From: Chua, Parry (Parry.Chua@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Nov 20 2001 - 03:16:02 GMT-3
Hi,
There is two way of load share ? balanceing ? in Cisco router
implementation, per packet and per destination. With route cache turn
on, per destination load share/balance is used. I know ping will do per
packet load balancing, ie one packet go interface1 and next interface2
and son on.
Parry Chua
-----Original Message-----
From: Hansang Bae [mailto:hbae@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:03 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: OSPF Load Balance
>>From: "Chua, Parry" <Parry.Chua@compaq.com>
>>I thought that when we show IP route, there could be one or more path
to
>>reach a particular destination based on the routing protocol type. For
>>OSPF, if we know there could be more than one path to reach that
>>destination,
Correct.
>>we can then manuiplate the COST to get a equal cost
>>for load balanceing, right ?
Perhaps. Load Balancing is not as easy as people think.
>>Other protocolos such as (E)IGRP support
>>unequal cost load balancing. As for RIP, I belive we can use offset to
>>change the hop count from unequal to
>>equal and vice versa, right ?
But keep in mind that fast processing's job is to limit the lookup of
the
routing table (forwarding table I guess). So even if you have two equal
cost routes to a destination, by default, it will use one and only one
link. If it didn't, it kinda defeats the purpose of fast-processing.
If
you do a "sho ip cache" you'll see what I mean.
hsb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:18 GMT-3