Good work, Gaz. Still, I wouldn't necessarily go too much farther in,
for example, playing with the K values.
Load balancing, on a per-hop basis, is a very limited solution.
Paradoxically, by considering actual load (the K value), you may make
it worse.
Let's first look at the problem of
Gaz Howard,
Thanks for the input. I really appreciate it. I'm still a little curious.
Based upon the link Gaz included, we know that variance is factor based.
Consider the following. 3 paths; 56 Kbps, 128 Kbps and 256 Kbps. If we use
variance of 2, the 128K and 256K paths will be used in a
I have a question about variance that's been bugging me. I know that metric
based routing proto's (IGRP, EIGRP and OSPF) will not load balance across
unequal cost links by default. We must use that variance cmd. The variance
has a multiplier. 1 is equal cost. I assume that variance is done
One note - I also wonder if 'no ip route-cache' might force variance to
balance per packet if that's not already the default. Just curious.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=27893t=27882
--
FAQ, list archives, and
Hi Gregg/All,
Would the variance have any effect on the actual load balancing in that way?
I was under the impression that the variance would allow the lesser route to
be added to the routing table, but after that the variance would have no
effect on the number of packets sent over each link.
The information turned up quicker than I thought it might.
The traffic is balanced based on the ratio of metrics. Seems a bit crude. If
the ratio is not an integer value then the value is rounded down to an
integer value.
This suggests to me that if the metric of the lesser link is not at least
6 matches
Mail list logo
