From: Erick B. (erickbe@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Mar 12 2002 - 14:17:28 GMT-3
The 6 paths limitation isn't related to CEF. It's the
current limit IOS has the # of equal-cost routes
placed in the FIB. The default is 4.
I don't know of a way around this limit, unless you
have some sub-interfaces with 2 PVCs, etc to get down
to 6 interfaces instead of 10.
--- Jason Gardiner <gardiner@sprint.net> wrote:
> 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