >
Thanks steve
That sounds quite reasonable.
I had forgotten about how fast-swictching and load balancing interact.
That helped.
Regards
Afshin
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53902&t=53902
--
FAQ, list
way of my clients to the 3660 router
I
> > have on my network so that it will load balance the outgoing traffic
> accross
> > the two seperate internet links.
> > I though maybe two equal cost default routes would result in load
> balancing
> > between equal cost paths . bu
have on my network so that it will load balance the outgoing traffic
accross
> the two seperate internet links.
> I though maybe two equal cost default routes would result in load
balancing
> between equal cost paths . but it didn't work.
> Is there a command to allow load-balanci
two equal cost default routes would result in load balancing
between equal cost paths . but it didn't work.
Is there a command to allow load-balancing between equal cost static routes
, that I am missing ?
Policy routing is not quite what I want because the load will not be quite
balanced.
Any
See this link - (watch wrap)
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ifaa/pa/much/prodlit/loadb_an.htm
We use cef on some 2620's to load balance across multiple T1's...
Chris
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53224&t=53222
---
Hi all,
I have two cisco 2621 router, each router connect to T1 line via serial
interface. My question is: How can I configure the router, so it could
perform load balancing between those two T1 lines? Can anyone give me a
simple configuration or URLs?
Thanks
Ricky
Message Posted at:
http
m Cat-C to Cat-B. Well, it doesn't, it would go from Cat-C to
Cat-A to Cat-B.
Ok, portion 2.
Techically this is load sharing not load balancing BTW.
Lets also assume that 2 servers plugged into Cat-A are hogging the BW. One
server(SRV2) is in VLAN2 and the other is in VLAN3(SRV3). The traffic
Hi,
Studying Cisco LAN Switching,(by Hamilton & Clark), I didn't get how
exactly this method (Root Bridge placement load balancing)works. He
provides such an example (Figure 7-10): ___
|Cat-C (IDF)|
|___|
1/1 /
age -
> From: "jeff sicuranza"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: BGP load balancing [7:44697]
>
>
> > Yes it does if you are doing EBGP and your router has two or more
directly
> > conneted links to your EBGP peer. The the defau
s only one path."
So i must be misreading something here. I don't recall if this type
of scenario was in one of the BGP labs for BSCN.
I'll keep you posted of my own lab result.
Thanks.
Elmer
- Original Message -
From: "jeff sicuranza"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 22
sk: "what problem are you
trying to solve?"
""jeff sicuranza"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes it does if you are doing EBGP and your router has two or more directly
> conneted links to your EBGP peer. The the defa
If you're path's are equel it will automagically load balance. Are you
running BGP to 2 different providers? If so path's definatly won't be
equal, and you'll need to adjust some options on how your AS is advertised
and how you handle outgoing non-local AS traffic, and
And add cef per-packet or per-destination
>From: "cebuano"
>Reply-To: "cebuano"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: BGP load balancing [7:44697]
>Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 07:17:07 -0400
>
>Maurice,
>BGP defaults to using only the BEST path, hen
Yes it does if you are doing EBGP and your router has two or more directly
conneted links to your EBGP peer. The the default load balancing will work
if static routes or an IGP is used for your subnets linking your neighbors.
You see it is not BGP performing the load balancing but the normal
Maurice,
BGP defaults to using only the BEST path, hence ONE.
Check CCO for path determination in BGP.
The other protocols default to maximum of four, but can
be extended to 6 with "maximum-paths".
To turn on "load-balancing" in BGP, a few steps are needed:
1. enable eBGP mul
Need some advices from BGP experts : Does BGP do load balancing by default?
Says there are 4 parallel paths between the source and destination, will
the traffic be distributed among the 4 paths? If it does not support load
balancing by default, how to turn it on? How many parallel paths can it
As I said before load balancing is okey, the problem is with statistics. For
example when you especialy look to the statistics with sh service summary
and sh summary you see 4 persons on server 5 when you looked from server 5
there are 7 persons. This is the problem I am trying to tell. Although
What are you balancing on? Have you configured the CSS to balance on
least connections because the default is round robin. These are your
load balancing options, Round Robin(default),Weighted Round Robin,Least
Connections/Bytes, and
ArrowPoint Content Aware (ACA).
If you want to balance
Hi
When using css for firewall balancing
Can i give different weight values for different firewalls?
I mean 70 % of traffic must flow on firewall 1, 30 % of traffic must flow on
firewall?
Is it possible?
If so which command does this?
Can someone send me some examples of firewall load balancing
Yes, We are using CSS to load balance between five Microsoft Terminal
Servers.
Best regards,
""Michael Williams"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What are you using to do the load balancing? The Windows machines? Or
> someth
What are you using to do the load balancing? The Windows machines? Or
something in the Cisco, like Server Load Balancing?
Mike W.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44111&t=44002
--
FAQ, list archi
Hi,
We have implemented load balancing between 5 microsoft terminal servers. The
problem is when I looked at the second server I see 5 people connected but
from the CSS view there is only 2 people connected. We tried this example
with clearing counters on CSS and restarting all terminal servers
I second that.
Theo
"Sean Knox"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/04/2002 09:52 AM
Please respond to "Sean Knox"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: RE: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but VLAN prior
Do mean if I have 2 6509 with MSFC2/PFC2's, I
configure STP for say odd vlans to go to the first MSFC and EVEN
VLAN's to the SECOND MSFC ? This is done all the time.. read up on "MISTP"
on cco. Basically you "map vlans to instances of spanning tree protocol"
also you can use the older way of sett
At 8:52 PM -0400 5/3/02, Sean Knox wrote:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but VLAN priorization isn't really load balancing-
>you are just forcing VLANS over a preselected path. It does not take into
>consideration that one VLAN may utilize more bandwidth than another.
>
&g
Yes... that's true it's not true load balancing but it let's call it
load "sharing"... =)
Actually, of the many things we consider load balancing, many aren't true
load balancing but a load sharing that under certain circumstances could be
equal like Eth
ent: Friday, May 03, 2002 5:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
>
>
> Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have
> switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set
> priority on even VLAN/s t
Correct me if I'm wrong, but VLAN priorization isn't really load balancing-
you are just forcing VLANS over a preselected path. It does not take into
consideration that one VLAN may utilize more bandwidth than another.
Sean
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Care to share those configs?
""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> yes..we use load balancing, if you call it that, in data centers..
>
> Larry Letterman
> Cisco Systems
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Or
--
RFC 1149 Compliant.
Get in my head:
http://sar.dynu.com
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 5:04 PM -0400 5/3/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote:
> >Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the r
Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have
switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set
priority on even VLAN/s to A odd to B.
Dave
"Steven A. Ridder" wrote:
>
> Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real worl
yes..we use load balancing, if you call it that, in data centers..
Larry Letterman
Cisco Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Steven A. Ridder"
To:
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:04 PM
Subject: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265]
> Does anyone do any VLAN load
At 5:04 PM -0400 5/3/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote:
>Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real world? I've
>never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done.
Could you clarify a bit more what you are trying to do? 802.1D
specifically picks a single pa
Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real world? I've
never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done.
--
RFC 1149 Compliant.
Get in my head:
http://sar.dynu.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i
Load Balancing Question [7:42469]
Looks like you are definately receiving default from your providers.
If I remember correctly though your big concern was incoming traffic not
outgoing. Like I mentioned in my previous email you need to talk to
your providers and find out how they are announcing
gt;
> -Original Message-
> From: Kane, Christopher A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 2:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: BGP Load Balancing Question [7:42469]
>
> > Inbound/Outbound loads are out of wack what part of the
> &
2:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BGP Load Balancing Question [7:42469]
> Inbound/Outbound loads are out of wack what part of the
> BGP neigh stats
> do you want to see?
I'm referring to simply 'sh ip bgp sum', as this will show the amount of
prefixes that
628 CRC, 2175 frame, 0 overrun, 0
> ignored, 90 abort
> 6083912 packets output, 2163859526 bytes, 0 underruns
> 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 7 interface resets
> 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
> 3 carrier transitions
> DCD=up DSR=up
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 5:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: BGP Load Balancing Question [7:42469]
>
> Are the t1's connected to different routers in the providers POP, or to
> geographically diverse POP's? Is the IP space
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 7:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BGP Load Balancing Question [7:42469]
I'm not sure I understand what you are describing. Are you saying that the
BGP routes you receive from your provider are mainly coming over one link
rather th
-
From: Lupi, Guy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 5:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BGP Load Balancing Question [7:42469]
Are the t1's connected to different routers in the providers POP, or to
geographically diverse POP's? Is the IP space you
rovider) I've
> talked to the
> provider; each time I receive a different configuration.
>
> Is there a command that would better show the load
> balancing/utilization
> rates. I'm trying to become more familiar with BGP through
> my CCNP studies,
> but hav
tions. As far
as seeing the real load balancing, use MRTG to graph the interfaces, that
will give you a good idea of how your bandwidth is being utilized.
~-Original Message-
~From: Jablonski, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
~Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 5:49 PM
~To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
o the
provider; each time I receive a different configuration.
Is there a command that would better show the load balancing/utilization
rates. I'm trying to become more familiar with BGP through my CCNP studies,
but haven't gotten that far yet Thanks in advan
AIL PROTECTED]...
> IOS load balancing can also be done, if one end is access router with
static
> routes on both sides of the link.
> The load balancing may not be 100% due to some of the issues like fast
> switching,caching, etc. You may get balancing like 40-60.
>
> If both routers ar
IOS load balancing can also be done, if one end is access router with static
routes on both sides of the link.
The load balancing may not be 100% due to some of the issues like fast
switching,caching, etc. You may get balancing like 40-60.
If both routers are running IGP protocols like OSPF
He could be referring to EIGRP load balancing (if using EIGRP).
I have used both methods to balance traffic over multiple T1s. If you *are*
using EIGRP, then let it handle the balancing as then there is no extra
overhead associated with MLPPP. If your routing protocol doesn't support
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:17:38PM -0400, Sayeed Mohammed wrote:
Hello,
I am planning to load balance 3 T1 lines going to same destination. I would
like to know if somebody has implemented MLPPP for this purpose? Is it
better than IOS load balancing? Cisco document says that MLPP is
Hello,
I am planning to load balance 3 T1 lines going to same destination. I would
like to know if somebody has implemented MLPPP for this purpose? Is it
better than IOS load balancing? Cisco document says that MLPP is better but
more CPU intensive. Please give your real life experience.
Thanks
I would strongly suggest the use of a Packetshaper to do what you are
wanting to do. Let the router do the routing and offload the load of what
you are wanting to do to another device that can do the rate-limiting or
bandwidth limit.
Mario
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/rea
Can't you just rate limit on the current routers?
--
RFC 1149 Compliant.
Get in my head:
http://sar.dynu.com
""Evans, TJ"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This is a case of Load Sharing vs. Load Balancing; very important
This is a case of Load Sharing vs. Load Balancing; very important
difference!
And unfortunately , this is
out of your control ... based totally on BGP hop
counts.
On a related note - I would like to drop a question to the group:
Similar situation; i.e. - we have dual frac-DS3's to two
I'm assuming your getting full routes from each provider. You will
most likely get a rough load balance based on the randomness of the
sites your users are connecting to and your upstreams a roughly equal,
i.e. 90% of your routes are not learned via provider A. But your not
going to get a 50/50
Thank you all..
>From: MADMAN >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: Cisco Nuts >CC:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: BGP Load-Balancing with 2
providers...Possible?? [7:40242] >Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 09:08:20 -0600 >
> > I'm assuming your getting full routes fr
t in front of me, but I'm sure there are examples of this in
Sam Halabi's book "Internet Routing Architectures".
HTH,
Kent
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Cisco Nuts
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL
Hello,
Is it possible to load-balance BGP traffic with 2 service providers...I know
it is possible to load balance with 2 circuits to the same provider using
ebgp-multihop and update-source and cef but with 2 circuits to 2 different
providers??
Thank you for your help.
Mark, in a wireless environment, the WAP's talk over the wired network using
SNAP packets, so they don't have to see each other via the wireless
channels. In the case of wireless load balancing, you must have the WAP's
very close with major overlap in the wireless coverage to a
Assuming the WEP configuration is the same for both access points and all
clients:
-Using different 2.4Ghz channels will facilitate load balancing via two
different 11M channels (more bandwidth).
-Using the same channel will load balance within the same 11M channel.
All of this is done
Hi,
Quick question. If I have two Aironet 350 WAP in range of each other, do
they automatically load balance? Any configuration needed.
The release notes seems to imply that this is done automatically
thks
YK
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36399&t=36399
--
I have to plan a configuration for providing the Load balancing with two
DSL Links available for Internet . This balancing may be provided by
using Routers or Firewall.
I dont know much about the load balancing at these levels . Kindly
suggest the solution including the equipments could be used
th OSPF and not static routes...
>
> >>> "to cisco new" 01/24/02 05:10PM >>>
> can anyone answer this question regarding load balancing. from what i
> gather, a cisco router can load balance between up to six static routes to
> the same network (per packe
gt;>>
> can anyone answer this question regarding load
> balancing. from what i
> gather, a cisco router can load balance between up
> to six static routes to
> the same network (per packet or per destination).
> what kind of load
> balancing does the router do for stat
;>
can anyone answer this question regarding load balancing. from what i
gather, a cisco router can load balance between up to six static routes to
the same network (per packet or per destination). what kind of load
balancing does the router do for static routes to different networks? the
configurati
can anyone answer this question regarding load balancing. from what i
gather, a cisco router can load balance between up to six static routes to
the same network (per packet or per destination). what kind of load
balancing does the router do for static routes to different networks? the
ot;
> >Reply-To: "Elijah Savage"
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: 2 T1 load balancing not working [7:32239]
> >Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:42:57 -0500
> >
> >All,
> >
> >I had to setup a 2621 to do load balancing over 2 t1's with ospf.
O O ) |
`-^--'`From: "Elijah Savage"
>Reply-To: "Elijah Savage"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: 2 T1 load balancing not working [7:32239]
>Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:42:57 -0500
>
>All,
>
>I had to setup a 2621 to do load balancing over 2 t1's
A look at your configs would be helpful, but some thoughts...
Are you doing per-packet load balancing or per-destination (the default)?
If you are doing per-destination, how many different destinations is your
traffic going to? You may be getting 'pinhole congestion', where due to
c
network.
You will see it balancing almost equally(load and output/input rate)
Hope this helps!!
>From: "Elijah Savage"
>Reply-To: "Elijah Savage"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: 2 T1 load balancing not working [7:32239]
>Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:42:57 -0500
>
All,
I had to setup a 2621 to do load balancing over 2 t1's with ospf. I know
ospf does this on a basic simple default setup. So after setting this up
everything seemed to be working great but one link was definately being
used about 80% more than the other. So after doing some reasearch o
path goes down every other packet will fail.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > > Cisco Breaker
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 6:05 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
D]]On Behalf Of
> > Cisco Breaker
> > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 6:05 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Static route loacd balancing? [7:31715]
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > My customer wants load balancing solution to a branch office.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Static route loacd balancing? [7:31715]
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> My customer wants load balancing solution to a branch office. He heard that
> it can be done with static routes, but as I know load balancing can't be
> done by deploying static ro
lf Of
Cisco Breaker
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 6:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Static route loacd balancing? [7:31715]
Hi all,
My customer wants load balancing solution to a branch office. He heard that
it can be done with static routes, but as I know load balancing can't
ECTED]
Subject: Re: IGRP Unequal load balancing CHALLENGE [7:31693]
I think that you are correct on the variance. As for the unequal cost load
balancing, I'm pretty sure that IGRP is just like EIGRP. The number of
packets per link is calculated something like:
worst metric / worst metric
Here is a good link:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/19.html
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31698&t=31693
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misco
I think that you are correct on the variance. As for the unequal cost load
balancing, I'm pretty sure that IGRP is just like EIGRP. The number of
packets per link is calculated something like:
worst metric / worst metric = 1
worst metric / better metric = some n > 1
I think you also
Maybe I should RTFQ :-) Sorry, I had three links. Correction below:
As load is not taken in to consideration, when the per packet load balancing
starts, wouldn't the packets be balanced equally between the two routes?
So at anything above 112k of total throughput, the 56k link is maxin
As load is not taken in to consideration, when the per packet load balancing
starts, wouldn't the packets be balanced equally between the three routes?
So at anything above 168k of total throughput, the 56k link is maxing out?
Thats my guess, and it is a guess!
Gaz
""Pierre
are running IGRP 200
The goal is to configure R1 for unequal load balancing and see 2 routes
for network 10.1.4.0 in the routing table.
PROPOSED SOLUTION:
>From R1, the metric of the T1 route to 10.1.4.0 would be:
delay bandwidth=(2000+100)+10^(7)/15440 = 8576
>From R1, the metric of t
access-list 1 permit _7018_
> ip as-path access-list 1 permit _1239_
>
> to the big backbones, match them separately on routemaps, and play with
> local pref to achieve the load balancing.
>
> 3. you can ask from your ISP to supply you with communities which will be
> configu
u can use filter-lists like:
ip as-path access-list 1 permit _1_
ip as-path access-list 1 permit _701_
ip as-path access-list 1 permit _7018_
ip as-path access-list 1 permit _1239_
to the big backbones, match them separately on routemaps, and play with
local pref to achieve the load balancing.
3
Hello
I have two 4mbps internet links connected to 2 diffrent ISPs. How
I can create load-balancing between both ISPs ? At
this moment my router configuration (Cisco 7206VXR, NPE-400)
looks like that:
!
router bgp 6
network 20.20.20.0 0.0.0.255
neighbor 1.1.1.1 weight 50
neighbor 1.1.1.1
load balancing BGP [7:30011]
>Any ideas to load balance when multihoming ?
>
>Best Regards,
>Mohamed Saro
>
>
The first thing is defining exactly what you mean by load balancing
and multihoming, the expected return, and the investment you are
willing to make. These are co
>Any ideas to load balance when multihoming ?
>
>Best Regards,
>Mohamed Saro
>
>
The first thing is defining exactly what you mean by load balancing
and multihoming, the expected return, and the investment you are
willing to make. These are complex topics: see
http://www.i
Any ideas to load balance when multihoming ?
Best Regards,
Mohamed Saro
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30011&t=30011
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report
Francesco Saverio wrote:
> The default gateway of some clients is the IP of two routers in HSRP.
> Each of the router have a link to a remote site.
> I wont have load balancing beetween these two links.
> Can someone tell me how to do.
>
> Thanks
>
> Francesco Saverio Picciani
It's documneted under HSRP and load balancing. The gist of it is set up two
HSRP
groups, half the clients default to one group, half the other.
Dave
Picciani Francesco Saverio wrote:
> The default gateway of some clients is the IP of two routers in HSRP.
> Each of the router hav
The default gateway of some clients is the IP of two routers in HSRP.
Each of the router have a link to a remote site.
I wont have load balancing beetween these two links.
Can someone tell me how to do.
Thanks
Francesco Saverio Picciani
Sales Engineer BU Top Clients
Albacom S.p.A.
* Via Mario
>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-m
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
> suggestion
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
comman
gt; 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
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
101 - 200 of 459 matches
Mail list logo
