From: Sunil Almeida (Sunil.Almeida@alicogulf.com)
Date: Wed Aug 31 2005 - 12:50:10 GMT-3
Actually I was preferring to "traffic-share balanced" with " variance
1" , what happens in this scenario
-----Original Message-----
From: Jaycee Cockburn - BCX SS [mailto:Jaycee.Cockburn@bcx.co.za]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 10:14 AM
To: Sunil Almeida; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Traffic-share balance keyword
Importance: High
Hi S,
On the routers you should have two options regarding traffic-share eg
------------------------------------------------------
Switch(config-router)#traffic-share ?
balanced Share inversely proportional to metric
min All traffic shared among min metric paths
------------------------------------------------------
So with the "balanced" option the traffic will be sent over each route,
and the amount of packets sent will be determined according to the
metric. The smaller the metric, the more packets using that route etc.
With the "min" keyword, as I understand (and please correct me if I am
dilly), all the routes (unequal or not, determined by variance, but
feasible) will be in the routing table, but only the best one will be
used (unless if they are equal..)
Hope this helps man!
Cheers
JC
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Sunil Almeida
Sent: 31 August 2005 07:50 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Traffic-share balance keyword
Hello , here's a question on traffic-share balanced keyword
router eigrp 5
traffic-share balanced
variance 1
The above is an example from cisco Doc CD ,
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/
fiprrp_r/1rfeigrp.htm#wp1024898
"variance 1" is for equal path loadbalancing , so what is the use of
traffic-share balance syntax here.
Does it serve any purpose ?
Thanks
Sunil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:01:20 GMT-3