From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 18:33:12 GMT-3
Thanks guys,
It's because of people like yourselves that group study is probably the
ultimate ccie prep resource in existence.
Thanks again.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yasser Aly" <yasser.aly@noorgroup.net>
To: "'Tom Martin'" <tig@wiltecinc.com>; "'ccie2be'" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>;
"'Group Study'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: traffic-share min versus traffic-share balanced
> Hi Tim,
>
> Just to re-phrase Tom comment in other words. You need to use "
> traffic-share min " accompanied with varience X if you want to use only
the
> best route, yet you need to have other possible routes already included in
> the routing table to minimize convergence time incase the best route
fails.
>
> With traffic-share balanced, load balancing will happen between routes
based
> in the varience value defined. But if a route was not selected to carry
> traffic, it will not be included in the routing table, which means longer
> time to converge incase of primary route fails.
>
> Regards,
> Yasser
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Tom
> Martin
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:52 PM
> To: ccie2be; Group Study
> Subject: RE: traffic-share min versus traffic-share balanced
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:47 GMT-3