From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 16:08:32 GMT-3
Hi Tom,
Thanks for getting back to me.
Please see in line comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Martin" <tig@wiltecinc.com>
To: "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Cc: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: traffic-share min versus traffic-share balanced
Tim,
"traffic-share min" requires that all paths have the same (best) metric
in order for traffic to take multiple paths, even if variance is
configured.
*************
If the above result was desired, then why config variance? IOS, by default,
will load balance over multiple equal cost paths (by def, 4)
"traffic-share balanced" splits IGRP/EIGRP traffic proportionally across
all paths (within the variance tolerance).
*********
Isn't that the default behavior with variance configured? If so, then isn't
traffic-share balanced not needed?
-- Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
ccie2be
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 12:59 PM
To: Group Study
Subject: traffic-share min versus traffic-share balanced
Hi Guys,
I'm somewhat confused by the 2 commands above. They seem to be
interchangable, but knowing Cisco, they're probably not.
You'll find the 1st command in the Protocol Independent CR and the 2nd
in the
Eigrp CR.
I'm hoping someone can come up with a couple of good examples that
clarify
when to use each command and how they work.
Thanks in advanced, Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:47 GMT-3