From: Jason Gardiner (gardiner@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Mar 12 2002 - 13:41:58 GMT-3
Isn't the 6 paths a lmitation of CEF? And since CEF adjacencies are based on
interfaces, the 10 PVCs would be affected if they were on the same physical
interface. That's also assuming that the the DS-3 interface is not
channelized.
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 09:08, Shane Miles wrote:
> Myh goal is to load-balance the 10 PVCs. I want to figure out a way
> around the 6 paths limitation.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Miller [mailto:jasmille@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:23 AM
> To: Shane Miles; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: Re: FR load-balancing
>
>
> Seems like you want to treat the group of PVCs as one connection. Why not
> just define one PVC on the FR switch running the rate you want? You would
> have one layer 2 circuit running the speed you want and don't need to mess
> with load balancing at layer 3.
>
> At 06:21 PM 3/11/2002 -0500, Shane Miles wrote:
> > Scenerio: Two sites connected with 10 Frame Relay PVCs each with
> > a CIR of 1.544 Mbs. OSPF is the routing protocol and at each site the
> > PVCs are all coming in on a single DS3 physical interface. Is it
> > possible to configure the PVCs/OSPF to allow for load-balancing beyond
> > the 6 paths limitation? I've thought of putting all the PVCs on the
> > physical interface but I'm not sure how IOS will utilize the PVCs in that
> > configuration and 10 subinterfaces trips me up with the 6 paths
> > limitation. An ideas? Thanks.
> >
> >--
> >Shane
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:01 GMT-3