From: loai@kuix.com
Date: Mon Oct 20 2003 - 07:49:07 GMT-3
Ozgur
Could u plz write ur configuration ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ozgur Guler (Garanti Teknoloji)" <OzgurG@garanti.com.tr>
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2003 4:04 pm
Subject: RE: Am I correct?
> hi group,
>
> in the document
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/tk207/technologies_tech_note09186a008009437d.shtml#topic1
>
> there is a case where
> two routes to a network, have a metric ratio of 3/2 ...
> so what this cco doc says is that
> put variance 2 under eigrp
> and you ll do 1/1 load balancing (round down to nearest integer)...
> first packet will follow route 1, second route 2, 3rd route 1 etc...
>
> what i came up with is...
> it does 3/2 load balancing (though i have the same configs and
> have the same metrics in the routing table)...
> 3 packets via route 1, then 2 packets via route 2, 3 packets via
> route 1 etc..
>
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
>
> r2#sh ip route 192.168.90.0
> Routing entry for 192.168.90.0/24
> Known via "eigrp 1", distance 90, metric 7680, type internal
> Redistributing via eigrp 1
> Last update from 192.168.23.3 on Serial0:1.2, 00:09:14 ago
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * 192.168.24.4, from 192.168.24.4, 00:09:14 ago, via Serial0:1.3
> Route metric is 7680, traffic share count is 3
> Total delay is 300 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 64 Kbit
> Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes
> Loading 3/255, Hops 2
> 192.168.23.3, from 192.168.23.3, 00:09:14 ago, via Serial0:1.2
> Route metric is 11520, traffic share count is 2
> Total delay is 450 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 64 Kbit
> Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes
> Loading 3/255, Hops 2
> r2#sh ip route eigrp
> ...
> D 192.168.90.0/24 [90/7680] via 192.168.24.4, 00:09:39, Serial0:1.3
> [90/11520] via 192.168.23.3, 00:09:39,
> Serial0:1.2...
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
> case 2
> for another case, after playing with metrics
> i have
> D 192.168.90.0/24 [90/11520] via 192.168.24.4, 00:01:10,
> Serial0:1.3 [90/11520] via 192.168.23.3,
> 00:01:10, Serial0:1.2
> [90/12800] via 192.168.28.8, 00:01:10,
> Serial0:1.711520/12800 = 0.9
> and here
> the router does 10/10/9 load balancing....
> according to this doc it should do 1/1/1 load balancing...
>
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.24.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.23.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.28.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.28.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.28.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.28.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.28.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.28.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.28.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.28.2
> ICMP: echo reply sent, src 192.168.90.9, dst 192.168.28.2
>
>
> am i missing/catching something here????
>
> Ozgur
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On
> Behalf Of
> kasturi cisco
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 5:16 PM
> To: hunt_lee@bigpond.net.au
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Am I correct?
>
>
> Hunt,
>
> Looks right to me (except a small typo varience 6 ..should be variance
> 6). The other thing which you should possible note (may be u are aware
> of) is
>
> In this case u did not have much problem as u had both the routes
> in ur
> EIGRP table. But lets us say bcoz of the Feasibilty criteria not being
> met the second route is NOT in the table itself and u want to
> include it
> for load balancing.
>
> In such cases try to disconnect the better path link and connect the
> worse path link. Get the metric from both.
>
> then worse metric/better metric= X . round it off the get the
> variance.Connect the better path and set variance to include the path
> into EIGRP topology. The do the load balance as you have done. U could
> extend the load balancing using load-balance min or balanced
> (default..what u have)
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/tk207/technologies_tech_note09186a008009437d.shtml#topic1
>
> Thanks for ur post ....that i also revisited this topic and re-read.
>
> Good Luck,
> Kasturi.
>
> >From: Hunt Lee >Reply-To: Hunt Lee >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject:Am I correct? >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:58:08 +1000 >
> >Hey Group, > >Can
> someone please confirm that my method is correct for EIGRP load
> balancing? > >R5 ----- R6 ---- 142.1.6.0/24 > >E.g. At R5's
> EIGRPtopology's table > >P 142.1.6.0/24, 1 successors, FD is
> 409600 >via
> 142.1.56.6 (409600/128256), Ethernet0 >via 142.1.65.6
> (2297856/128256),Serial1 > >Now, if I want to do equal cost load
> balance between the 2
> links > >2297856 - 409600 = 1888256 > >Then on R5: >offset-list 0 in
> 1888256 Ethernet0 > >Correct? > >But if I want to do un-equal cost
> loadbalancing, say if I want to send 6 packets to Ethernet 0, then
> send 1
> packet to Serial 1. > >409600 * 6 = 2457600 > >2457600 - 2297856 =
> 159744> >Then on R5: >offset-list 0 in 159744 Serial1 >varience 6
> > >Am I
> correct? > >Thank you so much!!! >Hunt >
> >_______________________________________________________________________
> >Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials
> from:>http://shop.groupstudy.com > >Subscription information may
> be found at:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> Calling all NRIs! Avail of the best financial services. Smile all
> the way
> with ICICI Bank.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials
> from:http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> This message and attachments are confidential and intended solely
> for the individual(s) stated in this
> message.If you received this message although you are not the
> addressee you are responsible to keep the
> message confidential .The sender has no responsibility for the
> accuracy or correctness of the
> information in the message and its attachments.Our company shall
> have no liability for any changes
> or late receiving,loss of integrity and confidentiality,viruses
> and any damages caused in
> anyway to your computer system.
>
> Bu mesaj ve ekleri mesajda gonderildigi belirtilen kisi/kisilere
> ozeldir ve gizlidir.Bu mesajin muhatabi
> olmamaniza ragmen tarafiniza ulasmis olmasi halinde mesaj
> iceriginin gizliligi ve bu gizlilik yukumlulugune
> uyulmasi zorunlulugu tarafiniz icin de soz konusudur.Mesaj ve
> eklerinde yer alan bilgilerin dogrulugu ve
> guncelligi konusunda gonderenin ya da sirketimizin herhangi bir
> sorumlulugu bulunmamaktadir.Sirketimiz
> mesajin ve bilgilerinin size degisiklige ugrayarak veya gec
> ulasmasindan, butunlugunun ve gizliliginin
> korunamamasindan, virus icermesinden ve bilgisayar sisteminize
> verebilecegi herhangi bir zarardan
> sorumlu tutulamaz.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials
> from:http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 24 2003 - 07:53:05 GMT-3