From: Tom Martin (tig@wiltecinc.com)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 17:52:15 GMT-3
Tim,
The only reason you would ever want to use "traffic-share min" instead
of "variance 1" is if you were interested in -seeing- the available
routes in the routing table even though you only wanted to use the best.
It's also worth noting that "traffic-share min" applies to all routing
protocols not just EIGRP or IGRP. By appending the "across-interfaces"
keyword to the line, you enable the router to load balance across
multiple interfaces to a given destination.
-- Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:21 PM
To: Tom Martin; Group Study
Subject: Re: traffic-share min versus traffic-share balanced
Thanks, Tom.
I missed that default for traffic-share balanced, but that raises
another
question.
If variance is configured along with "no traffic-share min", would that
nullify the variance config? Or, more generally, would there ever be a
reason (in the lab, for example) to config, "no traffic-share min"?
These questions may sound silly, but I feel I'm still missing something
because I can't see why this command exists. If unequal load balancing
is
wanted, then variance is configured. If unequal load balancing isn't
wanted,
then variance isn't configured. So, why is there a need to create a
command, traffic-share min, which is enabled by default just so it can
be
disabled? It seems not to make sense.
Tim
----- 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 3:23 PM
Subject: RE: traffic-share min versus traffic-share balanced
Tim,
You would configure "traffic-share min" with a variance if you wanted
routes of differing metrics to show up in the routing table, but only
wanted to use the best one(s).
Per the command reference "traffic-share balanced" is default for EIGRP
and IGRP. You would never need to enter this command unless you
previously entered "traffic-share min".
-- Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:09 PM
To: Tom Martin; Group Study
Subject: Re: traffic-share min versus traffic-share balanced
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