Re: DLSw load balancing ???

From: Karim (karim_ccie@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 19:43:35 GMT-3


RE: DLSw load balancing ???Thanks Richard. Just want to confirm two points:

--- Trying the command "dlsw load-balance circuit-count" on a router, found
that a number can be added to command. When do I need to add such number ??
was does it mean ??

Rack2R4(config)#dlsw load-balance circuit-count ?
  <1-100> Default circuit-weight for remote peers
  <cr>

--- The number used in "dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp x.y.z.v circuit weight <>"
reflects the weight of the remote peer.
     i.e: if required to have one of the remote peers to receive packets 5
times the the other, the weights will be 1 and 5. Am I right ???

Thanks,
Karim.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Richard Dumoulin
  To: Karim ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
  Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 1:28 AM
  Subject: RE: DLSw load balancing ???

  what is the usage of the command "dlsw load-balance circuit-count" ?? -->
this is called enhanced load balancing. The other option os round robin

  Do we need the "dlsw timer explorer-wait-time 100" ?? --> Yes, otherwise the
dlsw peer will use the first dlsw connection to answer his explorer

  Why do we need promiscuous in the remote peers --> You don't need it but it
is more elegant

  Does the previous fullfill the requirement ??? --> if your requirements are
exact than yes

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Karim [mailto:karim_ccie@hotmail.com]
  Sent: martes, 06 de julio de 2004 23:58
  To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
  Subject: DLSw load balancing ???

  Hi all,

  Task is asking about balancing between two DLSw peers. No peering exists
between these two remote peers. Required to have unequal balancing with the
ratio 1:2 (i.e: one of the remote peers receives double what the other
receives).

  From the Doc CD, I can get that we need:

  On the local peer:
  dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp x.y.z.v circuit weight 1
  dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp r.t.r.z circuit weight 2
  dlsw load-balance circuit-count
  dlsw timer explorer-wait-time 100

  On the remote peers:
  Remote peer one:
  dlsw local-peer x.y.z.v cost 1 promiscuous
  Remote peer two:
  dlsw local-peer r.t.r.z cost 1 promiscuous

  http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fib
m_
  c/bcfpart2/bcfdlsw.htm#wp1003187
  -- Does the previous fullfill the requirement ???
  -- what is the usage of the command "dlsw load-balance circuit-count" ??
  -- Do we need the "dlsw timer explorer-wait-time 100" ??
  -- Why do we need promiscuous in the remote peers ??

  _______________________________________________________________________
  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

  **********************************************************************
  Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not
necessarily the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are
confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and
that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use is strictly prohibited.

  If you have received this email in error, or if you are concerned with the
content of this email please e-mail to: e-security.support@vanco.info

  The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses
which could damage your own computer system. While the sender has taken every
reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept liability for
any damage which you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carry
out your own virus checks before opening any attachments to this e-mail.
  **********************************************************************



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:48 GMT-3